ESMO 2026 Gyn Cancer Slides

[Slide 1] 1 96% of tumours were B7-H4+ and Mo-Rez responses were seen across B7-H4 expression levels 2 Cathepsin B (CTSB), which cleaves the linker, was elevated in responders 3 TOP1 expression, involved in payload sensitivity, tended to be higher in responders 4 Matrix remodelling, which enables ADC penetration into the tumour, and immune-related pathways were associated with response Legend: Mo-Rez; Linker-payload; B7-H4; Immune cell

[Slide 1] [Photo of ESMO hall with main screen in background (illegible) and a MacBook in foreground showing livestream; menu bar: Chrome File Edit View History Bookmarks Profiles Tab Window Help; Sat 24 Oct 08:57] 08:30 - 10:00 Rapid oral 2: Gynaecological cancers CHAIRS: PHILIPP HARTER, CAMILLA NERO, ELS VAN NIEUWENHUYSEN Mo-Rez was associated with rapid and deep responses at the 5.8 mg/kg Q3W dose [QR code: Scan Me] Mo-Rez 2.8 mg/kg Q3W (N=45): cORR* (95% CI): 36% (21.9, 51.2); CR: 2 (4%) patients; PR: 14 (31%) patients Mo-Rez 4.8 mg/kg Q3W (N=46): cORR* (95% CI): 57% (41.1, 71.1); CR: 4 (9%) patients; PR: 22 (48%) patients Mo-Rez 5.8 mg/kg Q3W (N=45): cORR* (95% CI): 62% (46.5, 76.2); CR: 5 (11%) patients; PR: 23 (51%) patients [Waterfall plots per dose; Y axis: Best Percent Change from Baseline in Sum of Target Lesion Diameters] Mo-Rez dose, mg/kg Q3W 2.8 4.8 5.8 mTTR, days (IQR) 80.0 (42.5, 85.5) 80.0 (43.0, 121.0) 42.0 (41.5, 50.5) mDpR†, % (IQR) −28.6 (−51.1, −11.1) −38.2 (−60.0, −21.4) −45.5 (−78.3, −27.3) Responses were observed across a range of B7-H4 expression levels (scan QR code) [Footnote small:] DCO: 30 June 2026. Efficacy analysed in all randomised patients. [rest illegible] BEHOLD-1 [logo] Vanda Salutari Mocertatug rezetecan (Mo-Rez) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC): Updated results with longer follow-up from the global BEHOLD-1 study BURGOS AUDITORIUM - HALL 3 [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo]

[Slide 1] Genes linked to ADC MoA were elevated in responders WTS used to characterise differential gene/pathway expression (all Mo-Rez dose levels combined) CTSB, responsible for cleaving the linker to release the TOP1i payload, was elevated* [Box plot: CTSB expression, log2(1+TPM); Responders (CR/PR) vs Non-responders (SD/PD/NE); p=0.02] TOP1, involved in payload sensitivity, tended to be higher† [Box plot: TOP1 expression, log2(1+TPM); Responders (CR/PR) vs Non-responders (SD/PD/NE); p=0.094] Matrix remodelling, which enables ADC penetration into the tumour, was elevated‡ [Box plot: GSVA scores; Responders (CR/PR) vs Non-responders (SD/PD/NE); p=0.00065] Nominal p-values. Data were analysed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. *Correlations between CTSB RNA levels and Mo-Rez response (responders, n=34; non-responders, n=35). †Correlations between TOP1 RNA levels and Mo-Rez response (responders, n=34; non-responders, n=35). ‡GSVA was applied to WTS data to analyse 29 TME signatures in Mo-Rez responders (n=34) and non-responders (n=35). ADC, antibody-drug conjugate; CR, complete response; CTSB, cathepsin B; GSVA, gene set variation analysis; MoA, mechanism of action; Mo-Rez, mocertatug rezetecan; NE, not evaluable; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; RNA, ribonucleic acid; SD, stable disease; TME, tumour microenvironment; TOP1, topoisomerase 1; TOP1i, topoisomerase 1 inhibitor; TPM, transcripts per million; WTS, whole-transcriptome sequencing. [BEHOLD-1 logo] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo]

