Welcome back. Before we begin, and I introduce our keynote speaker, I have a few more IGCS awards that we'd like to celebrate. So yesterday, we presented the Lifetime Achievement Award to Dr. Jonathan Barak, the Excellence in Teaching Award to Dr. David Atala, the Global Humanitarian Award to Dr. Olga Hapniana from Ukraine, and the Polish Society for Gynecologic Oncology for their humanitarian efforts to oncology patients in the ongoing war. Today, I'll start with the Award for Outstanding Achievement in Gynecologic Surgery. This year's award goes to Dr. Pedro Ramirez. Yeah, and all of his dependents. Notably, Dr. Ramirez served as principal investigator on the LAC trial, which changed the standard of care for cervical cancer, comparing open to minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer. He's published extensively on surgical outcomes and innovations, including sentinel lymph node biopsy, radical trachelectomy, as well as both laparoscopic and robotic surgeries for gynecologic cancers. His exemplary work as an investigator, author, professor, mentor, culminated in a career that has unquestionably changed the care of our patients and has raised and advanced the standard of care for women with gynecologic malignancies. Dr. Ramirez, my good friend, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you so, so much. Glad to have you. Well, thank you so, so much, I am truly honored. This is very unique, very special. This is obviously a credit to so many who served as mentors for me. I think that we have an amazing privilege as surgeons in taking care of women with gynecological cancer and to be recognized with this is really an amazing moment. Thank you to my family for being here and thank you to the IGCS for this award. Thank you. Congratulations, Pedro. Our next award is the Award for Community Advancement in Resource-Limited Settings. This year, this will be presented to Dr. Cecil-Tina Lorenzoni. Dr. Lorenzoni is the head and coordinator of the National Cancer Control Program in Mozambique where she works with the government to increase access to cervical cancer screening and prevention. As the director of science and teaching at Maputo Central Hospital, she was instrumental in building local capacity for gynecologic cancer training and cervical cancer prevention in Mozambique through the design and support of implementing the IGCS Global Curriculum and Mentoring Program in partnership with MD Anderson. We're so pleased to have you here. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. I'll hear you. We're going to take a photo. So you can say some words. I'd like to thank the IGCS for recognizing me, my work, with this award. It is an honor for me and for my country to receive this honor at the global level. This recognition gives me the inspiration and courage and energy to continue our work in Mozambique. I am honored to do my part and contributed to improve cancer prevention and treatment service and to promote better service for women with gynecological cancer through training, education, and research. I am very grateful to Dr. Kathleen Schmeile and colleagues from MD Anderson who have collaborated with the Minister of Health of Mozambique, Maputo Central Hospital, and other hospitals in Mozambique. We continue to work together to eliminate cervical cancer and to develop capacity to improve cancer prevention and cancer care. I also thank my many colleagues in Mozambique, in government, and specifically at the Minister of Health, Maputo Central Hospital, First Lady's Office for their tireless work and devotion to promote health care in Mozambique. And last but not least, I want to thank my children, Valeria Uahia, Gianluca Uahia, thank you, and for my husband, Leonardo Lorenzoni, thank you very much to all. They have given me every day during my career. I do believe that together we can eliminate cervical cancer. Thank you, Dr. Robert Coleman. Thank you, Mary. Congratulations. You're doing such important work in your community and the country. Mozambique was one of our first training sites, or was one of our first training sites. IGC has started working with the global curriculum, and I know the successes there are part of the reason it has grown. Now up to 20 training sites. And last but not least, for the past several years, IGC has recognized individuals and organizations with our Distinguished Advocacy Award. This award was conceived by Dicey Scroggins when she came into the role of IGC as Director of Global Outreach and Engagement four years ago. This award recognizes advocates and advocacy organizations that provide active, dedicated service to patients, survivors, families, and caregivers on a local, regional, and international level, and persistently engage in the fight against oncologic and other cancers. It is my honor to announce that we are dedicating this year's Advocacy Award to Dicey. And from now on, it will be called the Dicey Scroggins Distinguished Advocate Award. Dicey fiercely supported all forms of research and lent her expertise to making those projects meaningful, goal-oriented, and appropriately balanced in risk and reward. We've been so blessed to have had the opportunity to work with her, operationalizing her vision to better the lives for all dealing with gynecologic cancer. She has left an incredible legacy of activism, inclusivity, and focus, enabling new opportunities for all. In the future, when we honor the esteemed patient advocates among us with this award, we will honor everything Dicey stood for and everything she hoped could be achieved. For Dicey, forever in our hearts. Now on to our guest speaker, delivering the keynote lecture for our meeting. It's my pleasure to introduce Dr. Tal