PROCEPT BioRobotics Corporation ($PRCT)

Stephanie Piazzola, I cover medical devices at BofA. And next up, we have PROCEPT BioRobotics. We have Larry Wood, CEO; and Kevin Waters, CFO. So thanks both for being here today.

Maybe we can start with Q1, you just reported revenue which beat by 3%. Systems were a little better and procedures were a little light versus the Street. So maybe you can just start high level with an overview and drivers of Q1 results.

Sure. Thanks for being here. Yes. I think coming out of Q4, there were a lot of questions that a lot of people had. We obviously had the big inventory reset. And I think there were a lot of concerns about systems being a little soft and pricing being a little soft. And so, I think there were a lot of things that people had a lot of questions on. And what we really try to do is put a high-quality quarter on the board in Q1. I think we guided to the inventory issue being behind us, and we thought we'd be 1:1 on procedures for the full year. We were at 95% in Q1, which I think bodes really well for us being a 1:1 full year. System placements, we're very pleased. We did 47 greenfield placements, and we did at our highest price point that we've ever done, which I think represents the strength in capital, which I think people were concerning was starting to weaken. And -- but our ASP in Q1 was $483,000 per system, which was by far our hardest ever. We guided that we were going to be, handpiece ASPs at $3,500 for the full year. We already achieved that in Q1. We talked about margin improvement. We were at 61% in Q4, and we were at 65% already, which is what our full year guide was. So I think a lot of the things that people were worried about or concerned about and rightfully so, I think we're able to take those off. The one thing is procedure growth. We guided to 12,000 to 12,083. We ended up a little bit lighter than where we want to be at 12,200. But we have our guidance of 60,000 to 64,000 cases for the year. We haven't changed our guidance there. And so we need to have a big step-up in Q2 and continue to step up for the rest of the year. But I think when you look at our financial guidance of $390 million to $410 million, the steps that we've taken on pricing and margin and all those other sorts of things, we continue to feel very good about the guidance that we provided and hopefully having some upside to that.

And then you just touched on some of these, but just overall guidance for the year was maintained at $390 million to $410 million. So yes, there's any other puts and takes that you would call out on the full year following Q1?

I don't think so. I think, again, we need to continue to deliver on the ASP. And we did guide that we think ASP is going to be higher than what we guided to at the Investor Day. But -- we often -- we didn't have any IDN placements in Q1 to speak of. And so when you get large IDN orders, that can affect your ASP a little bit because we provide a little bit of discounting there. But overall, we really feel strong with where those things are. I don't know any comments on guidance, Kevin?

Yes. No, I think we just wanted to continue to take a conservative approach. I mean, Larry and I have both said it multiple times on the call, we feel great about pricing, but there's really no need to get out over our skis. Let's get another quarter under our belt and then we'll more formally update those metrics, but feel great to get about the guidance range.

And then you mentioned the procedure guide implies a ramp to growth in the back half of the year to 50% versus the 31% growth you did in Q1. So maybe you can just talk about what gives you the confidence in maintaining that procedure guide and also in the ramp?

Well, I think as we scale the launch teams and we get more capability to launch more system in the launch team, I think that's one area of benefit that we'll see. I think getting our core utilization team under the new work structure, more focused on their installed base, I think that helps. I think every system we replace is another opportunity to relaunch a system, and I think that those are going to benefit us. And so I think those are all things we got to do, but it starts in Q2. We need to see a sequential step-up from Q1 to Q2. We're going to use the 1,500, 2,000 units from what we did in Q1. And I think if we start to see that incremental pickup, then it's easy to plot out what the rest of the year is. And that's our goal, and that's really the area of focus we have. We have to continue to deliver on capital and deliver on those other things, but we have an intense focus on procedure growth.

Got it. And then on the system ASP, you mentioned this, but just to understand it a bit more, the Q1 ASP level was a bit higher than what you were expecting. But for the rest of the year, you expect that to be in the $450,000 to $460,000 range. So maybe you can just explain that a bit more, like what was that dynamic in Q1 unique versus the other quarters?