[Slide 1] Interim OS: dMMR subpopulation Favourable OS trend with CP+D and CP+D+O vs CP; mOS not reached 24 months: 86.9% (CP+D+O), 82.3% (CP+D), 58.6% (CP) 36 months: 82.1% (CP+D+O), 73.4% (CP+D), 51.6% (CP) | CP (N=49) | CP+D (N=46) | CP+D+O (N=48) Events, n (%) | 24 (49.0) | 17 (37.0) | 13 (27.1) mOS (95% CI),a months | 50.2 (17.3–NR) | NR (NR–NR) | NR (NR–NR) HR (95% CI) vs CPb | | 0.57 (0.30–1.05) | 0.43 (0.21–0.83) HR (95% CI) vs CP+Db | | | 0.74 (0.35–1.51) Data maturity 37.8% Curves: Durvalumab + olaparib arm; Durvalumab arm; Control arm OS (%) ; Time since randomisation (months) 0-66 No. at risk Durvalumab + olaparib arm: 48 47 45 40 40 40 39 37 37 36 35 34 34 34 32 30 27 21 14 8 2 1 0 Durvalumab arm: 46 44 44 43 41 40 39 37 37 35 34 34 32 28 28 27 25 20 14 9 4 2 0 Control arm: 49 46 40 36 34 33 29 27 25 25 25 23 22 22 22 21 16 14 9 5 3 0 0 Footnote (small, partly blurred): Prespecified exploratory analysis. The median (range) duration of follow-up in dMMR patients censored for OS was 52.1 months [range partly illegible] in the control arm, 52.1 months [range partly illegible] in the durvalumab arm and 52.2 months [range partly illegible] in the durvalumab + olaparib arm. OS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. aCI for median OS derived based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method; bThe HRs and CIs were estimated from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. Shannon N. Westin [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Interim overall survival, dMMR subpopulation (prespecified exploratory) CP (control) | 49 | 50.2 mo | 17.3–NR CP+D (durvalumab) | 46 | NR | NR–NR CP+D+O (durvalumab + olaparib) | 48 | NR | NR–NR HR: CP+D vs CP 0.57; CP+D+O vs CP 0.43; CP+D+O vs CP+D 0.74 HR CI: 0.30–1.05; 0.21–0.83; 0.35–1.51 {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '86.9%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '82.3%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '58.6%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '82.1%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '73.4%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '51.6%', 'ci': None} Note: Data maturity 37.8%. HRs from unstratified Cox model. No p-values printed. Landmark color-to-arm mapping inferred from label colors (magenta=CP+D+O, blue=CP+D, grey=CP). [Slide 2] TFST: ITT population (secondary endpoint) Favourable mTFST with CP+D and CP+D+O vs CP | CP (N=241) | CP+D (N=238) | CP+D+O (N=239) Events, n (%) | 190 (78.8) | 168 (70.6) | 159 (66.5) mTFST (95% CI),a months | 10.8 (10.2–12.7) | 13.6 (11.3–16.6) | 21.4 (18.1–30.2) HR (95% CI) vs CPb | | 0.79 (0.64–0.97) | 0.61 (0.49–0.75) Data maturity 72.0% Curves: Durvalumab + olaparib arm; Durvalumab arm; Control arm Patients free from first subsequent therapy or death (%) ; Time since randomisation (months) 0-69 No. at risk Durvalumab + olaparib arm: 239 229 210 184 167 147 132 116 107 102 97 88 82 75 70 65 49 40 28 16 9 3 1 0 Durvalumab arm: 238 221 204 170 123 107 95 85 81 74 67 64 63 58 55 55 49 36 21 14 8 4 0 0 Control arm: 241 226 200 147 108 82 69 61 55 53 51 47 45 42 38 35 29 23 14 7 3 2 1 0 mTFST, median time from randomisation to first subsequent therapy or death. TFST rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. aCI for median TFST derived based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method; bThe HRs were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The CI was calculated using a profile likelihood approach. Shannon N. Westin [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST), ITT, secondary endpoint CP (control) | 241 | 10.8 mo | 10.2–12.7 CP+D | 238 | 13.6 mo | 11.3–16.6 CP+D+O | 239 | 21.4 mo | 18.1–30.2 HR: CP+D vs CP 0.79; CP+D+O vs CP 0.61 HR CI: 0.64–0.97; 0.49–0.75 Note: Data maturity 72.0%. Stratified Cox model. No p-values or landmark rates printed. [Slide 3] Interim OS: ITT population (key secondary endpoint) Clinically meaningful improvement in mOS of 11.5 months with CP+D+O vs CP Favourable OS trend for CP+D vs CP 24 months: 71.4% (CP+D+O), 64.0% (CP+D), 61.1% (CP) 36 months: 63.4% (CP+D+O), 55.5% (CP+D), 52.0% (CP) | CP (N=241) | CP+D (N=238) | CP+D+O (N=239) Events, n (%) | 136 (56.4) | 123 (51.7) | 115 (48.1) mOS (95% CI),a months | 39.6 (30.3–49.2) | 40.7 (34.7–57.9) | 51.1 (44.2–NR) HR (95% CI) vs CPb | | 0.87 (0.68–1.11) p=0.259 | 0.77 (0.60–0.98) p=0.037 HR (95% CI) vs CP+Db | | | 0.87 (0.67–1.12) p=0.282 Overall data maturity 52.1% Curves: Durvalumab + olaparib arm; Durvalumab arm; Control arm OS (%) ; Time since randomisation (months) 0-69 No. at risk Durvalumab + olaparib arm: 239 234 227 209 204 193 180 174 162 157 150 146 139 131 125 117 96 71 46 31 13 6 2 0 Durvalumab arm: 238 228 222 206 194 185 171 152 144 137 131 126 121 114 106 104 93 75 54 32 14 4 0 0 Control arm: 241 229 215 201 186 173 157 147 140 132 130 124 119 114 109 106 82 63 41 23 11 5 1 0 OS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. aCI for median OS derived based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method; bThe HRs were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The CI was calculated using a profile likelihood approach. P-values were calculated using a stratified log-rank test. Two-sided significance levels were 0.0184 (CP+D vs CP) and 0.0165 (CP+D+O vs CP). Shannon N. Westin [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Interim overall survival, ITT (key secondary endpoint) CP (control) | 241 | 39.6 mo | 30.3–49.2 CP+D | 238 | 40.7 mo | 34.7–57.9 CP+D+O | 239 | 51.1 mo | 44.2–NR HR: CP+D vs CP 0.87; CP+D+O vs CP 0.77; CP+D+O vs CP+D 0.87 HR CI: 0.68–1.11; 0.60–0.98; 0.67–1.12 P: CP+D vs CP p=0.259; CP+D+O vs CP p=0.037; CP+D+O vs CP+D p=0.282 {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '71.4%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '64.0%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '61.1%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '63.4%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '55.5%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '52.0%', 'ci': None} Note: Overall data maturity 52.1%. Two-sided significance levels 0.0184 (CP+D vs CP) and 0.0165 (CP+D+O vs CP) — p=0.037 did NOT cross the 0.0165 boundary (conclusions slide: statistical significance not met at this second interim). Landmark color-to-arm mapping inferred from label colors. [Slide 4] Conclusions • DUO-E met its dual primary PFS endpoints, leading to regulatory approvals for CP + durvalumab followed by durvalumab and CP + durvalumab followed by durvalumab + olaparib for advanced/recurrent EC • At this second interim OS analysis, statistical significance was not met, however: – OS was favourable with CP+D vs CP in the ITT and dMMR populations – There were clinically meaningful mOS improvements with CP+D+O vs CP of 11.5 and 8.0 months in the ITT and pMMR populations, respectively, and a favourable OS trend in the dMMR subpopulation • Consistent benefits in TFST, TSST and TDT were observed in the ITT population with both treatment arms vs control • Safety across treatment arms continues to be generally consistent with the known profiles of each individual agent, with no new safety signals identified since DCO1 • OS will be formally retested at the final analysis Favourable DUO-E interim OS results and post-progression endpoints further support CP + durvalumab followed by durvalumab or durvalumab + olaparib as treatments for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer Scan for: • Plain-language infographic • Slides Copies of this presentation obtained through QR code are for personal use only and may not be reproduced without written permission of the authors. Shannon N. Westin

