Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Celcuity Q3 2025 Financial Results Webcast and Conference Call. At this time, all lines are in listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. If at any time during this call you require immediate assistance, please press star zero for the operator. I would now like to turn the conference over to Porvich Lurie with ICR Healthcare. Please go ahead. Thank you, Operator, and good afternoon to everyone. Thank you for joining us to review Celcuity's Q3 2025 Financial Results and Business Update. Earlier today, Celcuity released financial results for the Q3 ended September 30th, 2025. The press release can be found on the Investor section of Celcuity's website. Joining me on the call today are Brian Sullivan, Celcuity's Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder; Vicky Hahne, Chief Financial Officer; as well as Igor Gorbatchevsky, Chief Medical Officer, who will be available during Q&A. Before we begin, I would like to remind listeners that our comments today will include some forward-looking statements. These statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which are outlined in today's press release and in our reports and filings with the SEC. