Delcath Systems, Inc.

Corporate Presentation (NASDAQ: DCTH) August 2021 Forward-looking Statements

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking statements made by the Company or on its behalf. This presentation contains forward-looking statements, which are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that can cause actual results to differ materially from those described. Factors that may cause such differences include, but are not limited to, uncertainties relating to: the timing and results of the Company’s clinical trials, including without limitation the mOM and ICC clinical trial programs, as well as the receipt of additional data and the performance of additional analyses with respect to the mOM clinical trial, our determination whether to continue the ICC clinical trial program or to focus on other alternative indications, and timely monitoring and treatment of patients in the global Phase 3 mOM clinical trial and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the completion of our clinical trials; the impact of the presentations at major medical conferences and future clinical results consistent with the data presented; approval of Individual Funding Requests for reimbursement of the CHEMOSAT procedure; the impact, if any, of ZE reimbursement on potential CHEMOSAT product use and sales in Germany; clinical adoption, use and resulting sales, if any, for the CHEMOSAT system to deliver and filter in Europe including the key markets of Germany and the UK; the Company’s ability to successfully commercialize the HEPZATO KIT/CHEMOSAT system and the potential of the HEPZATO KIT/CHEMOSAT system as a treatment for patients with primary and metastatic disease in the liver; our ability to obtain reimbursement for the CHEMOSAT system in various markets; approval of the current or future HEPZATO KIT/CHEMOSAT system for delivery and filtration of melphalan or other chemotherapeutic agents for various indications in the U.S. and/or in foreign markets; actions by the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies; the Company’s ability to successfully enter into strategic partnership and distribution arrangements in foreign markets and the timing and revenue, if any, of the same; uncertainties relating to the timing and results of research and development projects; and uncertainties regarding the Company’s ability to obtain financial and other resources for any research, development, clinical trials and commercialization activities. These factors, and others, are discussed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date they are made. 2 Delcath – A Unique Interventional Opportunity ◆ Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (PHP) drug – device platform o Focused treatment to the liver with limited systemic exposure o >200K liver dominant per year in the US and EU – difficult to treat o >100K local / regional liver therapies per year despite inability to treat the whole liver

◆ Late-stage, de-risked program o 29% ORR (interim analysis) Phase 3 result greatly exceeds prespecified success criterion o 1Q-2022 US NDA planned for HEPZATO KITTM in metastatic ocular (mOM) o >1,000 PHP commercial treatments (CHEMOSATTM) in EU (stand-alone device approved under CE mark) provide real world evidence of safety and efficacy

◆ PHP has meaningful revenue potential near term and >$1B TAM longer term o >$300M mOM TAM in US and EU – no current standard of care due to limited efficacy o Existing proof of principal data in additional indications totaling ~100K patients per year

3 High Incidence of Liver Dominant Cancers Partial Set US Liver Dominant Cancers Incidence ◆ Liver a common site of Metastatic Ocular metastases 1,530 1,2 Melanoma (mOM) Often the life-limiting organ for Cholangiocarcinoma patients 2,960 3,4 (ICC) ◆ Prognosis is poor Liver-dominant Breast 2,000-5,000 Overall survival (OS) generally 8- Cancer (mBC) 7,8,9,10 12 months Metastatic Neuroendocrine 9,000 5,6 Tumors (mNET) ◆ Systemic therapies have limited efficacy Metastatic Pancreatic 24,000 7,13 Cancer (mPC) Metastatic Colorectal 35,500 11,12 Cancer (mCRC)

See appendix for footnoted references 4 Current Liver Directed Therapies and Limitations Trans Arterial Chemo Embolization (TACE) ◆ Beads obstruct the blood flow to the tumor and elute chemotherapy ◆ TACE and Y90 are effective, but tumors ◆ 50k – 60K treatments per year in US recur, and retreatment often not possible due to previous disruption of vasculature

