Allogene Therapeutics (ALLO) 2026年第3季財報電話會議：ALPHA3 進展與 ALLO-329 數據

Allogene Therapeutics (NASDAQ: ALLO) 在其 2026 年第三季法說會上，重點強調 ALPHA3 cema-cel 研究的執行進展，以及即將公布的 ALLO-329 自體免疫疾病數據。管理階層維持了 ALPHA3 的收案時程目標，同時強調篩檢活動轉強以及基層醫療機構參與度提高。

重點摘要

• 管理階層預計將於 2027 年年中提供 ALPHA3 臨床試驗更新，並維持在 2027 年底前完成收案的目標。
• 微量殘留病灶 (MRD) 篩檢量增加、各試驗機構的收案效率提升，加上韓國與澳洲的積極參與，推動 ALPHA3 的收案動能持續轉強。
• 2027 年年中的 ALPHA3 分析將包含無事件存活期的早期檢視，但由於分配的統計顯著水準 (alpha) 極小，資料安全監控委員會可能建議在不解盲的情況下繼續進行試驗。
• Allogene 表示，cema-cel 持續展現適合門診治療的安全性，並已在基層醫療院所（包含先前無 CAR-T 經驗的中心）進行施打。
• 在 ALLO-329 方面，管理階層表示迄今未出現高度毒性或免疫效應細胞相關噬血症候群 (IEC-HS) 病例。
• ALLO-329 的擴大試驗結果將涵蓋更多患者、更長的追蹤期、三個劑量組，以及三種預處理方案：無淋巴清除、單獨使用 Cytoxan，以及 fludarabine 搭配 Cytoxan。

業務與營運表現

ALPHA3 與 cema-cel

ALPHA3 正在評估 cema-cel 作為 MRD 陽性淋巴瘤患者第一線鞏固治療的效果。管理階層表示，2026 年稍早進行的中期無效性分析顯示出令人鼓舞的證據，包括快速清除 MRD、良好的早期安全性，以及在基層醫療院所治療的可行性。

在初期因美國醫療照護管道分散且難以辨識適合進行 MRD 檢測的病患而導致收案速度較慢後，收案情況已有所改善。該公司表示已大致解決這些營運問題。試驗機構的收案效率提升，同時韓國與澳洲新啟動的中心也自 2026 年中左右開始迅速篩檢並收治病患。

預計亞太地區受試者仍將僅占總收案人數的少數。管理階層預期該地區的佔比不會造成人口統計學上的失衡，進而影響美國 FDA 的判讀。

Allogene 還指出美國基層醫療院所的興趣有所增加，並計劃納入更多試驗機構。許多參與的醫師先前已具備處理雙特異性抗體療法相關免疫毒性的經驗。試驗機構會接受培訓，且必須備妥適當藥物，以應對細胞激素釋放症候群或其他輸注後的反應。

管理階層認為，篩檢活動轉強歸因於業界更廣泛認可 MRD 的預後價值、MRD 檢測在淋巴瘤中的應用日益普及，以及該試驗早期的 cema-cel 成果。

ALLO-329 於自體免疫疾病之應用

ALLO-329 同時鎖定 CD19 與 CD70，並結合了 Allogene 的 Dagger 技術，旨在應對異體排斥反應，並可能降低對化療淋巴清除預處理的依賴。

即將公布的擴大數據集將比較無淋巴清除、僅使用 Cytoxan 預處理，以及 fludarabine 搭配 Cytoxan 預處理之下的活性與安全性。管理階層表示，其長期目標是在減少或不使用化療預處理的情況下施打 ALLO-329，進而可能降低感染風險並拓展可施用該療法的醫療環境。

由於收案速度較快，全身性硬化症（特別是瀰漫型皮膚硬皮症）已成為數據最成熟的亞組。該籃型試驗目前仍持續收治紅斑性狼瘡與肌炎患者，部分伴有間質性肺病的全身性硬化症患者也已入組。

管理階層表示，改良型 Rodnan 皮膚厚度評分改善約 5 分，在該領域通常被視為具臨床意義。

更廣泛的 CAR-T 平台

Allogene 計劃在癌症免疫治療學會 (SITC) 年會上發表 ALLO-316 應用於腎細胞癌的臨床經驗，以及其 DLL3/CD70 雙標靶 CAR-T 計畫的臨床前研究結果。