Yes. Well, it doesn't imply we're going to get less disciplined again. We're going to maintain our discipline. It's just if you have a -- we didn't have a lot of IDN orders in Q1, I don't think we had really any, and they were all single placements, which I think again speaks to the strength of capital. It wasn't driven by some big order or a couple of big orders. And so I think that that's really good. I think some of the IDNs, we have contractual pricing with them. We have other things with them that is going to be below that $483,000 number. But I feel really good about where we are on pricing. We guided to the $450,000 to $460,000 range. Frankly, I think there's more upside opportunity than there is downside risk for that. But as Kevin said, there's -- one quarter doesn't make a trend. We don't want to get out in front of ourselves on any of these things. We want to deliver. We want to tell you guys numbers, and we want to go hit or exceed them and just keep our head down and -- execution is what's going to take us where we want to go, and we just want to keep the focus there.

Got it. And then on the commercial realignment, those initiatives modestly affected the Q1 procedure growth. Just curious how that trended relative to your expectations? You made 2 main changes where you realigned the commercial team and also created a dedicated launch team. So what was the main source of disruption?

I continue to feel good about all the changes we've made. And I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the changes. I think it's just people have new roles and they have new responsibilities and new expectations. I mean we were just in one of the breakouts and the simple analogy I have is if everybody in this room covers urology and tomorrow, your boss came in and said, I want you to cover cardiovascular, you might be really excited about it. It's an exciting thing and you might be really have to do it. You're going to walk into that job and you're going to have to build new relationships, you're going to have new expectations. You're going to have new companies you follow, you're going to have all those things. I don't know that I'd call it disruption. It's just maturing into whatever the new job is and going through that learning curve. We're asking our core utilization team to drive really same-store sales and to grow their existing base. That's something we haven't really asked them to do historically. Historically, they could live off just new systems coming into their region and live off that growth. And we were a little bit farmers in some ways that our customer would call us on Friday and say, here's the cases I have next week, and we'd say, okay. Now we're looking -- every single system we have has a growth plan associated with it. And that means somebody -- if we have a busy doctor, but they're doing 50% of their cases on our system, we need to figure out how to get them to 80% or 90%. If we have somebody that's doing 100% of their cases, but they're just not a high-volume person, we have to figure out how to get another high-volume surgeon to come, adopt the technology and make that their standard of care. So every account that we have has a different growth model or different growth expectation. But now there's a plan for every single account that people need to go execute on. And they don't get the same priority. They don't get the same focus. but that's what we need to drive to.

And then you mentioned the commercial realignment contributing in the back half is one of the things that gives you confidence in the procedure ramp. So I guess just what have you seen in terms of improvement exiting Q1 into Q2?

I've been really, really pleased that I think people are embracing the change. Even things that you would think externally that would be controversy. When I went to the sales team and said we're going to put pricing floors in and we're going to eliminate this discounting. We're going to eliminate a lot of these things. I expect that at some level, there would be pushback from the team, like I'm taking away their flexibility. I'm taking away tools that they had. And the reaction has just been the opposite. People want guidance. They want guidelines. People are excited now about like not discounting at the end of the quarter and being able to just tell customers, the price is the price, let's talk about procedures, let's talk about other things. And they're not distracted by managing all the supply chain and managing inventory and managing all that. But it is still new expectations for people, and it is new relationships with people. A lot of people got new [ boxes ], some people got new accounts. And they just have to grow into what those new responsibilities are. But there's -- I'll say this, there's no decision that we've reversed. There's no decision that we said that in retrospect, that was a bad decision. I think all of these things are playing out the way we do it. It just takes time. And I used the analogy earlier, you throw all the ingredients in the cake and you throw it in the oven, you can't open the door every 2 minutes and see how it's going. At some point, you have to make all your changes, you have to let it sit and let the leadership do their job, and that's kind of a little bit of the boat that we're in now. But we have now dashboards. We have analytics that we look at every day, the entire leadership team looks at every day. We're not going to get to the end of the quarter and find out there was a problem some place and it's the first we've heard of it. And so I feel like we can significantly improve just our day-to-day execution on things, and that's what we have everybody focused on. Look, it's not easy. It's not easy to grow procedures sequentially quarter-over-quarter. It's not easier to change the standard of care. It's not easy to do any of these things. But all of these foundational steps we've taken are all the things that are necessary to be able to take us where we want to go.

Got it. And then maybe just digging a bit deeper into that on the new structure for clinical and sales functions reporting to a common regional leader. Maybe you could just talk a bit more about how that helps drive procedure growth more effectively?