[Slide 1] Proffered paper: Gynaecological cancers 14:45 - 16:15; Chairs: Antonio González-Martín, Vicky Makker Conclusions - DUO-E met its dual primary PFS endpoints, leading to regulatory approvals for CP + durvalumab followed by durvalumab and CP + durvalumab followed by durvalumab + olaparib for advanced/recurrent EC - At this second interim OS analysis, statistical significance was not met, however: - OS was favourable with CP+D vs CP in the ITT and dMMR populations - There were clinically meaningful mOS improvements with CP+D+O vs CP of 11.5 and 8.0 months in the ITT and pMMR populations, respectively, and a favourable OS trend in the dMMR subpopulation - Consistent benefits in TFST, TSST and TDT were observed in the ITT population with both treatment arms vs control - Safety across treatment arms continues to be generally consistent with the known profiles of each individual agent, with no new safety signals identified since DCO1 - OS will be formally retested at the final analysis Favourable DUO-E interim OS results and post-progression endpoints further support CP + durvalumab followed by durvalumab or durvalumab + olaparib as treatments for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer Shannon N. Westin Side panel: Shannon Westin - Durvalumab (D) plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) followed by D with or without olaparib (O) in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (a/rEC): Interim overall survival (OS) and safety from the randomised phase 3 DUO-E/GOG-3041/ENGOT-EN10 study [Slide 2] Interim OS: ITT population (key secondary endpoint) Clinically meaningful improvement in mOS of 11.5 months with CP+D+O vs CP Favourable OS trend for CP+D vs CP 24 months: 71.4% / 64.0% / 61.1% 36 months: 63.4% / 55.5% / 52.0% | CP (N=241) | CP+D (N=238) | CP+D+O (N=239) Events, n (%) | 136 (56.4) | 123 (51.7) | 115 (48.1) mOS (95% CI),a months | 39.6 (30.3-49.2) | 40.7 (34.7-57.9) | 51.1 (44.2-NR) HR (95% CI) vs CPb | | 0.87 (0.68-1.11) p=0.259 | 0.77 (0.60-0.98) p=0.037 HR (95% CI) vs CP+Db | | | 0.87 (0.67-1.12) p=0.282 Overall data maturity 52.1% Legend: Durvalumab + olaparib arm; Durvalumab arm; Control arm. OS (%); Time since randomisation (months) 0-69 No. at risk Durvalumab + olaparib arm | 239 234 227 209 204 193 180 174 162 157 150 146 139 131 125 117 96 71 46 31 13 6 2 0 Durvalumab arm | 238 228 222 206 194 185 171 152 144 137 131 126 121 114 106 104 93 75 54 32 14 4 0 0 Control arm | 241 229 215 201 186 173 157 147 140 132 130 124 119 114 109 106 82 63 41 23 11 5 1 0 OS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. aCI for median OS derived based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method; bThe HRs were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The CI was calculated using a profile likelihood approach. P-values were calculated using a stratified log-rank test. Two-sided significance levels were 0.0184 (CP+D vs CP) and 0.0165 (CP+D+O vs CP). Shannon N. Westin [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Overall survival (ITT, interim, key secondary) CP | 241 | 39.6 mo | 30.3-49.2 CP+D | 238 | 40.7 mo | 34.7-57.9 CP+D+O | 239 | 51.1 mo | 44.2-NR HR: CP+D vs CP 0.87; CP+D+O vs CP 0.77; CP+D+O vs CP+D 0.87 HR CI: 0.68-1.11; 0.60-0.98; 0.67-1.12 P: 0.259; 0.037; 0.282 (two-sided significance levels 0.0184 CP+D vs CP and 0.0165 CP+D+O vs CP - not met) {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '71.4%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '64.0%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '61.1%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '63.4%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '55.5%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '52.0%', 'ci': None} Note: Overall data maturity 52.1%. Landmark arm attribution by label color (magenta/blue/grey). [Slide 4] Interim OS: dMMR subpopulation Favourable OS trend with CP+D and CP+D+O vs CP; mOS not reached 24 months: 86.9% / 82.3% / 58.6% 36 months: 82.1% / 73.4% / 51.6% | CP (N=49) | CP+D (N=46) | CP+D+O (N=48) Events, n (%) | 24 (49.0) | 17 (37.0) | 13 (27.1) mOS (95% CI),a months | 50.2 (17.3-NR) | NR (NR-NR) | NR (NR-NR) HR (95% CI) vs CPb | | 0.57 (0.30-1.05) | 0.43 (0.21-0.83) HR (95% CI) vs CP+Db | | | 0.74 (0.35-1.51) Data maturity 37.8% Legend: Durvalumab + olaparib arm; Durvalumab arm; Control arm. OS (%); Time since randomisation (months) 0-66 No. at risk Durvalumab + olaparib arm | 48 47 45 40 40 40 39 37 37 36 35 34 34 34 32 30 27 21 14 8 2 1 0 Durvalumab arm | 46 44 44 43 41 40 39 37 37 35 34 34 32 28 28 27 25 20 14 9 4 2 0 Control arm | 49 46 40 36 34 33 29 27 25 25 25 23 22 22 22 21 16 14 9 5 3 0 0 Prespecified exploratory analysis. The median (range) duration of follow-up in dMMR patients censored for OS was 52.1 months (2.4 to 62.6) in the control arm, 52.1 months (6.7 to 55.7) in the durvalumab arm and 52.2 months (1.1 to 63.5) in the durvalumab + olaparib arm. OS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. aCI for median OS derived based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method; bThe HRs and CIs were estimated from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. Shannon N. Westin [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Overall survival, dMMR subpopulation (interim, exploratory) CP | 49 | 50.2 mo | 17.3-NR CP+D | 46 | NR | NR-NR CP+D+O | 48 | NR | NR-NR HR: CP+D vs CP 0.57; CP+D+O vs CP 0.43; CP+D+O vs CP+D 0.74 HR CI: 0.30-1.05; 0.21-0.83; 0.35-1.51 {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '86.9%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '82.3%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '24 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '58.6%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D+O', 'value': '82.1%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP+D', 'value': '73.4%', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 months', 'arm': 'CP', 'value': '51.6%', 'ci': None} Note: Data maturity 37.8%. Unstratified Cox model. Landmark arm attribution by label color.