◆ Some diseases present with multiple small tumors, diffuse disease can not be treated Y90 with a tumor-by-tumor modality ◆ Radioactive beads delivered into tumor ◆ 10k – 15K treatments per year in US ◆ Many tumors are not imageable – micro- are common The PHP Solution – Liver Focused Disease Control

◆ Liver-focused disease control: PHP system uniquely positioned to treat the entire liver as a standalone or complementary therapy

◆ Limited systemic exposure = responses with better Quality of Life: Hepatic isolation and blood filtration enables delivery of high concentrations of chemotherapy (melphalan) with limited systemic exposure

◆ Repeatable MINIMALLY INVASIVE procedure: Cath lab procedure which typically takes ~2-3 hours

Liver Isolated Melphalan Infused Blood Filtered Via Double Balloon Catheter Directly to Liver Via Catheter Exiting The Liver By Proprietary In Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) In Hepatic Artery Extra-corporeal Filters

6 Metastatic Ocular Melanoma (mOM) ◆ Significant Unmet Need: o Metastatic Ocular Melanoma (mOM) has high incidence (~50%) of liver metastases o 1,200 - 1,500 cases1,2 of liver-dominant mOM diagnosed in US with median overall survival of 6 – 9 months14,15 o Currently no standard of care and therapies have limited efficacy ◆ Lower Risk Indication with High Unmet Need: o FDA granted Melphalan hydrochloride orphan drug designation for treatment of Ocular Melanoma o Efficacy data presented in multiple publications with Melphalan/HDS ◆ Targeted Call Point: o A network of Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) and centers specializing in mOM, allowing for readily accessible patient population

7 2nd Global Registration Trial: Hepatic Dominant mOM

Powered to Primary Endpoint Clinical Trial For Patientswith demonstrate (Objective Response Rate) Hepatic-Dominant Ocular superiority over Melanoma checkpoint inhibitors (lower Multinational, Multicenter HEPZATO Non-Randomized Trial bound of 95% CI TX every 6-8 weeks Secondary Endpoints >8.3%) (N=102 Enrolled, 91 up to a maximum of (DOR, DCR,OS, PFS) Treated) 6 cycles

Prespecified secondary Safety, PK, Quality of Life endpoints include All patients have completed treatment exploratory analyses against Trial History BAC ◆ Initially a RCT against Best Alternative Care (BAC) – 42 patients enrolled, 32 treated in the BAC arm ◆ Patients reluctant to enroll due to BAC offering little benefit and the availability of treatment with CHEMOSAT in the EU ◆ After consultation with the FDA, trial amended to non-randomized, single-armtrial 8 Focus Trial - Preliminary Analysis On 87% of Patients

Preliminary Treated Analysis* Total 123 108

Melphalan/HDS Arm 91 79

Best Alternative Care (BAC) Arm 32 29

* Patients who Met Criteria for Topline Analysis Criteria: At least 2 evaluable response timepoints received prior to 12Mar2021 unless the subject had PD at the first evaluable timepoint or had no scans acquired (and none that will be acquired in the future) after the first evaluable timepoint.

INTERNAL-CONFIDENTIAL Focus Trial – Prespecified Criterion for Success Achieved

◆ A meta-analysis of checkpoint inhibitors (476 patients,16 publications) calculated a 95% Confidence Interval for ORR of 3.6% - 8.3% ◆ Superiority requires the lower bound (95% C.I.) of the HEPZATO ITT population to exceed 8.3% ◆ Lower bound of 20.05% >> 8.3% target - remaining 11 patients to be analyzed will not change the result

Preliminary Intent-to-Treat Population PHP (N=79 treated + 10 untreated) Objective Response Rate 26 (29.2%) 95% CI [20.05, 39.81] Secondary Analyses Possible Against BAC

Enrolled Treated

Best Alternative Care (BAC) Arm 42 32

Dacarbazine 1 0

Ipilimumab 7 1

Pembrolizumab 8 6

Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) 26 25

Strong Evidence of Superiority Versus Check Point Inhibitors and TACE

INTERNAL-CONFIDENTIAL ORR and DCR Versus BAC: Compelling Improvements

Preliminary Intent-to-Treat Population PHP BAC (N=89) (N=39) Objective Response Rate 26 (29.2%) 4 (10.3%) 95% CI [20.05, 39.81] [2.87, 24.22] p-value (Chi-square) 0.0198