Yes. Well, I think in the old structure, we had people that only covered cases and they were just clinically based, and they reported up to one leader. And that leader's goals would have just been make sure we do good cases. Like no other goal associated with it. They weren't tied to growth. They weren't tied to execution, they weren't tied to anything. And then you had salespeople over here, and they were tied to a quota and they were tied to growth. But even that, there were other things in their plan that I will call just behavioral science issues that weren't really just tied directly to financial performance and quota driven. But that would mean that sometimes we might have a clinical specialist in a case and he might have the sales rep there, too, because he wants to meet with a doctor and talk about growing the practice. Now I know I don't even have that 200% case coverage because I have 2 people. And by having people go into a common leader, now we can eliminate all of that. If the case is being covered by a clinical person greater than the rep, they have a different set of jobs that they've got to go out to do today to go build the practice to go build a program and do the things that they need to do. And it just allows us to be much more efficient. And the goal that I want is I want the region leader to be the CEO of that region. And I want them to have all the resources available to figure out how to grow their business. And I want them to act like an owner. I want them to act like a CEO. I want them to figure out if I have these 12 people, how do I maximize these 12 people to be able to further the goal for the region. And they just didn't have the capability to do that before because of the way the organization was bifurcated. And then I think our comp plan wasn't necessarily doing as many favors either. Now everybody carries a number. Everybody carries a growth target. And that doesn't mean that we're walking away at all from patient excellence because you can't grow anything if you don't deliver great outcomes for patients. So we don't walk away from that at all. But to say we want to deliver great outcomes for patients and we want to grow, those 2 are not incoherent. Those are there. And for as much as I think the company always had a patient-centric culture, I think the way that they thought about being patient-centric is not how I think about being patient-centric. I think the company thought being patient-centric was every case that came to you, you make sure that patient had a great outcome. And that is certainly important and it's certainly part of it. But when I was in the TAVR space, being patient-centric to me meant every single patient got the best therapy for them. And if we have patients that are getting TURP instead of getting Aquablation, we're not patient-centric. We have the best outcomes in BPH, and I don't think anything competes with us clinically. And so any patient -- almost any patient getting a TURP or any patient getting some of these competing procedures, they're not being well served by getting these things. So being patient-centric means we should be getting all of the patients that benefit most from having an Aquablation procedure. And that would clearly put us in a market leadership position. And right now, we're, I don't know, 10% to 12% of the BPH space, and that's just an unacceptable number. So being patient-centric is a lot more than just doing good cases for the patients that come to us.

And then on the -- you created dedicated launch teams as well. And you talked about a 50% reduction in time from the PO to doc completing their first 10 cases in the pilot rollout. I guess any other positive anecdotes that you would share? And do you think this sort of result can hold up when it's launched more broadly?

Well, I think it speaks broader to -- everybody wants to focus on like the utilization number, and we talk about it all the time. And I don't like the number, everybody else wants the number. And I know why everybody loves it because it fits very cleanly into a spreadsheet. You put in a number of cases, number of systems, divide do the math, and you get to your utilization number. The problem with it is it creates -- trying to sit here and say, we have 800 systems and we want to grow them all 0.3% or 0.3 cases for the quarter. I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you communicate that in terms of the strategy. So I always feel like we have to approach it in segments. And the first segment that we went in intact was new systems. And the -- every new system now, we track time from PO to first case, but we track time from PO to the utilization target. So now every system we place, we place with a utilization target that they're expected to hit very early in their life cycle, and that's the utilization target is well above our corporate average. And it varies by site depending on whether there's one surgeon champion or whether there's 2 or 3, but we put a utilization target in there. And we've been able to show that we can achieve those utilization targets and we can do it in a lot less time. Now this is a capability we have to build. So I think in Q1, 20% of our systems launched under the launch team model. I think we want to be 40%, 50% in Q2. By the end of the year, we want to be launching everyone at -- we want 100% to be launched, but that's the capability. But it's just no regret to me. The best time to get somebody's attention is during that initial honeymoon period. Somebody just paid $500,000 or $600,000 for a robot. They -- that's the time that you have their attention and everybody wants to see what it can do. So if they block out all day Tuesday, they do 5 cases every Tuesday, you're going to wake up 6 months from now and Tuesday is just the process day. And we can do whatever we want in that day because that day is blocked out, staffing knows, everybody knows about it. I think one of the challenges that we've seen in trying to lift some of our legacy systems that the system has been limping along doing, I'll making up 3 cases a month for 3 years. And now you come in and you say, we want you to do 6 or we want you to add a day. Well, the lab is full. The lab is being utilized. Staff is fully used. So now how do you grow the system that's been on this legacy system because your allotment is 2 hours every Tuesday, and that's fact the only time that you have set aside. So we need to maximize that honeymoon period and make sure we get every system performing above that average. So that's the first segment. And that -- and we'll attack that. We have replacements. Every system that we replace is an opportunity to relaunch that system and create an economic argument for upgrading to Hydros. And so we'll go attack that segment. Then we have legacy Hydro systems. How do we go attack those? And frankly, legacy AquaBeam systems, I'd rather just upgrade them. But we need to attack every segment with its own unique strategy, with its own unique tactics because that's the only thing that's going to work. And if you look at that versus going out and telling everybody do one more case every quarter on each instrument. There's no strategy there. There's no tactic there. They're just going out and begging for a case, and that's -- that's just not going to get us where we need to go. And frankly, I think that's why utilization has been a little bit stagnant. And so I think we have a really good strategy. I think we have a good plan. We have to execute on it. People have to grow into their new roles. They have to mature into it. But overall, I just think these are all no regret decisions.