[Slide 1] Preliminary Efficacy in PROC • Median follow-up was 7.4 months • ORR 48% (95% CI: 27, 69); confirmed ORR 43% (95% CI: 23, 66) — 10 of 11 patients had a confirmed response – Prior PD with PARPi (n=14): ORR 43% (95% CI: 18, 71) – Prior bevacizumab (n=19): ORR 42% (95% CI: 20, 67); confirmed ORR 37% (95% CI: 16, 62) • DCR 91% (95% CI: 72, 99) • Median DOR 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.7, 9.4); median PFS 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.7, 9.3) Waterfall: Best Percentage Change From Baseline in Sum of Target Lesions, % (Dose escalation / Dose expansion) Swimmer plot legend: PR, SD, PD, PD at EOT, Ongoing, Death, PARPi discontinuation due to PD, Prior bevacizumab, Dose escalation, Dose expansion; x-axis Days *Including RECIST-evaluable patients with PROC who received INCB123667 50 mg bid orally + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg q2w intravenously in dose escalation and dose expansion.

[Slide 1] Preliminary Efficacy in PROC • Median follow-up was 7.4 months • ORR 48% (95% CI: 27, 69); confirmed ORR 43% (95% CI: 23, 66) — 10 of 11 patients had a confirmed response – Prior PD with PARPi (n=14): ORR 43% (95% CI: 18, 71) – Prior bevacizumab (n=19): ORR 42% (95% CI: 20, 67); confirmed ORR 37% (95% CI: 16, 62) • DCR 91% (95% CI: 72, 99) • Median DOR 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.7, 9.4); median PFS 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.7, 9.3) [Waterfall plot: Best Percentage Change From Baseline in Sum of Target Lesions, %; legend Dose escalation / Dose expansion; reference lines 20 and −30; bar labels left to right: PD, PD, SD, SD, SD, SD, SD, SD, SD, SD, SD, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR, PR] [Swimmer plot, x-axis Days 0–700; legend: PR, SD, PD, PD at EOT, Ongoing, Death, PARPi discontinuation due to PD, Prior bevacizumab, Dose escalation, Dose expansion] *Including RECIST-evaluable patients with PROC who received INCB123667 50 mg bid orally + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg q2w intravenously in dose escalation and dose expansion. RECIST-evaluable patients had a baseline scan and met at least 1 of the following criteria: ≥1 postbaseline scan, ≥63 days of treatment or study discontinuation. bid, twice a day; CI, confidence interval; DCR, disease control rate; DOR, duration of response; EOT, end of treatment; ORR, objective response rate; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free [cut off]

[Slide 1] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo] Raludotatug Deruxtecan + Bevacizumab in Participants With Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer Results for Cohort B-1 of the Phase 1b/2 REJOICE-Ovarian02 Study Ana Oaknin(1); Marta Gil-Martin(2); Ora Rosengarten(3); Carmen García-Durán(4); Ronnie Shapira-Frommer(5); Luis Manso Sánchez(6); Linda R. Duska(7); Antonio González Martín(8); Susana Banerjee(9); Justin Call(10); Rebecca Redman(11); Bernard Doger de Spéville Uribe(12); Paul Johannet(13); Qing Zhao(14); Sandra Re(15); Carmen Gonzalez(14); Karin Yamada(14); Ruth Perets(16) [Affiliations, partially legible:] (1)Medical Oncology Department, Gynaecological Cancer Program, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain; (2)Institut Català d'Oncologia L'Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain; (3)Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel; (4)Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO) and Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain; (5)Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv District, Israel; (6)Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; (7)University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA; (8)Cancer Center Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain; (9)Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; (10)START Mountain Region, West Valley City, UT, USA; (11)The University of Louisville, Brown Cancer Center, Louisville, KY, USA; (12)START Madrid-FJD, Hospital Fundacion Jimenez Diaz, Madrid, Spain; (13)Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; (14)Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; (15)Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USA; (16)Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel [Presenter video feed; panel seated on stage]