Zaks, who's currently a partner with OrbiMed. He was recently the chief medical officer at Moderna, where he led the development of the company's COVID-19 vaccine and other key programs. Previously, Dr. Zaks held senior leadership positions in drug development at major pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline. And as Dr. Slomovitz put it, Dr. Zaks' work is the reason we can all meet in person here at IGCS 2022. I am truly looking forward to hearing him describe his experiences with the COVID-19 vaccine and discussing mRNA vaccines and their potential role in cancer therapy. I'm going to invite you to come to the microphones with your questions. I'm also going to be monitoring them with the iPad over at the desk there. So without further ado, please help me welcome Dr. Tal Zaks. Thank you. Okay, you can hear me. Good morning, everybody. It's a real pleasure to be here. I've got the task of trying to go through about a decade of a completely new field of translational science in 20 minutes, so I'll try to do it justice. What I'm going to try and do is spend a little bit of time giving you a sense of why this mRNA thing actually works and what it took to get there. Then we'll spend a little bit of time talking about the vaccine, and we'll close on what we think one can do with this technology in the future. All right, here we go. The only thing I need to disclaim is that I was a chief medical officer at Moderna. I left about a year ago having developed and launched this vaccine, and therefore what I'm telling you is my own opinion. The company has not even seen these slides. These are my disclosures. So let's get into it. The idea, anybody who's got Biology 101, is simple. This is a central dogma of biology. DNA makes mRNA. mRNA makes protein. Every cell in the body is different by virtue not of the DNA but of the mRNA that translates into the unique proteins. So the thought was very simple. What if we could actually make a therapeutic protein not by introducing the protein to the body but by giving the body the instructions with which to make the protein, which is the messenger RNA? A very powerful idea, very simple idea, very complicated to get technically done. And it quickly becomes apparent that in order to do that, what you need to do is protect the mRNA from degradation because, as anybody who's ever worked in a lab knows, it's a very labile molecule, and the reason it's so labile is evolution. So today our drugs look like this. They're a lipid nanoparticle. This complicated structure has four or five different elements come together with the nucleic acid in between, whether you're looking at polymers or LNPs. But if you step back and ask yourself, well, what does this remind me of, it kind of looks like a virus. And in fact, there's nothing more scary to a unicellular organism than a foreign nucleic acid in a lipid envelope coming in to tell it to make different proteins. That evolutionary is a virus, and viruses and unicellular cells have been fighting this war for eons, even before we were human beings. And so in order to make this drug actually work, you have to overcome evolution or figure out how are you going to be able to introduce this to the cell without the cell rejecting it outright. And this is where, if you step back and think, well, what are the technological elements to get this done, it took so much work and such a huge investment. I joined the company in 2015. It was still a preclinical company. The company started back in 2010. Other companies have been at this for even longer. And the pieces that have to come together really have to do with these three elements. You have to figure out how to get the mRNA right, and that has to do with the chemistry, which is to say, how do I actually form an mRNA molecule that the cell won't think comes from outside from a virus? Then how do you figure out the right sequence so that you actually make protein? Of course, in the case of a wild type protein, that's easy. You just copy off nature. But often you can actually improve on nature with modern tools that we have. And then, of course, you have to figure out how am I going to get this to the cell? So I showed you that lipid nanoparticle, but figuring out the right lipid nanoparticle is an art in itself, and it's taken industry a long time to get to where we are today. This is predicated on inventions done at MIT by Bob Langer, but it took a lot of efforts to figure out how to get this just right so that it gets into the cell and the mRNA can actually make protein. And, of course, manufacturing, how do you actually put all this together? This is a very complicated drug, and that took a lot of innovation as well. And what I'm describing sounds scientific, but it's actually a fascinating combination between science and technology. Now, let's say we could do all this, and we got to the point where we got an mRNA that can make a drug. Well, what kind of drugs and medicines could you make out of this? This was me in 2015. I had the privilege of joining the company as a chief medical officer, and the ideas were flying all over the places. You could do cancer. You could do vaccines. You could do rare disease. How does one think about this? And there's a very simple framework that I laid to think about this as a class of medicine, and that was, for me, the intellectual beauty of this technology. And if you think about it in two axes, the first being how likely am I to actually make a protein in the body with this technology, which I term technology risk? And the other one is biology risk. Technology risk is basically saying, how much protein can I get expressed, and where can I get it expressed? Now, to get a protein expressed based on