Okay. Maybe shifting gears a little bit to competition. PAE has been topical given the share it's gaining among some docs. So what's your view of the competitive landscape currently? And does that change as you try to expand the types of patients that you're targeting to treat?

I don't think PAE is a headwind for us at all, honestly. I think PAE is a big red herring. It's a procedure that really doesn't get performed in any volume in Europe. And the reason it doesn't get performed is because it doesn't get paid for because it's not a very good procedure. If reimbursement -- if PAE had to compete just on a level playing field for reimbursement. I don't believe anybody would do PAE. It doesn't show any durability for its patients, and it's not a great procedure. But the reason I don't see it as a big headwind for us is I don't believe the patients that are getting PAE are patients that impact us, and I'll explain. And again, I don't have data to back this up. I can't point to a study. I can't point to a thing. It's just my own interpretation from going out and talking to clinicians and understanding the market. If a patient has very mild symptoms, low to mild symptoms, I think a doctor will say, we can do PAE and maybe we can stop your prostate from growing and maybe we can head off you going down this road. Okay, that patient is not going to come and get a resective procedure with anybody's technology. I think that there's another group of patients that had moderate to severe symptoms and they do PAE and it doesn't work. And those patients show back up in a month, and they have the exact same symptoms they had before, and now they're going to be looking for some other procedure for some other thing that's going to work for them. And it's the minority of cases again, there's I don't know, 30,000, 35,000 PAEs that are done. We have 200,000 TURPs that are being performed every year that are done in hospital that we have better outcomes and that have very -- I think we have advantageous economics versus what I like talked about that. But I think that's the target for us to go after. And I think PAE could just be a big distraction.

Got it. And then maybe we can just touch on some of the patient activation activities. Since you mentioned that that's a driver of procedure growth. Can you elaborate on what these activities are? And if they're geared towards a more specific patient population?