[Slide 1] R-DXd + Bevacizumab Showed Promising Antitumor Activity Confirmed ORR per RECIST Version 1.1 by BICR and Best Percentage Change From Baseline in Target Lesionsª R-DXd 4.8 mg/kg + Bev (n = 10): DCR: 100% (95% CI, 69%–100%); SD 2 (20%); PR 7 (70%); CR 1 (10%); ORR: 80% (95% CI, 44%–98%) Median (range) follow-up: 5.8 (2.6–8.8) mo R-DXd 5.6 mg/kg + Bev (n = 15): DCR: 100% (95% CI, 78%–100%); SD 7 (47%); PR 8 (53%); ORR: 53% (95% CI, 27%–79%) Median (range) follow-up: 4.1 (0.8–7.0) mo [Waterfall plot: Change From Baseline, %; 20% tumor growth; 30% tumor reduction] R-DXd 4.8 mg/kg + Bev (n = 10) | R-DXd 5.6 mg/kg + Bev (n = 15) ªIncludes participants treated on or before November 19, 2025. *Indicates that percent change from baseline in target lesion sum diameters was 0% for 1 participant in the R-DXd 5.6-mg/kg group. Data cutoff: February 3, 2026. [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo]

[Slide 1] Cyclin E1 Positivity by IHC Predicts Clinical Response and Is Associated With Improved Outcomes With Azenosertib Treatment Cyclin E1 IHC positive (n=48): waterfall, best % change from baseline; ORR in response-evaluable patients 37.2%; CCNE1 status: Amplified / Non-amplified / Not evaluable Cyclin E1 IHC positive (n=48) ORR, % (n/N; 95% CI) | 33.3 (16/48; 20.4–48.4) ORR in response-evaluable patients, % (n/N; 95% CI) | 37.2 (16/43; 23.0–53.3) Median DOR, months (95% CI) | 5.5 (4.5–15.9) Median PFS, months (95% CI) | 4.1 (2.8–6.8) Overall survival, Cyclin E1 IHC positive (n=48) vs Cyclin E1 IHC negative (n=46) Subjects at risk (0, 6?, ...): IHC positive 48 35 25 15 5 1 0; IHC negative 46 26 14 9 4 0 | Cyclin E1 IHC positive (n=48) | Cyclin E1 IHC negative (n=46) Median OS, months (95% CI) | 15.9 (8.7–21.2) | 7.5 (5.8–12.3) Events, n (%) | 31 (65) | 34 (74) Cyclin E1 positivity predicted longer OS with azenosertib Data cutoff: May 22, 2026. Fiona Simpkins, MD

[Slide 1] Where does more treatment earn its place? Three verdicts — and what each means for standard of care (SOC) TRIAL / SETTING | VERDICT | WHAT THE DATA SHOW | STANDARD-OF-CARE IMPLICATION GY020 (Stage I–II HIR dMMR, RT backbone) | Not earned | 3-y recurrence-free 73% vs 77%, P=.306. 21% stopped pembrolizumab for toxicity. OS immature; both curves superimpose at >90% at 5y. RT alone remains the standard. | RT alone remains adjuvant SOC for stage I–II HIR dMMR endometrioid EC. Pembrolizumab: no role B21 (Resected high-risk dMMR, Chemo ± RT backbone) | Earned — still descriptive | 3-y DSFS 95% vs 80%, HR 0.25, after DFS alpha was spent. Updated DFS and OS still needed. | Strengthens chemo + pembrolizumab ± RT for completely resected HR dMMR EC. ctDNA should not yet guide selection, de-escalation or intensification as SOC DUO-E (Advanced / recurrent, Chemo-IO backbone) | Durvalumab: supported in dMMR; Olaparib: unresolved | dMMR OS HR 0.57 with durvalumab; pMMR 0.95. Olaparib's increment HR 0.87 (0.89 pMMR), CI spans 1, at ~50% grade ≥3 maintenance toxicity. | dMMR: chemo + durvalumab → durvalumab remains the standard. pMMR: adding olaparib is an approved EU option on PFS; await biomarker and final OS Vicky Makker, MD [Slide 2] DUO-E: informing first-line treatment choices Durvalumab: an approved EU option for eligible advanced/recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer Durvalumab–olaparib: an approved EU option for eligible advanced/recurrent pMMR endometrial cancer Evidence shaping first-line care RUBY Part 1 ITT OS HR 0.69 (0.54–0.89) OS HR 0.32 (dMMR) / 0.79 (pMMR, CI 0.60–1.04) NRG-GY018 (OS update 2026) PFS HR 0.30 (dMMR) / 0.54 (pMMR) OS HR 0.56 (dMMR) / 0.86 (pMMR, NS) RUBY Part 2 PFS benefit, no observed OS benefit ITT OS HR 1.20 (0.81–1.78) PARP contribution not separately assessed DUO-E: established PFS benefit ITT PFS HR 0.71 (D) / 0.55 (D+O) vs CP Numerical interim OS improvement: D+O vs CP 51.1 vs 39.6 months OS HR 0.77 (0.60–0.98) P=.037 (prespecified threshold P<.0165) OS significance not yet reached Exploratory D+O versus D comparison OS HR 0.87 (0.67–1.12) pMMR OS HR 0.89 (0.67–1.16) Additional survival contribution under evaluation Maintenance grade ≥3 AEs: 49.5% with D+O vs 26.8% with D Established PFS benefit with further OS follow-up Treatment choice integrates risk to benefit assessment, MMR status, tolerability and patient preferences Mirza 2023; Powell 2024/2026; Eskander 2023/ASCO 2026; Westin 2024/ESMO 2026 LBA37; EMA. Full sources in notes. Cross-trial comparisons are descriptive. HRs with 95% CIs where shown. CP=carboplatin/paclitaxel, D=durvalumab, O=olaparib, NS=nonsignificant Vicky Makker, MD [Slide 3] Olaparib maintenance adds toxicity Maintenance recipients: D n=183; D+O n=192 Grade ≥3 AEs | Durvalumab 26.8% | Durvalumab + olaparib 49.5% AE discontinuation | 8.7% | 20.3% Grade ≥3 anemia | 0.5% | 20.3% Interruption / delay | 38.3% | 64.1% +22.7 percentage points in grade ≥3 AEs Exposure differs. Cumulative toxicity requires context. Patient-reported benefit, dose intensity and persistent toxicity are needed Maintenance recipients are a post-randomization subset. Rates are not a separately randomized maintenance comparison. Vicky Makker, MD [Slide 4] Durvalumab drives the dMMR OS benefit; olaparib's increment is modest and imprecise in both subgroups pMMR: ≈80% of patients dMMR: 54 deaths overall, 30 in active arms [two small KM curve thumbnails, text illegible] Updated OS HR (95% CI) | CP+D vs CP | CP+D+O vs CP | CP+D+O vs CP+D pMMR | 0.95 (0.73–1.24) | 0.85 (0.65–1.11) | 0.89 (0.67–1.16) 36-mo OS, Δ points (arm values) | −1.0 (52.1 → 51.1) | +6.9 (52.1 → 59.0) | +7.9 (51.1 → 59.0) dMMR | 0.57 (0.30–1.05) | 0.43 (0.21–0.83) | 0.74 (0.35–1.51) 36-mo OS, Δ points (arm values) | +21.8 (51.6 → 73.4) | +30.5 (51.6 → 82.1) | +8.7 (73.4 → 82.1) Earlier direct active-arm PFS HR (95% CI): ITT 0.78 (0.61–0.99) pMMR 0.76 (0.59–0.99) dMMR 0.97 (0.49–1.98) Olaparib's OS increment: HR 0.89 pMMR, 0.74 dMMR, neither excludes 1; no dMMR PFS increment (HR 0.97) Vicky Makker, MD Westin SN et al. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:283–99 (PFS). Westin SN et al. ESMO 2026, LBA37 (updated OS). [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: Updated OS (DUO-E) by MMR status {'timepoint': '36 mo', 'arm': 'pMMR CP', 'value': '52.1', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 mo', 'arm': 'pMMR CP+D', 'value': '51.1', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 mo', 'arm': 'pMMR CP+D+O', 'value': '59.0', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 mo', 'arm': 'dMMR CP', 'value': '51.6', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 mo', 'arm': 'dMMR CP+D', 'value': '73.4', 'ci': None} {'timepoint': '36 mo', 'arm': 'dMMR CP+D+O', 'value': '82.1', 'ci': None} Note: HRs from printed table: pMMR CP+D vs CP 0.95 (0.73–1.24); CP+D+O vs CP 0.85 (0.65–1.11); CP+D+O vs CP+D 0.89 (0.67–1.16). dMMR CP+D vs CP 0.57 (0.30–1.05); CP+D+O vs CP 0.43 (0.21–0.83); CP+D+O vs CP+D 0.74 (0.35–1.51). Embedded KM thumbnails too small to read; medians/at-risk not transcribed. Source: Westin ESMO 2026 LBA37 (updated OS).