Preliminary Intent-to-Treat Population PHP BAC (N=89) (N=39) Disease Control Rate 56 (62.92%) 11 (28.21%) 95% CI [52.03, 72.93] [15.00, 44.87]

p-value (Chi-square) PRELIMINARY DATA - SUBJECT TO CHANGE0.0003 Best Overall Response (Single Timepoint) 44% versus 17%

Preliminary Per Best Overall Protocol Population Response PHP BAC (N=79) (N=29)

6 Complete Response (CR) 0 (7.6%) 29 5 Partial Response (PR) (36.7%) (17.2%) 21 7 Stable Disease (SD) (26.6%) (24.1%) 22 16 Progressive Disease (PD) (27.9%) (55.2%) 1 1 Not Evaluable (NE) (1.3%) (3.5%)

Note: The efficacy analysis population includes two patients without post-baseline assessments and three patients with no evaluable post-baseline target lesion response assessments; these five patients (three PHP and two BAC) are omitted from the above graph. Focus Trial – Progression-Free Survival Almost Triple BAC PHP BAC (N=79) (N=29) Progression-Free Survival (PFS, median) 9.03 months 3.06 months 95% CI [6.24, 11.83] [2.69, 5.65] p-value 0.0004 PFS Status Events 50 (63.3%) 22 (75.9%) Censored 29 (36.7%) 7 (24.1%) Hazard Ratio Estimate 0.41 95% CI [0.246, 0.686] p-value 0.0007

PRELIMINARY DATA - SUBJECT TO CHANGE Serious TEAEs Occurring in >5% of PHP Patients

Focus Trial Category (n=94) Bone Marrow Suppression* 21 (22.3%)

Respiratory and Thoracic Disorders† 6 (6.4%)

Cardiac Disorders‡ 5 (5.3%)

* Most commonly thrombocytopenia (14.9%), neutropenia (10.9%), and leukopenia (4.2%) † Including hemothorax, pulmonary edema, and pleural effusion ‡ Including arrhythmias and cardiac arrest

PRELIMINARY DATA - SUBJECT TO CHANGE HEPZATO Safety - Published Studies and Real-World Evidence

◆ 4 published studies in mOM - 164 Patients o No treatment related deaths o Manageable toxicities o Well-tolerated with maintenance of QoL ◆ FOCUS Trial o 91 Patients treated for a total 356 treatments to date o No treatment related deaths o Toxicities consistent with published studies ◆ >1,000 treatments in real-world clinical practice with strong safety profile

16 2013 Complete Response Letter and Resulting Improvements ◆ In the first pivotal trial there were 4 deaths attributed to PHP : o 2 due to patient related issues (1 hepatic failure and 1 gastric perforation) o 2 due to hematological toxicities (1 sepsis and 1 neutropenic complications) ◆ A new generation filter (GEN2) was designed which is now used in all HEPZATO kits to increase filter efficiency to a mean efficiency of 86% in the clinical setting reducing hematological toxicities ◆ Protocol amendments were put in place to exclude high risk patients ◆ The FDA has stated “the approval decision will not be based on a specific response rate (of which there already are data), but on whether that response rate is sufficient to overcome the toxicity of the treatment.”

Impact of Change to Gen 2 Filter Adverse Event Hughes 2016 Karydis 2018 G3/4 % n % n Anemia 62.9% 44 29.4% 15 Neutropenia 85.7% 60 31.3% 16 Thrombocytopenia 80.0% 56 31.3% 16

CONFIDENTIAL Response to 2013 Complete Response Letter (CRL)

CRL Response CRL Response PDUFA Timeline ◆ 4 categories of issues to address ◆ Early 2022 resubmission ◆ No 60-day assessment for acceptance to file o Medical Device Related ◆ 6-month review PDUFA target

o Human Factors Validation FDA required these issues be addressed to their satisfaction prior to the start of the FOCUS trial o Preclinical Tox

o Overall Benefit - Risk Expect focus of review will be on the risk component of the Benefit – Risk trade-off