Yes, sure. We -- I think when the company was founded, it was founded on kind of the clinical excellence model. And I think there was a little bit of a if you build it they will come sort of model. And they just dependent on the clinicians to build their own practices based on the clinical excellence that we delivered on it. But when we went out and surveyed patients, only 1% to 2% of patients with BPH had ever heard about Aquablation. And for those of you nonmarketing people in the room, that's a very low number. And not something that we were excited about. And so I think part of it is we need to build that awareness. We want people to come in and be asking for Aquablation by name. We want people to understand what the therapy has to offer. And so there's just a huge educational lift that we have to do, and we can't depend on clinicians to do that. We have to depend on patients to do it. But it's also an opportunity to talk about procedures through a patient-centric lens. And this is where I think things have really gotten missed, which is how a clinician might view a patient's journey versus what a patient actually wants. And I think clinicians view the journey as, hey, maybe we'll start with few drugs, which makes perfect sense. Everybody would rather take a drug than have a procedure given the choice. And the drugs are effectively fine. But if the drugs don't work, they say, well, maybe we'll try PAE. If that doesn't work, then maybe we'll try a green light or maybe we'll try a UroLift. And if that doesn't work, then maybe we'll try a resective procedure, then maybe we'll try an Aquablation, we'll try something else. But that's not what a patient wants. When you talk to patients and you survey them, the #1 thing on their list is they want relief from their symptoms. Number two thing on their list is they do not want to have a second procedure. Number three on their list is preservation of urinary function and #4 on their list is preservation of sexual function. But those 4 things are all tightly grouped together. And this idea that one of these procedures is less invasive than another, once a 24-French device goes through urethra tell me how one procedure feels less invasive than another. And I used to say when I was in the cardiovascular space, I think every patient should get between 0 and 1 sternotomy in their lifetime. I believe every patient should get between 0 and 1 24-French devices through their urethra. And when you put it through that lens and you say, what is going to give you maximum relief of your symptoms? What is going to be a one-and-done procedure? What is going to preserve your urinary function? And what is going to preserve your sexual function? Nothing, nothing competes with PROCEPT through that lens. And what we need to do is make sure everybody is looking through that lens. I mean even the guidelines that came out and said, PROCEPT is a good alternative for TURP, especially for men who want to preserve their erectile function. Doesn't everybody -- like is anybody looking for a procedure that destroys that? I don't think so. So even the guidelines, I think, are acknowledging that now, but we have to make sure that patients understand what their choices are. And I believe when patients understand their choice, some of these other things that people focus on, when the doctor says, I could do this in office or it might require an overnight stay, if you think those things are equal, then you might take an office. But if the question is, I can do this in office, it's not going to work very well and you're going to be back here within a year and need to do the procedure or we can do a procedure, you'll be one and done and you'll go home tomorrow and you won't have these symptoms in 5 years, there's a 92% freedom from [indiscernible]. That's a completely different question to ask a patient and let the patient make that. But we need to educate the patient on what questions they need to be asking their clinician, but also grading what is important to the patient and having the patient reiterate that to the clinician. And I think when they do that and especially when they do it with a physician that's familiar with PROCEPT and Aquablation, I think the choice becomes super easy. But we have to -- that doesn't just happen. That doesn't just organically happen. It doesn't just happen through Facebook chats. You have to be very intentional about it. So those are some of the work that we're doing on education, and we're running a number of pilots now in regions. Everybody worries about is this going to get really expensive? We're not doing Super Bowl ads. We're not going out and doing that. We can do very targeted programs and the advantage we have in doing direct to patient in this space, unlike what I dealt with in cardiovascular. In cardiovascular, I had to go after everybody who's over the age of 70. And most patients who have severe aortic stenosis, they walk into the hospital with shortness of breath. And so you're more likely to get an inhaler than you are to get an order for an echo and you had to educate people, shortness of breath means you might have a heart problem. It also might mean you have 10 other things. Every person who has BPH knows they have BPH. Every person taking Flomax is taking Flomax for a reason. We can go target people very deliberately and people don't want to be taking these medications and the medications aren't very effective. So if you can offer them a truly one-and-done definitive solution with great durability and great symptom relief and preserving all the things that matter to them, I think it's a very attractive procedure. So that's the work that we need to go do. But it's a build from scratch. None of this work had been done 6 months ago, and now we're building it out. But that's why we've added Pooja, Hisham to the team. You guys are at the Investor Day, and she did this for me at Edwards, and I'm very confident she can do it for us here.

Makes sense. Maybe turning to the P&L. Gross margins this year, I'm expecting them to be 65% versus 61% last year. So maybe you can just talk about the drivers of gross margin expansion and how sustainable that is?

Yes. As Larry said earlier, we're really pleased with Q1 coming in at 65%, which is our full year guide. And consistent with pricing, we feel good about the trajectory of margins. We didn't want to get out over our skis. We expect improvements throughout the year, exiting probably somewhere around 66% or slightly north of 66%. And the primary driver for us really today is selling more procedures in the consumable side of the business. We're at a point now where we have a good, solid operations team. We're going to leverage that base. But as we shift to a more consumable type of business, that's the primary driver of margins. And feel good still about, obviously, the 65%. But importantly, we gave guidance back in February for 2027 of 68% to 70%. I think we're well on our way to achieving that objective.

And then on EBITDA, you've guided to positive adjusted EBITDA in Q4. Maybe you can just similarly talk about the drivers of the improvement through the year.