mRNA, you need to deliver it to the cell. We have a delivery technology that was invented over 100 years ago. It's called a syringe and a needle. We still use it. It works. It works when you know where it is you're targeting your mRNA. And so, obviously, the easiest thing to do is to do vaccines from a technology standpoint, because you put it in the muscle that's easily accessible. And you can think of other applications that get technically much more challenging. Can you give it systemically to get systemic expression? Can you do something for cancer? Can you get it inhaled to replace a CF gene for kids with CF? And that experiment's ongoing. In terms of biology risk, the answer is very simple. The question is very simple. How likely is it that if I get the body to make the protein, I'm going to get a pharmacological effect and I can make a medicine out of it? And here again, vaccine's the low-hanging fruit, because we know what are the proteins we want to make. We, you know, as soon as the sequence for SARS-CoV-2 was available, it was clear to everybody it's a spike protein. Why was that clear? Because we'd done experiments with SARS-1, with MERS, to tell us that actually if you can induce antibodies against a spike protein from related viruses, you can prevent infection. And so this was obvious. Okay, now that's the framework, and the next five years, between 2015 and 2020, Moderna had advanced all of these infectious disease vaccines in order of increasing complexity in terms of stimulating the body to generate antibodies. And what was critical was that during those five years, we had tried to generate antibodies in human being against eight different viruses. Our success rate was eight out of eight. We had not failed in any virus that we tried actually generate an immune response in human beings. Of course, at the same time, we were filling in the gaps of everything else one could think about doing with this technology, and I won't belabor the point. But January of 2020 is when SARS-CoV-2 hit. And when you look at the antigen, the protein that I need the body to make in order to make a vaccine, well, it actually is simpler than some of the other stuff we had by then done. Remember Zika 2017? We thought that was going to end fertility in the United States. Well, it turned out not to be as bad, but along the way, we got the NIH to work with us and start to develop a Zika vaccine. Zika was a really complicated protein because he had one polypeptide that has to get cleaved and reconfigured in the cell to make this viral-like particle. It worked. We could do it in mRNA. And so when we saw SARS-CoV-2 and everybody understood the spike, it was sort of obvious what one goes after. But I think we were well-prepared here also in terms of working with the government. And in September of 2019, I went down to meet the NIH with the CEO of the company, and we met Tony Fauci and his team, and they saw the data. And a couple of months later, November of 2019, I'm directly quoting from a paper that Tony Fauci and his deputy wrote. And basically, they then saw that the combination of data here, including clinical data, bodes well for the potential of this technology to be effective not just for flu, but for any newly emerging infectious agents. This was online published about less than two months before somebody started coughing in Wuhan. And so when SARS-CoV-2 hit, it's not like this technology came out of nowhere overnight. This technology came out of nowhere overnight. At that point, we'd been at it for a decade. We'd already shown that it can work against numerous infectious diseases, granted not to prevent disease, not in phase three, but to generate antibodies. And the beauty of vaccines is that the correlation between the ability to generate antibodies and the likelihood to prevent disease is actually very, very tight. And that's been shown time and again across numerous respiratory viruses. So we've all seen this timeline and we've sort of lived through it. We were able to actually go very fast. And when I say this, everybody's reaction to me is, oh, you went so fast. You went faster than anybody had ever done. You went faster than the experts thought you could do. What corners did you cut? And if you understand science and clinical development, you'll understand that we actually didn't need to cut corners for a very simple reason. The reason things take long are twofold. Number one, nobody wants to move to the next phase of investment until they see the results of the first phase. And number two, when you're preventing an infectious disease, in order to show effect, you need to have events accumulate in both arms of the trial. Conceptually, it's no different than a cancer trial, right? A survival trial takes a long time. Why? Because we're accumulating events on the trial. A vaccine trial usually takes a long time because we're treating pretty rare events and we're waiting for them to happen. Well, when you're launching a phase three trial in July of 2020 in the United States, you don't need to wait a heck of a lot of time for events to happen. And in a way, we got lucky by the virtue of being able to plan the trial at the same time as peak transmission was happening. We got sophisticated by employing tools that enabled us to predict where the virus was likely to spread. And if you look back, AstraZeneca had actually started their trial a little bit earlier, but they were going in places where there wasn't transmission. They were immunizing people who were unlikely to get infected. And we spent all of our energy trying to focus to make sure that the phase three trial actually recruited in the right place. So, the whole development plan here was compressed