18 mOM Patient Flow and Treatment Options 2,400 – 3,0001,2 Patients HEPZATO Initial Diagnosis & Treatment 16 • Enucleation or HEPZATO Efficacy=32.9% CHEMOSAT=27% - 72% 17 • Radiation, PDT 1,200 – 1,500 Medical Oncologist Y90/SIRT Liver-Directed Higher Ideally Frequent Therapy Risk 50% Screening Efficacy up to = 17%18 Treatment 13-46 Months Interventional Gene Expression Decision Radiologist Burden Testing Liver Disease Appears TACE Non-Academic Center Lower Medical Oncologist (less predictable Efficacy up to = 21%19 Risk 50% 300 – 500 referral pattern) Academic Center Less Frequent 900 – 1,125 Tumor Board Screening (Multi-Disciplinary) Systemic Therapy Immunotherapy

Medical Oncologist Medical Oncologist Per meta-analysis - 5.5%20

Tebentafusp (P3)

>75% patients treated in Efficacy up to = 9%21 Academic centers See appendix for footnoted references 19 HEPZATO Stakeholder Perspective and $ TAM Implications

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE US $ TAM IMPLICATIONS

◆ Oncologists see poor responses with systemic therapies ◆ HEPZATO may be positioned as a first-line treatment in mOM due to limited efficacy of ◆ Oncologists believe HEPZATO is a significant advance available therapies over other liver-targeted therapies ◆ Premium pricing feasible ($25K - $75K per ◆ Most oncologists surveyed believe ~80% of mOM treatment) patients with liver mets would be HEPZATO candidates ◆ Assuming 4 treatments per patient and $50K per ◆ Payer & hospital finance stakeholder interviews suggest treatment, TAM >$200M pricing expectations in the range of IO agents (ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy per year $256k)

mOM patients that are well enough Oncologist perception of mOM to receive Melphalan/HDS Patients’ eligibility for HEPZATO (n=12) mOM patients that are well enough to receive HEPZATO and fall within the inclusion/exclusion criteria 20 *Source: Boston Health Associates primary research n=13physicians Commercialization Dynamics

◆ Specialized mOM market allows focused commercial investment o Rare disease, patients seek OM specialists found regionally at top National Cancer Centers and Academic Centers o ~1200/1500 of the patients (80%) will be treated in top ~20 medical centers ◆ Small but specialized commercial team o Strategically placed regional sales representatives to cover 20 centers o Experience navigating hospitals with drug/device combination products and selling to multidisciplinary treatment teams o Augmented with field based clinical support to ensure safe and effective treatments o Experienced Market Access team to support customers and patients

21 European Commercialization – medac Licensing

◆ CHEMOSAT is available in ~22 centers in 3 countries with device CHEMOSAT Used In 13 Tumor Types (CE marked) labeled for the delivery of melphalan across tumor types – distributed by medac ~70%: Metastatic Ocular Melanoma (mOM)

◆ CHEMOSAT added to national treatment guidelines in both Other Types Treated: Germany and Netherlands for Ocular Melanoma liver metastases

◆ Outside of Germany, most of the treatments have been self pay • Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) given limited reimbursement • (HCC) • Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) ◆ National reimbursement application processes to start when full FOCUS trial data available • Metastatic Breast (mBreast) • Pancreatic ◆ In April 2021, NICE (UK) upgraded CHEMOSAT’s status from • Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors “Research” to “Special Status” which will facilitate private pay (mNET) and allow initiation of national reimbursement process • Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma ◆ While revenue modest (2019 €2.2M) due to reimbursement status, (mCM) sales allow Delcath to identify indications with strong efficacy signals