Yes. The first thing I want to say is the growth opportunity, as Larry has alluded to, is still huge, and we're still going to invest in this business to drive growth. And that's still priority #1. But right behind that is we understand we have a responsibility to get this business to profitability. And I think we have guided to that in the fourth quarter at a decent amount. And again, looking forward to '27, we still feel really good about the EBITDA range we gave of $25 million to $30 million. And the drivers there on the P&L are primarily leveraging the existing base that we have. So when we look at things like R&D, R&D today is kind of mid-20% of revenue. That ends up being somewhere in the mid-teens of scale. Our sales force, as people grow into their new roles and responsibilities, we will expect the procedure rep today is going to do more per rep in '27 than they're doing today, and we'll get a lot of leverage there. And when you get gross margins north of 65%, you find a business that has the potential to generate a significant amount of profit.

And then at the Analyst Day, I think you also talked about moving to a hybrid support model as a margin driver. So I guess what's the plan for rolling that out?

I'm going to let Larry speak to that, but that was I don't want anybody to think we are doing that or that is a primary lever to get to profitability. If we are in every case in perpetuity, we can still have a profitable business. But with that, maybe to hand off to Larry to speak to you.

The going to a hybrid support model is really not about trying to drive leverage out of the P&L. What it's really about is trying to drive procedure growth. And what I worry about is that we could be losing procedures here and there because a doctor sits there on a Thursday and says, I got 2 more cases tomorrow, I could do Aquablation, but I don't want to call the rep or maybe the restaurant going to be available. I know he doesn't like -- he's always in [ Missou ] on Friday. And what I don't want to do is ever lose any cases because we can't get somebody there. I want our team routinely visiting with our customers. I want them routinely making sure the system setup is being done properly. There's a lot of turnover of staff in hospitals, and there's a setup element to the robot, and we want to make sure that people are doing that right and doing it correctly. So I always want our people in that. There's never going to be something where we don't see a customer for 3 months and they're just written off cases. And I think there's actually -- at some level, there's a risk to the business that you quit pay attention to your customer and you just open the door for other people to come in. So we're always going to be there doing that. I just don't want somebody dependent on us. I don't want somebody saying, if a rep can't get there, if a rep is sick tomorrow, I can't do cases and thus I'm going to have to convert them to something else. So I just see this as a lever for us to be able to continue to drive case growth more than I see it as an operational lever. Now the byproduct of it is if we can cover -- if we can double the number of cases and we can keep our sales footprint the same or grow slightly, obviously, that drives tremendous leverage for us. But it's a byproduct, it's not the reason.

Okay. And then maybe in the last 2 minutes here, can you touch on the prostate cancer opportunity. It sounds like the WATER IV enrollment is going well. Maybe just high level, how you're thinking about the opportunity and path to commercializing that?

Well, I think it's a perfect adjacency for us. It leverages our system. It leverages our handpiece. It's largely the same procedure. We're a little bit more aggressive about how we do the procedure. But we're excited. It's going to be just a year from now that the WATER IV data will be presented at AUA is our expectation. And I think if this does what we expect it to do, I think it could be transformational for patients with prostate cancer. The fastest-growing segment of prostate cancer patients right now is WATER IV waiting. And that's not because people want to have cancer in their body. It's the reality of -- I used to say when a patient was averse to getting a sternotomy, that was a little bit irrational fear because people recover from it very well. And in a year, they do completely fine. But a man not wanting to have a radical prostatectomy, there's nothing irrational about it. The overwhelming majority of men end up with severe erectile dysfunction and 25% to 33% end up with incontinence. And when faced with those choices, men in their 50s and 60s are like, I'd rather live with the cancer in my body and hope on a slow progressor. But that's a terrible thing. And then you add on to it, patients that already have much, they have symptoms from BPH because they have an enlarged prostate, they already had a terrible quality of life. And that's probably a lot of the men that are willing to undergo the procedure. I think if we have a procedure, we can relieve their BPH symptoms. We can -- our incontinence rate in our feasibility work was virtually 0, and our sexual function rate was maintained. I think if we can offer people a great cancer treatment and preserve all the things that are important to them I think it's going to be a very attractive procedure, especially for all these men that are sitting on the sideline waiting with their cancers. I don't believe anybody wants to live with cancer in their body. So we're excited about the opportunity. But it all starts with the data. We need to put a great WATER IV data set on the board. And once we have that data set and depending on the strength of that data, that's what opens the doors up for us to really maximize that opportunity.

Okay. Great. Well, I think we're just about out of time, but thank you both for being here.

Thank you for having us.

Thank you.