GSK plc American Depositary Shares (Each representing two Ordinary Shares) Morgan Stanley 24th Annual Global Healthcare Conference

Yeah. Well, Sarita, first of all, thank you very much for the kind invite. It is great to be with everyone today. It is great to be at this conference as well, too. I know I was here last year as well, too, so fantastic. With that in mind, probably just reflecting a little bit on the past four years of oncology at GSK, I think everyone is well aware, of course, that we had stepped away in 2014. We have come back. But I think probably if you ask me what was the secret recipe in all this, it is focus. It is focus, it is being very methodical in terms of how we have approached the rebuild that has taken so far with GSK.

It is not often that a big pharma company steps away from the field of oncology and then tries to reenter it, and then when it reenters it starts to have a lot of great success moving forward as well, too. But I think it was probably owing to a number of key variables. First, we really tried, to your point, focus on disease areas where we felt like the unmet need continues to exist and where we can establish key capabilities across talent, disease knowledge, and of course, better characterizing the biology of the disease as well, too, to help drive discovery research efforts, but also a translational focus as well, too. Let alone the fact that not only did we rebuild these capabilities in these key disease areas, but also we reestablished our medical affairs presence and commercialization efforts as well, too.

We started first in key heme malignancies, so across multiple myeloma, myelofibrosis. I think everyone's well aware, of course, belantamab mafodotin and momelotinib, or OJJAARA, has been the key pillars in heme malignancies for us, but also building on the success that we've had with ZEJULA and, of course, dostarlimab as well, JEMPERLI, across ovarian and endometrial cancer, respectively, in gynecological malignancies. From there, we started to continue to add additional tumor types that we felt like, again, where our capabilities could be built, and the depth of experience could be developed, and then where we felt like the unmet need continues to exist. Now that has expanded to thoracic malignancies, lung, and head and neck, GI malignancies with a focus emphasis on colorectal cancer, again, building on the success that we've had with JEMPERLI. Then finally now starting to move into prostate cancer as well, too.

Certainly, we just are starting to initiate three phase III studies with our B7-H3 or Ris-Rez antibody drug conjugate. We're also building a portfolio of assets that are giving us a good critical mass across different therapeutic modalities in prostate cancer as well, too. This has all been, I would probably say, a mixture of organic growth, so in-house portfolio discovery research efforts, but also inorganic growth. A lot of business development. You've seen some of the recent BD deals that we've done. I think probably Nuvalent is the most notable. Then at the same point in time, just this morning, we announced another licensing for a tri-specific immune cell engager in multiple myeloma as well.

Yeah. I think it's a really key question. Probably over the past few years, if you asked me about what is the philosophy that we've had around our business development activities in oncology specifically, I would say first and foremost, there is a framework that we follow. The framework goes along the lines of the following. One, is the licensing or acquisition going to address a key unmet need that we feel like is very unique at this time? That's the first point. The second really is around the medicine or the medicines that are involved, and specifically with regards to, are they differentiated in the context of their medicinal design, in terms of their mechanism of action, in terms of the pharmacology and the properties that they offer? Do they provide what is the potential for a best-in-class profile?

The third, is there preliminary clinical data that exists that gives us additional confidence in the probability of technical success of the assets? The fourth, of course, does it align to key strategic disease areas of interest for GSK and where we have these capabilities that have been developed across R&D, medical, and commercial? When I think about Nuvalent, certainly it's not just a singular asset. I think we have to think about it's not a one-asset deal, it's actually two key assets, and then there's also a discovery pipeline of programs as well. The two key assets, of course, are neladalkib, which is a fourth-generation ALK inhibitor with a best-in-class potential. Then, of course, also zidesamtinib or Jideytro, which was just approved in July of this year in ROS1 mutated patients as well, or ROS1 positive patients as well.

Again, two assets, I think the deal size quite large, but we've also done deals across the board. Everything that has ranged from GBP 1 billion to GBP 2 billion. For example, the Sierra Oncology acquisition for momelotinib was about maybe GBP 2 billion. The IDRx acquisition for velzatinib was about maybe GBP 2 billion. We've done larger deals. I think that the bottom line really is it depends on what type of synergy complementarity and the profile of the deal itself and how it adds to our existing portfolio. I think if you look at Nuvalent, for example, I think it probably now gives us that piece that helps us form what is a franchise in lung cancer. Two different assets, highly differentiated, best in cost potential.

Then we have our Ris-Rez B7-H3 ADC, which we actually just presented, certainly, through our partners, phase III data for, at World Conference on Lung Cancer. We've got a lung franchise that's emerging as well for us in that context as well. Moving forward, what do I expect in terms of deals? I think probably, across the range of everything that we've done from either licensing, like this morning, of course, this tri-specific T-cell engager and multiple myeloma, to acquisitions that we've done, like IDRx and certainly Sierra Oncology. When it happens, and it depends, certainly larger deals could exist if they present themselves as well.

Yeah. Probably it is an interesting, for me, time to reflect on the progress that we have made, but also where the pipeline is at right now as well, too. I think if you look at it, four years ago, we did not have many medicines approved. We have got five medicines approved now, a sixth to be approved by the end of the year, which is, of course, neladalkib has a PDUFA date in November of this year. But also three additional assets, B7-H3, B7-H4, and velzatinib, that are likely to hopefully make it to the market by the 2028, 2029 timeframe as well, too. Biggest opportunities, I think, no doubt, B7-H3 is a key asset, just owing to its broad expression profile across a number of different solid tumors. So that includes, of course, thoracic malignancies, GI malignancies, GU malignancies like prostate cancer as well, too.

We oftentimes refer to it as a pipeline and an asset, right? Just given how broad its applicability is. B7-H4, Mo-Rez as well, too, especially in gynecologic malignancies, velzatinib and GIST, and then probably there, people might look at GIST at face value as a relatively more orphan patient segment. But I think duration of therapy is really important, and I think when we look at, for example, imatinib or Gleevec now, and the fact that it delivers probably somewhere between 28 to 32 months, or 33 months, a median PFS in frontline GIST, you are looking for a meaningful improvement over that. So duration of therapy is a critical element, similar to probably how we look at the Nuvalent assets as well, too. Nela and zidesamtinib. If we are thinking about ROS1 positive patients, about 2% of lung cancer, ALK positive patients, about 4% of lung cancer.