22 Incidence and Evidence of Possible Follow-On Indications

Supporting Indication US Incidence Data ◆ Currently reviewing clinical and commercial data (based on over Metastatic Ocular Melanoma 1,000 commercial CHEMOSAT 1,530 1,2 FOCUS Data (mOM) procedures in the EU and multiple publications) Extensive EU Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) 2,960 3,4 experience22 ◆ Planning a series of medical advisory boards Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (mNET) 9,000 5,6 Phase 2 data 23 ◆ 2021 Goal: Initiate trials in two additional indications Liver-dominant Breast Cancer (mBC) 2,000-5,000 7,8,9,10 ~10 Cases in EU ◆ Post launch, mOM revenue should self-fund the ongoing development Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (mPC) 24,000 7,13 Limited effort

IHP efficacy well Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) 35,500 11,12 documented24

23 PHP Was Designed to Replace Isolated Hepatic Perfusion (IHP)

◆ IHP has documented efficacy across multiple tumor types including mOM, CRC, and NET

◆ Melphalan is the most commonly- used agent

◆ But high treatment related mortality (>5%)

◆ Not repeatable

◆ Few patients eligible IHP Results in CRC Likely to Translate to PHP

Median Response Author, year N Agent survival rate (%) (mos.) van Iersel et al. (2010) 99 Melphalan 47 25 Alexander et al. (2009) 120 Melphalan ± TNFα[alpha] 61 17.4 van Iersel et al. (2008) 105 Melphalan 50 24.8 van Iersel et al. (2007) 30 Melphalan 41 16.9 Alexander et al. (2005) 25 Melphalan 60 12 Rothbarth et al. (2003) 71 Melphalan 59 28.8 Alexander et al. (2002) 7 Melphalan ± TNFα[alpha] 71 19.7 Vahrmeijer et al. (2000) 24 Melphalan 29 19

25 Capital Structure and Share Information

Share Listing Current DCTH (NASDAQ) Shares Outstanding1 8.68M * Does not include the $15M venture debt Cash and Cash Equivalents2 $19.4M * transaction closed on Friday, August 6th Warrants Outstanding3 3.62M Stock Options Granted 1.09M 2021-Q2 Cash Burn (YTD)4 $11.7M Debt5 $2.0M * 52-week Low – High6 $8.50 - $25.18 30d Average Daily Volume7 52,460

1 As of June 30, 2021; includes 7.3M of Common plus 1.2M Preferred E & E-1 and 0.2M Pre-funded Warrants as converted 2 As of June 30, 2021; (10-Q filing on August 10, 2021) 3 As of June 30, 2021; Warrants at a $10 exercise price 4 YTD Net cash used in operating activities through Q2-2021 5 Convertible Note; amended conversion price = $11.98 per common share equivalent and extension of maturity date to 10/2024 6 Used NASDAQ price information starting on June 29, 2020, through June 29, 2021 7 30-day average calculated between May 18, 2021, through June 29, 2021

26 Delcath Systems, Inc. – a Unique Opportunity

Novel platform in interventional oncology

Multiple near-term catalysts (Final data and NDA filing, new indications)