for two reasons. One, we were able to go from phase one to phase two to phase three as soon as we saw the data and work very closely with the FDA. And by the way, the true heroes of this were the FDA. I mean, I and the company had a team of 50 people. I could hire 1,000 in a contract research organization to work on my program. The FDA had the same team, and they had to deal with the data of everybody coming at them at the same time. And yet they managed to do this in a way that I still find remarkable. So we got to the point of the vaccine, and along the way we learned, I think, a few lessons. And the first is, obviously, that we didn't get there by chance. The second is that if everybody shares a sense of purpose, even if it's in government, and we worked, I worked through, I don't know, five different government agencies at the same time, people I've never met in my life, committees that, I mean, these were organizations that have committees that select committees. It typically takes years to actually get anything done, and yet we were able to do this in a matter of weeks here. There are two other learnings that I think are unique to our time, and the first has to do with communication. We live in an extremely divisive era of communication. We all experience it in all facets of life. It's not a surprise that you also experience it in vaccines. And the other, I think, more interesting one was the utility of real-world evidence. This was really the big change here, the fact that we can see data from the real world and understand it almost in real time. I mean, if you think conceptually, remember the summer of 21. Do you need a booster shot? Well, nobody could design a trial to say if we need a booster shot, but the state of Israel had already decided that let's do it and let's see what the data looks like, and so very quickly it became apparent that actually booster shots help, and then the rest of the world followed suit. If we had to design a trial and go prove it prospectively, by the time we'd had the result, it would have been too late for millions of people or hundreds of thousands. Let's switch now a little bit to cancer. It's clear that in immunocompromised people, the vaccine is not as effective as we'd like it. I'll come back to that in a second. This is one of the papers I'm most proud of, because as the whole pandemic was happening, a friend of mine from Israel said, hey, we need to go help us design a study to figure out what is the immunogenicity in patients with cancer, and I told him, and by the way, can I have a Moderna vaccine? I told him, look, I'll help you design the study, but I can't get you the vaccine. It's currently in the U.S., but you've got Pfizer vaccine. So here I am, a chief medical officer at Moderna. I actually published a paper on Pfizer's vaccine showing how great it was, which goes back to the point of collaboration. You know, when you're operating like this, I used to quip that at that time I only had two competitors in the field, the virus and the clock, and I'm happy that everybody else won. We can continue to see the importance of real-world evidence. I'm going to go through this quickly. Let's bring us back to September. Where are we now? And the reality is, and these are slides just from a CDC presentation a few weeks ago, we now have demonstrated the utility of this technology to change the code and outcomes of different vaccine very rapidly so that we now have a new vaccine that's actually better tailored to the Omicron variant that is circulating. The long and short of it is, please go get vaccinated with a booster shot, with the one that's currently out there. For me, it's going to be my fifth, but it will have been six months since I got the last one. If you look at transmission happening in our area, it is still high. Again, real-world evidence showing you that even if you got the illness, a vaccine on top of that will still prevent your likelihood of getting, in this case, even symptomatic from COVID. And I think that's important because we don't really understand the long-term sequela of being sick, even mildly sick, in terms of long-term effects on our health. We pretty clearly understand that they're much, much worse than any long-term sequela anybody can envision from an mRNA vaccine, which is nonexistent, de facto. One word on other technologies. You know, proteins work, but I think it's important to kind of look at the real-world data. From the data that we have today, it seems that the mRNA technologies are the best, and I think that's particularly salient in case there is availability for other technologies when you're talking about patients and people who are otherwise difficult to immunize. That being said, we do have remaining challenges. You know, people can declare that this is over, and a lot of us are starting to live our lives again like it's over, which is, I think, true for most of us. However, transmission rates are still kind of... I mean, I was just looking this morning at the data from Newton, where I live in Massachusetts. It is actually trending back up again, and so transmission is still active in our environment. And the problem is that the relative risk to those who are vulnerable is actually even more problematic because the rest of us have stopped masking. Transmission is high. The antibodies that used to work for them for passive immunity, by and large, don't work anymore, and so it's good that we've got PaxLavid, but our patients are still at risk, and people who are difficult to immunize, you know, autoimmune disease, are still at risk. And unfortunately, there still is not a good correlate of protection in the sense of, is there a test I can do on somebody and see whether, you