管理階層認為，體內 (in vivo) CAR-T 不太可能在第一線鞏固治療中與 cema-cel 展開直接競爭。其理由在於患者接受 R-CHOP 治療後 T 細胞活性下降，以及在基層門診環境中施打體內 CAR-T 所面臨的實際挑戰。這仍屬管理階層的評估，而非已成定論的市場結果。

管理階層指引

Allogene 維持下列 ALPHA3 里程碑：

• 下一次臨床更新：2027 年年中。
• 完成收案目標：2027 年底。

2027 年年中的無事件存活期分析將由資料安全監控委員會監督。由於該分析僅分配極小的統計 alpha，管理階層提醒委員會可能會建議在不解盲的情況下繼續進行研究。該公司表示，維護 ALPHA3 的註冊試驗完整性仍是首要任務。

風險與觀察重點

• 即使潛在數據令人鼓舞，2027 年年中的 ALPHA3 分析仍可能不會公布解盲後的療效結果。
• ALPHA3 的推進取決於持續的 MRD 篩檢、試驗機構的執行力，以及在分散的醫療照護體系中尋找合適患者的能力。
• 新型第一線淋巴瘤療法可能會改善療效並改變治療格局。Allogene 認為其複雜性與毒性可能會限制廣泛應用，但在電話會議期間尚未取得完整的數據集。
• ALLO-329 仍處於早期臨床開發階段。有分析師指出在劑量組 2 的兩名患者中出現嚴重不良事件，而管理階層則表示詳細討論將留待擴大數據發布時進行。
• 基於化療的淋巴清除預處理會抑制免疫功能並增加感染風險。ALLO-329 是否能在減少或不進行預處理的情況下維持顯著活性，仍是關鍵的臨床問題。
• 在 Geoffrey Parker 退休後，該公司持續物色新任財務長。目前由財務資深副總裁、公司主計長兼首席會計主管 Annie Yoshiyama 負責監督財務運作與內部控制。

分析師問答重點

cema-cel 能否安全地在基層醫療院所使用？
管理階層對 cema-cel 的門診與基層醫療應用潛力表示高度信心。ALPHA3 試驗機構包含先前無 CAR-T 經驗的院所，但所有中心均接受培訓，且必須備有適當的毒性管理規範與藥物。

投資人應對 2027 年年中的 ALPHA3 更新抱持何種預期？
該分析包含對無事件存活期的早期檢視，但由於分配的統計 alpha 有限，使得因達統計顯著性而提前終止試驗存在不確定性。資料安全監控委員會將決定解盲或繼續進行試驗。

新型第一線淋巴瘤療法是否會削弱 cema-cel 的市場機會？
管理階層預期部分較新的療法可改善預後，但認為其複雜性與潛在毒性可能會將其應用限制在特定患者與學術醫學中心。因此，該公司目前不認為這會對其鎖定的第一線鞏固治療市場產生重大衝擊。

ALLO-329 的數據將如何區分 CAR-T 與預處理各自的效果？
該簡報將分別列出三種預處理策略與多個細胞劑量組別的療效與安全性。管理階層表示，此項比較的用意在於展現 ALLO-329 是否能在低劑量或不進行化療淋巴清除的情況下展現活性，儘管各組別的追蹤期長短有所不同。

為何全身性硬化症受到更多關注？
管理階層表示，這項側重反映的是病患收案狀況，而非試驗重新設計。瀰漫型皮膚全身性硬化症已成為規模最大且數據最成熟的亞組，而紅斑性狼瘡與肌炎的收案也持續進行中。

法說會逐字稿全文

完整財報電話會議逐字稿

管理層陳述

Operator

Hello. Thank you for standing by, and welcome to Allogene Therapeutics Third Quarter 2026 Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the call over to Christine Cassiano, Chief Corporate Affairs and Brand Strategy Officer. Ms. Cassiano, please go ahead.

Christine Cassiano

Thank you, operator, and welcome, everyone, to Allogene's conference call. After the market closed, Allogene issued a press release that provided a business update and financial results for the third quarter of 2026. This press release and today's webcast are available on our website.

Following brief prepared remarks from Dr. Zachary Roberts, President and Chief Executive Officer, we will open the call for questions. Geoff Parker, Chief Financial Officer, will also join the Q&A. To keep the call within 45 minutes, please limit questions to one per analyst.