[Slide 1] Conclusions: Torvu-Sam monotherapy in patients with PROC • Safety data from FONTANA are consistent with a TOP1i-ADC, showing a manageable safety profile of Torvu-Sam across 1.6, 2.0, and 2.4 mg/kg dose levels. • Torvu-Sam demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable efficacy across FRα expression subgroups. • ORR was robust, with deep molecular responses by ctDNA observed. • DoR and PFS results showed sustained efficacy in both FRα-high and -low expressing tumours. These encouraging FONTANA data supported the design of three Phase 3 OC studies: • TREVI-OC-01 (NCT07218809): Torvu-Sam versus mirvetuximab soravtansine in FRα-high and Torvu-Sam versus chemotherapy in FRα-low PROC. TREVI-OC-02 (NCT07851025): Torvu-Sam plus bevacizumab as 1L maintenance in HRD-negative epithelial OC. TREVI-OC-03 (NCT07816666): Torvu-Sam with or without bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in PROC. [footnote, partially cut off] ...ne; HRD, homologous recombination deficiency; OC, ovarian cancer [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo] [Video feed of presenter at podium]

[Slide 1] [Photo of auditorium screen; speaker inset at podium] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo] The reality of second-line Cervical Carcinoma in 2026 [Bar chart; y-axis Overall Survival (mo) 0-35] First-Line Therapy (recurrent or metastatic): GOG-060 (cisplatin), 2001: 6.1 GOG-0204 (cisplatin+paclitaxel), 2009: 12.0 GOG-0240 (doublet+bevacizumab), 2013: 17.0 KEYNOTE-826 (doublet+pembrolizumab), 2021: 24.4 BEATcc (doublet+bevacizumab+atezolizumab+bevacizumab [as printed]), 2023: 32.1 Second-Line (recurrent): EMPOWER (cemiplimab), 2021: 12.0 innovaTV 301 (tisotumab vedotin), 2023: 11.5 -> FDA and EMA approval Phase 3 Randomized Trial Hazard Ratio for Death: GOG-0240 0.71 (98% CI, 0.54-0.95); KEYNOTE-826 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.81); BEATcc 0.68 (95% CI, 0.52-0.88); EMPOWER 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56-0.84); innovaTV 301 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.89) Objective Response Rate - %: GOG-060 31.4; GOG-0204 29.1; GOG-0240 48.0; KEYNOTE-826 68.1 in PD-L1+; BEATcc 84.0; EMPOWER 18.0 in PD-L1+; innovaTV 301 17.8 Tewari K, N Eng J Med 2025; Vergote I, N Eng J Med 2024