know, how good are they vaccinated? It's pretty much binary. They've got some antibodies or not, but the level of antibodies, we haven't been able to come up with an assay. So in the remaining few minutes, let's talk about what can we do with this for cancer. Well, the obvious thing to do is a cancer vaccine because we know this works for a vaccine. The problem with cancer vaccines is, A, historically, they've never worked, and, B, it's not clear what do we want to vaccinate again. So the idea here is, well, you can think about this conceptually. There's a whole world of things one can envision that you can use this technology for. I'm going to focus on two of them, or three. The first is you can try to inject a tumor and get it to express cytokine to sort of vaccinate the patient. We tried this, even. We had a small trial in ovarian cancer. We could get some local lesions to regress, but we couldn't get what's called an obscopal effect. We couldn't wake up the immune system to see metastatic disease, unfortunately, and others are still trying to do that. This is the effort we started in a personalized cancer vaccine. The cartoon is actually taken from trying something the NCI did, which is a combination of vaccine and adoptive self-therapy. But conceptually, the idea with a vaccine is you figure out for each individual patient what is the immune system likely to see, and then you code those epitopes in a vaccine, in a bespoke vaccine just for that person, and you try to give it back to wake up their immune system. This has been going on. I started this back in 2016 with my colleagues at Moderna. The effort's still ongoing. There's actually randomized phase 2 in melanoma, a disease with a lot of mutations that should read out hopefully in the coming months. So we'll see. We have shown the ability to generate an immune response, both antibodies and T cells. However, the ability to translate that immune response into actual clinical benefit, we're still, as a field, lacking that proof of concept. And then finally, the last thing one can envision is if you can actually get an mRNA in the body and have the body make protein, you could actually make secreted proteins as well. I spent most of the talk talking about COVID. This is actually the coolest scientific experiment I've ever been part of, and it's got nothing to do with COVID. What we did here was to give the mRNA encoding for a heavy chain and a light chain of an antibody and a lipid nanoparticle, IV, to volunteers. What the mRNA encodes for is a very innocuous protein. It's a protein against a virus, a virus called chikungunya. And the reason we chose that is we knew that protein as an antibody against a virus was going to be very safe, and we wanted to see how high of levels could we get systemically in the body with this technology. And what you see here are the results, which is to say if you look at the y-axis, you can get above 10 micrograms per ml of secreted levels of a monoclonal antibody by injecting a human body with the information required to make that antibody. Now, 10 micrograms per ml is a therapeutic concentration of most monoclonal antibodies that we use if you open up FDA labels. So, in principle, this technology can now be used also to make other kinds of medicines. Moderna recently disclosed data for a rare disease where they're using it for kids missing an enzyme where they do actually protein replacement in the liver. BioNTech, and this is from a separate review, has a whole list of other antibody and antibody-like proteins that are using their technology to try to make for the benefit of cancer. And with 45 seconds to spare, I'm happy to take questions. So, you can come to the mics if you have any questions, or we can answer them through the portal here. One question that came up is, does the emergency use authorization that came up, how does that impact, potentially, the cancer development strategy? I mean, do we have, like, an embedded safety margin that we can take advantage of? So, I'll give you the answer in three parts. First, the emergency use, per se, does not impact it. However, the fact that we've had hundreds of millions of people now treated safely with mRNA technology removes a huge overhang of having to prove the safety of a new technology in mankind. In fact, adenoviruses, which used to be considered great tools for vaccines, you know, are never going to be developed now because the J&J vaccine had some side effects that were worse than mRNA. Now, the second element is, look, from an FDA standpoint for cancer, it's benefit-risk. Show me the benefit, show me the risk, and then we'll see if you've got a drug there. The beauty of this technology is, I think the risk is going to be negligible. The challenge is to demonstrate the clinical utility, the benefit. Excellent. And then another question that quickly came up was, if we think about cancer vaccine in the way that you described it and we model it after a COVID vaccine, do people need to have cancer vaccine boosters? Do you think we're going to need to do that same? Because those curves are pretty interesting because they basically didn't show a decrease in time. It's not like you would continuously make antibody. So there are the way we've been developing the cancer vaccine, we're actually giving an even higher dose. So if you think the Moderna initial vaccine was 100 microgram, the cancer vaccine is given at 1 milligram, so 10 times the dose. And we give it repeatedly every three weeks. It's given with a checkpoint inhibitor. And we give it for six to nine months. The duration of how long to give it is unknown. The critical thing to remember though is that for COVID and for respiratory viruses, you need