During today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These may include statements regarding the success and timing of our ongoing and planned clinical trials, data presentations, regulatory filings, future research and development efforts, manufacturing capabilities, the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, commercial market forecasts, the potential treatment settings and financial guidance, among other things. These forward-looking statements are based on current information, assumptions and expectations that are subject to change. A description of potential risks can be found in our press release and latest SEC disclosure documents. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and Allogene disclaims any obligation to update these statements.

I'll now turn the call over to Zach.

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Christine, and good afternoon, everyone. Before we begin, I want to recognize Geoff Parker, who retires tomorrow after serving as CFO through some of Allogene's most consequential years. Geoff helped us navigate change and maintain the financial discipline that positions us for the future. Geoff, thank you, and we wish you the best in retirement.

As our search for a new CFO continues, we have full confidence in our financial operations and controls under Annie Yoshiyama, our SVP of Finance, Corporate Controller and Principal Accounting Officer. Annie brings 20 years of experience and has played a key role in our financial reporting and financing activities since joining in 2024. Finding the right CFO is especially important as we enter this next chapter where the strategic decisions we've made could create meaningful new opportunities for Allogene. When I joined Allogene, my mandate was to challenge how we were developing allogeneic CAR T. We had an extraordinary technology, but technology alone wasn't enough. We needed to start with patients and work backward. What barriers prevented them from receiving CAR-T? How can an off-the-shelf product remove those barriers. CAR-T has transformed what's possible in medicine, but nearly a decade into the commercial CAR-T era, the realities of delivering CAR-T continue to limit who benefits.

We've seen other allogeneic programs stop or change course. Investor confidence in cell therapy has eroded as companies pursue highly similar strategies without overcoming the fundamental obstacles. The challenges facing the industry today are the very ones Allogene anticipated and made difficult strategic decisions to address in 2024. With our deep experience in cell therapy, we recognized that following the traditional late-line development pathway with cema-cel was unlikely to unlock the full potential of allogeneic CAR T. Meanwhile, advances in diagnostics created an opportunity to identify patients at risk of relapse before their disease returned clinically and created a compelling need for off-the-shelf CAR-T.

The real opportunity wasn't simply to develop a different kind of CAR-T, but to rethink where and when CAR-T could make the greatest difference. It gave us a chance to address a distinct area of unmet medical need, MRD-positive lymphoma and potentially change the course of treatment for patients who might otherwise face the uncertainty of relapse. We believe this strategy could make a meaningful difference for patients, and we saw it as a compelling path forward for Allogene.

We weren't simply looking for a better way to deliver CAR-T. We were looking for a better moment to use it. And that is why I believe it's time to look at Allogene through a different lens. ALPHA3 is testing whether we can fundamentally change when, where and how patients receive CAR-T.

Our interim futility analysis earlier this year provided encouraging evidence of rapid MRD clearance, a favorable early safety profile and the feasibility of administering cema-cel in community practices even at centers with no prior CAR-T experience. Enrollment momentum continues, supported by increased MRD screening, strong investigator engagement and brisk activity in the Asia Pacific region. As our trial network expands, we're seeing growing engagement across participating sites. In 2027, we look forward to our next clinical update midyear and enrollment completion by year-end.

We continue to watch the evolution of first-line lymphoma treatment closely, including the recent Phase III results with novel regimens. Better outcomes are always welcome, but safety and practical demands of treatment matter, too. Even with reimbursement, the complexity and cost of administering therapy can challenge providers. R-CHOP, along with the recently approved R-Pola-CHP regimen has been dominant for 25 years, not only because they work well, but because they are safe, well tolerated and practical to deliver in community settings. This is why we are looking beyond clinical development for challenging assumptions built around autologous CAR T from treatment site requirements to the infrastructure needed to deliver therapy.

Our view of value encompasses the total cost of care, the burden on patients and caregivers and the economics of treatment delivery. From reimbursement to site readiness, we're building a model that reflects the distinct characteristics of allogeneic CAR T and its potential to make treatment more accessible.

At ASH, we'll share findings from our survey of 152 U.S. hematologists and oncologists examining the barriers that continue to limit CAR-T adoption. We'll also host an investor event exploring how cema-cel could potentially address those barriers. That same focus on overcoming barriers extends to ALLO-329. In a few days, we'll present our first clinical results at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Meeting, or ACR. This update will offer an early glimpse into whether our deliberate choices in designing ALLO-329 and its clinical trial are translating into meaningful benefits for patients.