Safety and efficacy supported by multiple trials and commercial usage

Initial orphan indication allows for targeted marketing effort and rapid uptake

Platform has potential utility in multiple indications

27 References 1. Cancer.net Editorial Board (2020) Eye Cancer - Statistics. In: Cancer.Net. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/eye- cancer/statistics. Accessed 22 Jun 2020 2. Ocular Melanoma Foundation. Treatment of Metastatic Disease. In: OMF - Metastatic Treatment. http://www.ocularmelanoma.org/metstreatment.htm. Accessed 22 Jun 2020 3. Patel N, Benipal B. Incidence of Cholangiocarcinoma in the USA from 2001 to 2015: A US Cancer Statistics Analysis of 50 States. Cureus. 2019;11(1):e3962. Published 2019 Jan 25. 4. United States Census Bureau. (2019) Monthly Population Estimates for the United States: April 1, 2010 to December 1, 2020 (NA- EST2019-01). 5. Cancer.net Editorial Board. (2020) Neuroendocrine Tumors - Statistics. In: Cancer.Net. https://www.cancer.net/cancer- types/neuroendocrine-tumors/statistics. Accessed 22 Jun 2020 6. Saeed A, Buell JF, Kandil E. Surgical treatment of liver metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Transl Med. 2013;1(1):6. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2305- 5839.2013.01.08 7. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program Populations (1969-2018) (www.seer.cancer.gov/popdata), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, released December 2019. 8. Adam R, Aloia T, Krissat J, Bralet MP, Paule B, Giacchetti S, Delvart V, Azoulay D, Bismuth H, Castaing D. Is liver resection justified for patients with hepatic metastases from breast cancer? Ann Surg. 2006 Dec;244(6):897-907; discussion 907-8. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000246847.02058.1b. PMID: 17122615; PMCID: PMC1856635. 9. Insa A, Lluch A, Prosper F, Marugan I, Martinez-Agullo A, Garcia-Conde J. Prognostic factors predicting survival from first recurrence in patients with metastatic breast cancer: analysis of 439 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Jul;56(1):67-78. doi: 10.1023/a:1006285726561. PMID: 10517344. 10. Clark GM, Sledge GW Jr, Osborne CK, McGuire WL. Survival from first recurrence: relative importance of prognostic factors in 1,015 breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1987 Jan;5(1):55-61. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1987.5.1.55. PMID: 3806159. 11. Cancer.net Editorial Board. (2020) Colorectal Cancer - Statistics. In: Cancer.Net. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/colorectal- cancer/statistics. Accessed 22 Jun 2020 12. Ismaili N. Treatment of colorectal liver metastases. World J Surg Oncol. 2011;9:154. Published 2011 Nov 24. doi:10.1186/1477- 7819-9-154

28 References 13. Oweira H, Petrausch U, Helbling D, Schmidt J, Mannhart M, Mehrabi A, Schöb O, Giryes A, Decker M, Abdel- Rahman O. Prognostic value of site-specific metastases in pancreatic : A Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Mar 14;23(10):1872-1880. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i10.1872. PMID: 28348494; PMCID: PMC5352929. 14. Xu L, T, Funchain P, F, Bena J, F, Li M, Tarhini A, Berber E, Singh A, D: Uveal Melanoma Metastatic to the Liver: Treatment Trends and Outcomes. Ocul Oncol Pathol 2019;5:323-332. doi: 10.1159/000495113 15. Lane AM, Kim IK, Gragoudas ES. Survival Rates in Patients After Treatment for Metastasis From Uveal Melanoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018 Sep 1;136(9):981-986. 16. Preliminary analysis of FOCUS trial released 3/31/21 17. Karydis I, Gangi A, Wheater MJ, et al. Percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan in uveal melanoma: A safe and effective treatment modality in an orphan disease. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(6):1170-1178. doi:10.1002/jso.24956 18. Tulokas S, Mäenpää H, et al. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) as treatment for hepatic metastases of uveal melanoma: a Finnish nation-wide retrospective experience. Acta Oncol. 2018 Oct;57(10):1373-1380. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1465587. Epub 2018 Apr 23. PMID: 29683787. 19. Shibayama Y, Namikawa K, Sone M, et al. Efficacy and toxicity of transarterial chemoembolization therapy using cisplatin and gelatin sponge in patients with liver metastases from uveal melanoma in an Asian population. Int J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun;22(3):577-584. doi: 10.1007/s10147-017-1095-0. Epub 2017 Jan 31. PMID: 28144882. 20. Meta-analysis: Data on file 21. Piperno - Neumann, et. al. AACR Annual Meeting 2021 22. Ferrucci, P.Fet al. A New Option for the Treatment of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion with CHEMOSAT Delivery System. Cells 2021, 10, 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10010070 23. Vogel, A., Gupta, S., Zeile, M. et al. Chemosaturation Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion: A Systematic Review. Adv Ther 33, 2122–2138 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0424-4 24. Reddy SK, Kesmodel SB, Alexander HR. Isolated hepatic perfusion for patients with liver metastases. Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. July 2014:180-194. doi:10.1177/1758834014529175