[Slide 1] Pattern of failure Different histological subtypes Subtype | Study (n) | Recurrence rate | Local / pelvic | Distant (sites) | Time to recurrence Leiomyosarcoma | Gennari & Ignatov 2026 (n=155, population-based) | 47.8% of LMS metastasise | – | First met site (all uterine sarcoma): lung 68.5%, bone 25.9%, peritoneum 18.5%, liver 16.7% | – Low-grade ESS | Quan et al. 2024 (n=38, recurrent LG-ESS) | – | – | Distant mets 15.8% (lung 10.5%, liver 2.6%); multiple sites 34.2% | Median RFI 22 mo ESS incl. high-grade | Wang et al. 2018 (n=42: LG 24 / HG 16 / UUS 2) | 21.4% (9/42) | Pelvic only 66.7% | Extrapelvic only 11.1%; both 22.2% (specific sites not reported) | – Adenosarcoma | Yuan Z et al. 2019 (n=53; uterine 32) | Uterine 28.1%; overall 18.9% | Local 77.8% of uterine recurrences | Lung 11.1% of uterine recurrences | – [Slide 2] Expertise from two worlds Uterine sarcoma care belongs in a centre for gynaecological cancer AND for sarcoma [Venn diagram: Gynaecological oncology centre | Uterine sarcoma | Sarcoma centre] Pathology, imaging and surgery need both kinds of expertise IV, A | Centralisation and referral network IV, A | MDT treatment planning IV, A | Experienced team Who operates? Mostly the gynaecological oncologist; in selected cases the surgical oncologist, or both together (e.g. multivisceral or extra-pelvic resection, recurrence, metastasectomy) Where is the patient discussed? Every patient in both the sarcoma MDT and the gynaecological oncology MDT Who sits at the table? Gynaecological and surgical oncologists, medical and radiation oncologists, subspecialised radiologists and pathologists, specialist nurses Ray-Coquard I, et al. ESGO/EURACAN/GCIG guidelines for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024;34:1499–1521 [Slide 3] Morcellation: the strongest recommendation we have Avoid fragmentation whenever sarcoma is suspected II, A | Morcellation should always be avoided, especially with pre-operative suspicion of sarcoma (e.g. rapid growth, suspicious MRI) V, A | Patients undergoing morcellation for an apparently benign condition must be counselled on the low risk of unsuspected sarcoma 1 in 352 | women operated for presumed fibroids had an unsuspected uterine sarcoma | FDA safety communication, April 2014 * 11.4% | of sarcoma patients after hysterectomy had been morcellated | Roser E, Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023 (REGSA-NOGGO) 9.2% | tissue spillage despite intact containment bags (n=76) | Cohen SL, Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016 52% vs 23% | recurrence after morcellation vs none in early LMS | Park JY, Gynecol Oncol 2011 44% vs 13% | abdominopelvic sarcomatosis at recurrence | Park JY, Gynecol Oncol 2011 ~3x | higher risk of death in LMS after morcellation (n=125) | Raspagliesi F, Gynecol Oncol 2017 (MITO) * References: Bogani G, Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2016; Cao H, Cancer Manag Res 2019; Ebner F, J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2019. * Not cited in the guideline Guideline: Ray-Coquard I, et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024;34:1499–1521 [Slide 4] Histology drives the surgical plan Practical summary by subtype Subtype | Ovaries (pre-menopausal, stage I) | Uterus-sparing surgery | Surgery at recurrence Leiomyosarcoma | May be preserved (IV, C) | No | If complete resection feasible; metastasectomy in selected HG-ESS / UUS | May be preserved (IV, C) | No | Only without dissemination; consider chemo first LG-ESS | Weigh relapse risk vs QoL; BSO at recurrence (IV, B) | Highly selected, referral centre (V, C) | Repeated resection + endocrine therapy Adenosarcoma, no overgrowth | BSO without proven survival effect | Selected stage IA (V, C) | As LG-ESS Adenosarcoma with overgrowth | As high-grade sarcoma | No | As high-grade sarcoma Ray-Coquard I, et al. ESGO/EURACAN/GCIG guidelines for uterine sarcomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2024;34:1499–1521

[Slide 1] Background - The standard of care for PSOC has remained unchanged for over a decade, but the patient characteristics have evolved - HRD-positive patients achieve longer progression-free survival with upfront platinum chemotherapy + PARPi(1), but those who do recur demonstrate modest response rates to subsequent platinum-based therapy after PARPi maintenance (ORR= ~41.2%)(2) - Those patients with tumors that are non-HRD positive have minimal benefit to PARPi(3) and overall have poorer prognosis - Despite differential outcomes for HRD vs non-HRD positive patients, PSOC treatment algorithms remain unchanged - Given that FRα is highly expressed in high-grade serous ovarian cancer(4), and FRα-directed ADCs have demonstrated clinically meaningful monotherapy activity(5), there is the potential to redefine the PSOC treatment paradigm and address a clinically significant unmet need 1. Ray-Coquard I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2416-2428. 2. Zhang N, et al. J Ovarian Res. 2024;17:55. 3. González-Martín A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2391-2402. 4. Zannoni GF, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(11):5222. 5. Matulonis UA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(13):2436-2445. Abbreviations: Platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC); standard of care (SOC); PARPi, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PSOC, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer; ORR, overall response rate; MIRV, Mirvetuximab soravtansine; cORR, confirmed overall response rate. Chrisann Kyi [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo; presenter video feed]