Safety is particularly important. Recent events across autoimmune CAR-T programs have reinforced the need to carefully balance therapeutic benefit with treatment risk. Our experience with ALLO-316 taught us difficult but important lessons about managing inflammatory toxicities, including IEC-HS. We worked closely with experts and the FDA to develop detailed monitoring and management guidance and carry those lessons directly into the resolution protocol from the outset.

To date, we have observed no high-grade toxicities or cases of IEC-HS with ALLO-329, but our approach is more than managing toxicity. ALLO-329 was designed with our Dagger technology to address allogeneic rejection with the potential to reduce reliance on chemotherapy-based lymphodepletion. That's particularly important in autoimmune disease where balancing benefit toxicity and treatment burden is critical.

On November 9, we'll present an expanded clinical and translational data set at AACR, including additional patients, longer follow-up, three dose levels and three conditioning approaches. We'll be looking closely at what the data tell us about CAR-T activity and clinical responses across different conditioning approaches. One of the most important questions is whether DaggR can help us achieve meaningful activity while reducing the chemotherapy burden traditionally associated with CAR-T. That's a potentially important distinction, particularly in autoimmune disease.

We're very interested in what we're seeing in scleroderma, which has emerged as the most active pathway to enrollment in our basket design. While patients with lupus or myositis remain eligible for resolution, we're becoming more deliberate about prioritizing indications where ALLO-329 could offer the greatest differentiation. The lessons we're learning across these programs are also informing the next generation of our platform. That work will be featured at SITC, including our clinical experience with ALLO-316 in renal cell carcinoma and preclinical findings from our DLL3/CD70 dual CAR-T program. Across our programs, we've made deliberate choices, applied what we've learned and invested in a different model for CAR-T. In a field driven by the next breakthrough, we know that innovation is only the beginning. The real achievement is making it work in the real world. That's what we've spent years building towards. And as we look into 2027, we believe our clinical data could begin to demonstrate the value of those decisions.

What comes next has the potential to be far more exciting than the science that first captured everyone's imagination because innovation only matters if patients can access it.

We'll now open the call for questions.

Operator

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Tyler Van Buren with TD Cowen.

分析師問答

Tyler Van Buren

Can you just discuss your ongoing confidence, again, in administering cema-cel in the outpatient setting and at community practices, especially those with no prior CAR-T experience. You discussed this a little bit during the prepared remarks, but it would be great to elaborate on that and how you teach and educate them to adopt the appropriate protocols and patient monitoring.

Zachary Roberts

Tyler, thanks for the question. So our confidence is very high that this is an outpatient-friendly and community-ready product, and we are actively continuing to screen and treat patients in such settings within the ALPHA3 trial. And by the way, we've had kind of a significant surge in interest from community practices over the course of the summer. So we're actually preparing to onboard additional community practices in the coming weeks here.

As far as preparing them to do this, many of them will have bispecifics, maybe all of them have bispecifics experience. So they're familiar with the potential toxicities associated with immune-directed therapies. So they're not coming in completely cold. Some of them don't have any CAR-T experience, though. And so us being able to do that successfully and safely, I think, really illustrates the opportunity that we face with cema-cel and ALPHA3.

That said, of course, we take nothing for granted and all sites are adequately trained. We ensure that they have the right medications available should they need to intervene for CRS or some other event that occurs post cema-cel infusion. But so far, the safety profile continues to be very, very good and really supporting our view that this is a great new way to access CAR-T for patients, including in their community practices.

Operator

Our next question comes from Michael Yee with UBS.

Michael Yee

Congrats on the progress. I'll save the autoimmune questions for next week. But on ALPHA3, can you just update or clarify your thoughts around the mid-'27 update? And remind us about how you feel about the enrollment pace relative to, say, 6 or 12 months ago, the event rates you're seeing blinded, of course. And then even though you have a very small alpha spend, as I think you've said, your view about whether it would actually stop unblind or if it could continue and just walk through some of the assumptions that are in there because you have said it's going to -- it's a very small alpha spend. So I want to be a bit cautious about whether we should over expect a positive stop.