29 APPENDIX First Phase 3 RCT Results* Hepatic Progression Free Survival Overall Progression Free Survival Response Rates (ITT population) (IRC Assessment) (INV Assessment)

Proportion of patients surviving Proportion of patients surviving 1.0 3.8 mo 1.0 5.4 mo PHP PHP 0.8 Best alternative care Cohort hOR ORR 0.8 Best alternative care

0.6 0.6 PHP (n = 44) 36.4% 27.3% 5.4 7.0 P<.0001 1.6 P<.0001 BAC (n = 49) 2.0% 4.1% 0.4 1.6 0.4 p value <0.001 =0.003 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Months Months

Crossover design confounded overall survival analysis - most subjects in BAC arm [57.1%] crossed over to PHP arm

* Mix of mOM and metastatic melanoma with >90% patients diagnosed with mOM

CONFIDENTIAL 31 Recent Initial Approvals Using ORR in Single-Arm Oncology Trials

Drug and Approval Type Indication Drug and Approval Type Indication

Danyelza (naxitamab- Relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma in bone or Single trial 43 patients Ayvakit (avapritinib) - Unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal gqgk) - Accelerated marrow post response or stable disease to prior therapy Standard tumor with PDGFRA exon 18 mutation

Gavreto (pralsetinib) - Enhertu (famtrastuzmab Unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast with two or Metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC Accelerated deruxtecan) - Accelerated more prior anti HER2 regimens in metastatic setting

Monjuvi (tafasitamab- Padcev (enfortumab vedotin) Metastatic urothelial cancer with previously received Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cxix) - Accelerated - Accelerated PD-1 or PD-L1 and platinum chemotherapy

Tazverik (tazemetostat) - Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma positive for Brukinsa (zanubrutinib) - Mantle cell lymphoma with at least one prior therapy Accelerated EXH2 mutation Pooled subgroup Accelerated analysis - 51 patients Zepzelca (lurbinectedin) - Metastatic SMLC with progression on or after platinum from 3 single arm Rozlytrek (entrectinib) - trials Metastatic NSCLC that is ROSI+ Accelerated chemotherapy Standard

Tabrecta (capmatinib) - Xpovio (selinexor) - Relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma with at Metastatic NSCLC with mutation MET exon 14 skipping Accelerated Accelerated least 4 prior therapies

Trodelvy (sacituzumab) - Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after at least 2 Balversa (erdafinitib) - Metastatic unrothial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR Pooled subgroup Accelerated prior metastatic disease therapies analysis - 72 patients Accelerated 3(2) alterations from 2 single arm trials Pemazyre (pemigatinib) - Previously treated metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with Vitrakvi (larotrectinib) - Solid tumors with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine Accelerated FGFR2 fusion Accelerated kinase fusion

Koselugo (selumetinib) - Neurofibromatosis Type 1 with inoperable plexiform Single trial 50 patients Libtayo (cemiplimab-rwlc) - Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma Accelerated neurofibromas Standard Secondary Analyses Versus BAC – ITT and Per Protocol Preliminary Analysis Preliminary Intent-to-Treat Per Protocol Population PHP BAC PHP BAC (N=79) (N=29) (N=89) (N=39) Objective Response Rate 26 (32.9%) 4 (13.8%) 26 (29.2%) 4 (10.3%) 95% CI [22.75, 44.40] [3.89, 31.66] [20.05, 39.81] [2.87, 24.22] p-value (Chi-square) 0.0493 0.0198

Preliminary Analysis Preliminary Intent-to-Treat Per Protocol Population PHP BAC PHP BAC (N=79) (N=29) (N=89) (N=39) Disease Control Rate 56 (70.89%) 11 (37.93%) 56 (62.92%) 11 (28.21%) 95% CI [59.58, 80.57] [20.69, 57.74] [52.03, 72.93] [15.00, 44.87] p-value (Chi-square) 0.002 0.0003 PRELIMINARY DATA - SUBJECT TO CHANGE