[Slide 1] Primary endpoint: PFS in Arm C vs Arm A | Ola (n=46) | Ola + durva + UV1 (n=94) No. of events (%) | 34 (74) | 64 (68) Median PFS, months (95% CI) | 5.9 (5.3–8.2) | 8.7 (6.1–11.3) HR (95% CI) | 0.83 (0.68–1.01), 2-sided p=0.066 [KM curve: PFS probability vs Time (months) 0–40] No. at risk (0 / 10 / 20 / 30 / 40): Arm A: 46 / 11 / 3 / 1 / 0 Arm C: 94 / 37 / 14 / 5 / 0 In post hoc analyses, restricted mean survival time at 22 months showed a 2.5-month difference between Arms C and A (95% CI 0.1–4.9; exploratory p=0.043)* *Adjusted for HRD status and prior PARPi Trine Jakobi Nøttrup [ENGOT European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups logo] [CTU NSGO logo] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo] [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: PFS (primary endpoint), Arm C vs Arm A Arm A: Olaparib | 46 | 5.9 months | 5.3–8.2 Arm C: Olaparib + durvalumab + UV1 | 94 | 8.7 months | 6.1–11.3 HR: 0.83 HR CI: 0.68–1.01 P: 2-sided p=0.066 Note: Primary endpoint not statistically significant (CI crosses 1). Post hoc RMST at 22 months: 2.5-month difference (95% CI 0.1–4.9; exploratory p=0.043), adjusted for HRD status and prior PARPi. [Slide 2] Subgroup analyses: PFS in Arm C vs Arm A Legend: Ola (grey) / Ola + durva + UV1 (red) HRD negative (n=104): HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.58–0.92) No. at risk Arm C (0/10/20/30/40): 70 / 26 / 11 / 4 / 0; Arm A: [faint, partly illegible] 34 / ... No prior PARPi (n=116): HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.65–1.01) No. at risk Arm C (0/10/20/30/40): 78 / 32 / 12 / 5 / 0; Arm A: [faint, partly illegible] 38 / ... HRD positive (n=36): HR 1.19 (95% CI 0.74–1.89) No. at risk Arm C (0/10/20/30/40): 24 / 9 / 3 / 1 / 0; Arm A: [faint] 12 / ... Prior PARPi (n=24): HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.58–1.54) No. at risk Arm C (0/5/10/15/20/25): 16 / 7 / 5 / 2 / 2 / 0; Arm A: [faint] 8 / ... [Four KM panels: PFS probability vs Time (months)] Trine Jakobi Nøttrup [ENGOT European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups logo] [CTU NSGO logo] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo] [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: PFS subgroups, Arm C (olaparib + durvalumab + UV1) vs Arm A (olaparib) HRD negative (n=104) | 104 No prior PARPi (n=116) | 116 HRD positive (n=36) | 36 Prior PARPi (n=24) | 24 Note: Subgroup HRs (Arm C vs A): HRD negative 0.73 (0.58–0.92); No prior PARPi 0.81 (0.65–1.01); HRD positive 1.19 (0.74–1.89); Prior PARPi 0.95 (0.58–1.54). No medians printed. Arm A at-risk rows faint/partly illegible. [Slide 3] Secondary endpoint: PFS in Arm C vs Arm B | Ola + durva (n=48) | Ola + durva + UV1 (n=94) No. of events (%) | 37 (77) | 64 (68) Median PFS, months (95% CI) | 7.4 (5.5–8.6) | 8.7 (6.1–11.3) HR (95% CI) | 0.77 (0.51–1.14) [KM curve: PFS probability vs Time (months) 0–40; three arms] No. at risk (0 / 10 / 20 / 30 / 40): Arm A: 46 / 11 / 3 / 1 / 0 Arm B: 48 / 14 / 2 / 1 / 0 Arm C: 94 / 37 / 14 / 5 / 0 Trine Jakobi Nøttrup [ENGOT European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups logo] [CTU NSGO logo] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo] [Survival data captured as a table — no point estimates read from the curve] Endpoint: PFS (secondary endpoint), Arm C vs Arm B Arm B: Olaparib + durvalumab | 48 | 7.4 months | 5.5–8.6 Arm C: Olaparib + durvalumab + UV1 | 94 | 8.7 months | 6.1–11.3 HR: 0.77 HR CI: 0.51–1.14 Note: No p-value printed. Arm A (olaparib, n=46) at-risk row also shown: 46/11/3/1/0. [Slide 4] DOVACC conclusions • In BRCAwt ROC, adding UV1 to PARPi (± durva) maintenance did not significantly improve PFS at the 2-sided 0.05 level • Compared with ola alone, Arms B and C were associated with increased toxicity; only vaccine complications, headache and flu-like symptoms were increased by adding UV1 to durva + ola • Although negative for the primary endpoint, subgroup analyses from DOVACC suggest a signal of effect in Arm C in the HRD– and PARPi-naïve subgroups – These results warrant further evaluation of cancer vaccines in ovarian cancer • Translational research is planned using the large collection of tissue and blood samples from patients with BRCAwt platinum-sensitive ROC treated in the academic DOVACC study – Additional treatment outcome measures, resistance mechanisms and patient selection will be investigated Trine Jakobi Nøttrup [ENGOT European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups logo] [CTU NSGO logo] [ESMO Congress Madrid 2026 logo]

[Slide 1] 2. Impact of HPV Screening at Home KEY ISSUE Suboptimal cervical cancer screening uptake Barriers: limited access to healthcare services, inconvenience, discomfort and inequities in screening participation. KEY INSIGHT At-home HPV self-collection showed comparable sensitivity and safety for cervical cancer screening compared to in-clinic cervical cancer screening. ESMO COMMITMENT ESMO advocates for policies that improve equitable access to high-quality screening services for HPV-related cancers. Clinical Validation of a Vaginal Cervical Cancer Screening Self-Collection Method for At-Home Use: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial Fitzpatrick, MB. et al., JAMA Network Open (2025) [MADRID 2026 ESMO congress logo]