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Mike. So great questions. So I'll take the enrollment piece first. As we pointed out in the prepared remarks, we're very pleased with where the study is headed and how it's been performing, particularly in the last several months, not just with the renewed interest and new incoming interest from additional sites, but even per site productivity has notched upward and that applies broadly, but particularly as Korea and Australia have begun to screen and enroll since about mid-summer. They really have really come into this trial with a high degree of interest and engagement and are screening lots of patients, and we've seen enrollment come from both of those regions very quickly after those first sites were activated. So we continue that to be very positive.

So as far as the enrollment goes, I mean, we're continuing to guide towards the end of next year. Your question around event rates and the timing and nature of the mid-2027 data update. As we have said in response to this question, lots of times, this study is governed by a Data Safety Monitoring Board as well as, of course, the FDA is involved in how we execute and read out this trial. You also rightly reminded everyone that there's a small amount of alpha that's currently allocated to that mid-'27 early look at the primary endpoint event-free survival.

So the nature of the question, I think, is completely a and that is what are we thinking that this is going to be a positive study that is statistically significant, I mean positive readout. And what will we do in that case? Of course, this is going to be governed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, who is going to perform this analysis. And of course, they may, given the small amount of alpha, look at the data and decide that, in fact, the recommendation is to not unblind the data and continue moving forward. Of course, we don't really have a strong opinion about whether that's likely or not. We were very encouraged about the interim futility analysis that we discussed earlier this year.

But that, again, is going to be up to the statistical design of the study and the recommendation of the Data Safety Monitoring Board. So first and foremost, we're going to follow their guidance. But again, in the big picture, the most important thing that we do here on this trial is to not do anything that would jeopardize the overall registrational quality of this study. And so the risk to trial integrity of premature disclosure of interim data is something that we take very seriously. And so we will be sort of approaching this analysis with that in mind. But in any case, our #1, 2 and 3 priorities right now are just executing on the trial, getting the trial completely enrolled by the end of next year.

Operator

Our next question comes from Roger Song with Jefferies.

Jiale Song

Recently, we saw the EPOCH-R R-CHOP data in the first line, understanding your position or on. Just curious, any recent feedback from the community, now we see the hazard ratio or the efficacy concretely. Any thoughts around the potential new standard of care in the first line? And then how should we think about the MRD negative in this new regimen moving forward?

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Roger. Great question. Of course, we've been watching the frontline area quite closely. And I'll remind everybody that we did see a readout earlier this summer as well with tafasitamab lenalidomide plus R-CHOP that read out at ASCO. So there's a couple of data sets that we're paying attention to. I think the hazard ratio that you cite a little bit under 0.5, I think, was a little bit better than a lot of folks had anticipated. I will point out that that's the only thing that we know about the data so far. There was no -- notably, there was not a mention of the frontline EPOCH-R data in the batch of ASH abstracts that came out yesterday, but potentially it could be a late breaker. So we'll be watching that carefully.

I think what we've said about these regimens applies again, and that is that these are potentially going to improve outcomes and that I think would generally be a good thing for patients. However, the feedback that we have gotten from sites, both anecdotally, but also through the data, the analysis that I referenced in the prepared remarks around the abstract that we'll show at ASH regarding 152 oncologists spread across both community and academic contexts. The feedback that we've received on these frontline regimens is that they're not likely to be widely applied to all newly diagnosed patients, primarily due to the complexity and the possible toxicity of these regimens.

Again, we don't really know the full data from the front line. We do know some data from the later line studies, and they do appear to have a toxicity burden that is significantly higher than R-CHOP. So we'll be watching the eventual data update. But in the final analysis, given the fact that we think that these will be for limited patients and limited academic centers, we do not expect this to be a major impact to our total addressable market in the frontline consolidation context where, of course, we're focused with cema-cel.

Operator

Our next question comes from Salveen Richter with Goldman Sachs.

Unknown Analyst

This is Mark on for Salveen. So excited to see the ALLO-329 data, and we're looking forward to the additional data at ACR in the event. Our question is on safety, as you alluded to, we see that there's two patients in DL2 that experienced serious AEs, understanding these are small numbers, but can you speak to your confidence in the safety profile and the management protocols as you continue dose escalation? Could these infections be driven by the CD70 mechanism? And do you expect that there could be potentially different safety profiles for the with and without lymphodepletion cohorts?