an antigen because you're trying to generate antibodies. For cancer, you need T-cells. Now the beauty of this is that once you get an mRNA inside the cell, it'll make whatever protein or polypeptide you actually teach it. And if you go and code for, which we have in the vaccine, for 34 little class 1 epitopes in one polypeptide, as that thing comes off the ribosome, from an evolutionary perspective, it's junk. It's not going to fold to any protein. Therefore, it gets shuttled to the misfolding machinery preferentially presented on class 1. So without intending to, by now working with evolution, we've actually stumbled on a platform that is the ideal platform to generate a T-cell response. Interesting. Any questions from the audience? Probably, Dan, potentially, if we do have resistant clones, tumor clones, we could revaccinate a new vaccine, personalized vaccine for resistant clones? Yes, but I don't want to minimize the technical challenge. Theoretically, that's possible. Ideally, what would happen is we'd get a response, cancer would go away, comes back five years later, we make a new vaccine. Yeah, I'm okay with that world. We have to get to the first part first. Okay. I have a quick question. How political was the process? In the lay press, there was a lot of esteemed politicians, I'll leave it at that, who sort of took credit for pushing it through, where a lot of people were blamed. But from your perspective, how political was it and did it delay things, or did it actually expedite the process? Let me answer it this way. I used to have meetings in the mornings with my team when I'd meet the new recruits, and as a talking point, I'd give them three words that we think of as bad, and I'd explain why they're good. And they were bureaucracy, politics, and hierarchy. Okay? Politics is, in my book, not a bad word in the sense that, and this was a personal learning for me, if you want to translate science to medicine, which is what I'm passionate about, if you're not going to be able to translate your medicine into politics, politics being the thing that unites us as human beings for a shared goal and purpose, if we can't translate our medicine into politics, our medicine won't go anywhere and people won't have access. Now, we live in an era that is super divisive in every aspect of our public life. Why would this be different, right? I don't think this was specific to vaccines. I step back and look at it as part of the bigger macro. I'll tell you my personal learning was figuring out how does one actually work with politics in the current era, and the most, I think, important learning that I can point back from that period was in the late summer of 20, as the phase 3 trial is running and everybody is kind of hoo-hawing, when are you going to have data, what's the trial look like, a lot of the journalists came to me asking, you know, I don't understand. When's the trial going to read out? How have you designed it? Why have you designed it like that? And they were really questioning my motives at the end of the day. Well, I went back inside the company and we had a long debate. Should we put our protocol for the whole public to see? Just publish the damn thing. And, you know, industry never does that, but I figured in this era, what better way than transparency to actually change the public debate? And so we did that, and in September we actually published our protocol unredacted on the web. And two things happened. First, the sky didn't fall. But second, more importantly, every other pharma followed suit within the next 48 hours. Pfizer within six, so you could see they were ready with a trigger. They just wanted to see who was going to pull it first. But the dialogue then with the public changed because now people came and asked me, hey, Tal, you know, page 83, paragraph B, when you talk about power, can you explain to me how that works? Right? It was all out in the open. And so I think it taught me that one of the most sacred duties we have is to actually engage with the public and tell the story and do that in a way that's transparent. That's the only tool I could come up with. That and personal example, of course, yeah, I got vaccinated and my mom did with Pfizer, everything's good. I don't have any other tools with which to influence the politics, and the politics matter, because without that people aren't going to trust what it is we do, and therefore they won't have access to the beauty of what science can actually offer the world. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. I want to close out this session, but two things I want to do first. One... So first I want to acknowledge you with this award. Thank you. We don't have a photographer here. Thank you. The only thing I have to add, though, is I'm accepting this on... I do appreciate this, but I have to say that I'm accepting it on behalf of all my colleagues and the innumerable number of people who actually did the work while I get to get on stages and talk about it. Wow. We're very appreciative. And... Very appreciative. And I just want to say that this couldn't have been possible without the generous donation and grant from the GOG Foundation. So it's so aligned, and we're so pleased that you accepted our invitation. Thanks again. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so what we're going to do next is take just a short transition time to welcome in for the Tumor Board, which will be optimizing available resources in management of cervical cancer and LMIC, endometrial cancer, and molecular profiling. That will begin here in five minutes. Thank you again.

mRNA vaccines

development

applications

scientific advancements

COVID-19 vaccine

collaboration

cancer vaccines