Zachary Roberts

Mark, thanks for the question. I mean I'll save some of the detailed response to the data until after it's been disclosed in full, which we expect will be on Monday next week. In general, I think your question around does lymphodepletion potentially impact the safety profile. I think in general, that is likely to be true. We know that fludarabine and cytoxan when given together do tend to drive patients' immunity immunocompetence, I should say, down pretty low for a period of time, and that's kind of its point when used in this context. So lightening up or eliminating altogether that cytotoxic lymphodepletion regimen is absolutely a goal of ours to try to prevent exposing these patients to unnecessary infectious risk.

As far as the SAEs that you go, again, I'm going to -- I'll hold back on kind of diving into what the specific nature of those are. The data will be out in just a few days. I'll say, in general, though, we have not seen anything concerning so far across CRS, ICANS, even infections. So stay tuned for the final -- the results that you referred to. But so far, we're pretty confident about the safety profile that we're seeing with ALLO-329.

Operator

Our next question comes from Samantha Semenkow with Citi.

Samantha Semenkow

Just another one on cema-cel. Can you speak to the increase in MRD screening that you're seeing? What is driving this? Is it the broader adoption for MRD testing in general that we're seeing across multiple oncology settings? Or is it more of a result of the educational efforts that you've instilled or just the overall increase in interest in the trial?

Zachary Roberts

Sam, thank you, as always, for the question. And I think it's probably a combination of all those things and potentially others. I think, as we've said before, when we launched ALPHA3, we were really out in front on this and saw the field shaping up and a growing reliance on MRD as a general concept across all oncology indications, but particularly within lymphoma based on those early data that were presented at ASH in 2022.

That theme has continued to grow in leaps and bounds really. And I think that the earlier approval by FDA of atezolizumab when paired with the Signatera results in muscle invasive bladder cancer, I think, really put quite a bit of fuel on this fire and people began to realize that the prognostic power of an MRD result could be used to guide clinical decision-making. And so that's become more widely expected and more widely understood, I should say. And so we're seeing some benefits of that within lymphoma, and we're seeing even commercial sales of MRD tests within lymphoma spiking quarter-over-quarter. That growth has continued. So as that begins to occur outside of the ALPHA3, looking into the ALPHA3 trial itself, of course, people were encouraged by the early data that we showed. They are becoming believers in MRD. They see the data with cema-cel. So suddenly, we have a lot of these pieces that we knew to exist from day 1 starting to fall into place just as we're hitting our stride with more sites coming online a global expansion of the trial footprint. So we really are the beneficiaries of a lot of these moving parts, all starting to lead to better screening and enrollment cadence within the trial. So we overall see this as quite a positive development across the field.

Operator

Our next question comes from Matthew Phipps with William Blair.

Matthew Phipps

Look forward to the call on Monday. The press release mentions brisk enrollment in Asia Pacific regions. Just curious, what's your expectations for final enrollment percentage coming from Asia Pacific? And is there any kind of caps on that enrollment to maintain balanced demographics?

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Matt. So yes, as I said a moment ago in the prepared remarks, of course, we're pretty encouraged with the level of engagement that we're seeing from the investigators in Australia and in Korea. In large part, that's due to how care is delivered there. There -- a lot of these patients are all seen in the same large centers. So the throughput is really quite, quite impressive there, especially compared to a standard U.S. site. So we're leveraging that concentration of care there.

Even at the pace -- the impressive pace that they're screening and enrolling, they still are expected to be a relative minority of the overall enrollment within ALPHA3. And so we're not concerned about any kind of imbalance that may impact the interpretability by FDA. That's not a concern of ours at all. And we're seeing great activity by U.S.-based sites as well.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Jack Allen with Baird.

Jack Allen

Congrats on the progress. I wanted to ask a bigger picture one about the landscape in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. I know you commented earlier on the bispecifics and the EPOCH-R data, but I also wanted to ask if you had any thoughts on recent updates from the in vivo CAR-T space. I know people are watching durability closely there, and I think there have been a few different updates and we'll probably get some more data at ASH. So just wanted to gauge your opinions there.

And then I just want to take a brief second to thank Geoff as well and congratulate him on his retirement. Geoff, it's a key career milestone I'm looking forward to keeping in touch.

Geoffrey Parker

Thank you, Jack. Appreciate it.

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Jack, for the question. So yes, I mean, I think the frontline landscape is evolving, and we'll see how that shakes out in the coming months and years. As far as the in vivo space goes, we've seen a few very early data sets in lymphoma. I'm thinking about the uptick that we saw at EHA earlier this year with the 1920. That was very limited follow-up. But of course, we've seen evidence of activity in other oncology contexts with in vivo CAR-T.

I'll say, in general, I do not believe that in vivo CAR-T is going to be applicable in the consolidation context as we're doing with ALPHA3. I really do believe that our product profile is uniquely well suited for frontline consolidation for a few reasons. First, these patients are relatively lymphodepleted post frontline R-CHOP. And the sooner you deliver your consolidation dose, the more lymphodepleted they are, they haven't quite recovered. So administering a CAR-T to those patients and in vivo CAR-T that relies on healthy and robust and high-frequency T cells is going to be somewhat limited.

The other big one, of course, is these patients tend to be treated in the community, and it's very hard for me to see having taken care of patients, but also based on the feedback we are hearing from community practitioners, it's just not likely that an in vivo CAR-T is going to be administered in an outpatient community-based oncology practice. That's just -- that's an academic a therapy that's well suited for academia. So my view is that if in vivo does demonstrate great activity and durability, perhaps it could be something that challenges the current areas where autologous CAR-T are used because I do think it brings some benefit over autologous CAR T. But I do not think that it's ever really going to make inroads into the frontline consolidation context.

So this is something that we're, of course, very interested in watching this field develop. But we think that based on the product profile alone, the toxicity profile, the complexity, et cetera, the limitations around location where it can be administered that this is not likely to erode much of our opportunity within the frontline consolidation.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of John Newman with Canaccord Genuity.

John Newman

I'd like to add my congratulations to Geoff as well, very solid work here at Allogene over time. My question is, I wanted to know if the pace of enrollment has been in line or perhaps exceeded your expectations over time for ALPHA3. And how we should think about that with regard to the upcoming interim look for EFS in mid-'27.

Zachary Roberts

John, so I think we've talked about this in the past. I mean, right now, the study is in a great place, full stop. It's for all the reasons that I've already said, which I won't repeat. In the early days, it did take some understanding of how to implement this trial. And the fragmentation of care within the United States, some of the difficulties in finding the patients to do MRD testing for, that really was a little bit of a slow start. And so we did adjust the time line, the expectations early on in the course of the study.

We haven't done that again, and that's for a very good reason is that we largely have figured out those operational challenges. So our guidance is our guidance. We do think that we're on track for a completion of the study by the end of next year. And I've already commented on kind of the timing of that midyear update, and that's something that at this point, we don't see any reason to change that guidance.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Biren Amin with Piper Sandler.

Unknown Analyst

This is Michael. We were wondering for resolution, what degree of skin improvement would you describe as clinically meaningful on MRSS? And do you plan on enrolling any scleroderma patients with ILD.

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Michael. So when we say clinically significant, that is -- there is a sort of a widely accepted threshold for improvement in the skin score, which you rightly identify as the modified Rodnan Skin Score or MRSS. And that is about a 5-point change in the MRSS score. So this is -- when we say clinically significant, we really are referring to something that is accepted generally within the field, not something that we're just sort of calling out on our own. So -- that's the first question.

The second question is you asked about ILD. So we have had some patients enrolled with interstitial lung disease with the systemic sclerosis diagnosis. We've also had some myositis patients and some lupus patients. And as we point out, the focus of this upcoming presentation is on scleroderma with skin predominance or diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. That happens to be the group of patients who has enrolled in the study most commonly to date. So we actually have a nice group of patients that we're excited to share our efficacy data on. The remaining patients will be a focus of future updates as those data mature and we get a few more patients with each of those diagnoses.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Brian Cheng with JPMorgan.

Lut Ming Cheng

You mentioned that there is a deliberate focus for 329 on scleroderma in the ongoing Phase I. What does that mean for the path forward for myositis and lupus? And just to confirm, is that decision -- is that deliberate tilt purely based on efficacy?

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Brian, for the question. So the -- when we started activating sites, we, of course, have sites who are famous for their central role in the management of patients with cutaneous scleroderma. We've got some that are known for their expertise in lupus and others in myositis. It just so happened that the ones who came on and who have patients available in the early days of the study tended to be those diffuse cutaneous scleroderma patients. And so this was a natural outgrowth of our basket design. This wasn't anything that we did deliberately.

However, I will say that some of the enthusiasm that grew continuously over the enrollment period largely came from those docs who were taking care of patients with the cutaneous scleroderma. And so it became a little bit of a virtuous cycle where more patients with that diagnosis ended up coming in. However, the study is still open for patients with myositis and lupus, and we do see some continued interest actually from sites and from patients with those diagnoses. So we haven't closed the study. We haven't changed the design of the trial at all. We're really just sharing kind of the most mature subgroup that we have collected so far.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Robert Burns with H.C. Wainwright.

Robert Burns

So focusing on that upcoming data for ALLO-329, how are you thinking about the go/no-go signal for this agent in the autoimmune context broadly, but also within systemic sclerosis, especially when we consider the allogeneic CAR T data that we've seen from azer-cel as well as the upcoming data updates at ACR for FT819, CTA313, zugo-cel as well as several in vivo CAR-T agents.

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Robert. Look, we knew from the beginning that this was a busy space. And so our response to that was to design a product that was differentiated that brought something new and novel to the table. And so we believe very fervently that ALLO-329 does just that. We're the only product that hits both CD19 and CD70. Of course, the role of CD19 is well described, but CD70 is -- continues to impress me at just how widely it's described as playing a role in inflammatory processes. And I feel like every month, there's a new paper coming out showing that how central it is to the behavior of lymphocytes, both T and B lymphocytes in the pathogenesis of these and other indications. So we remain extremely excited about our differentiated product profile here. And so we think we're going to have something of value. Additionally, in our trial design, of course, we set out to design a product that would alleviate the need for chemotherapy-based lymphodepletion.

So as you all are reviewing the data when it is public on Monday, I encourage you to take a look at whether we're delivering on that initial intent and promise. So we think that we have something quite exciting here, and we're looking forward to sharing the data on Monday.

As far as the go/no-go, and, of course, we're still in early days. I mean we just opened the trial a little under a year ago. We're very, very impressed at how quickly we've been able to enroll the study. So we are going to be making those go/no-go decisions internally based on some of which you'll see on Monday, but of course, other analyses as well. So stay tuned for future decisions on this product. But so far, I think we're in a really good place.

Operator

And our last question comes from the line of Luca Issi with RBC Capital Markets.

Unknown Analyst

This is [ Cassie ] for Luca. Congrats on the quarter and Geoff for all the accomplishments with the rest of the Allogene team. I have a two-part question on the resolution trial for 329. As we look forward to the expanded data, your presentation next week, if you could just help us prepare for what is coming. And Zach already touched on some of this. So first on the efficacy side, could you speak to how the trial design would serve to distinguish the contribution of 329 from chemo-based conditioning? And as we look at the data across the arms, what specific readouts will be helpful to parse out the ALLO-329's contribution from the conditioning regimen? And on the safety side, what thresholds or patents would be sufficient to support advancing no lymphodepletion or reduced lymphodepletion regimen into Phase II?

Zachary Roberts

Thanks, Cassie. So when we designed the trial, we wanted to -- again, I sort of just spoke on what our vision was for the ultimate future of ALLO-329, right? In a perfect world, we're able to do administer this product without any preconditioning at all. We believe that, that will open doors to greater numbers of patients, potentially greater sets of indications and critically greater venues for treatment, including potentially even outpatient community just like we're doing with cema-cel. So that's our vision.

As far as the efficacy and safety breakdown that you alluded to in your question, we've tried to organize the data in the presentation that will clearly show you what the contributions of ALLO-329 are compared to the contributions of the chemotherapy-based lymphodepletion regimens. And I'll say again that we will see data with no lymphodepletion data with cytoxan alone as well as data with Flu/Cy. It's not going to be the same across all three because the different cohorts were opened at different points. And then we'll have also multiple cell doses as well.

So you'll see all this data broken down on the efficacy side as well as the safety side. And as I said, we're encouraged by what we've seen so far and remain focused on that potential to do this with low or no lymphodepletion in a way that is safe for patients and easy to administer. So we think we have something that is truly differentiated here.

Operator

Thank you. And that concludes our question-and-answer session. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may now disconnect.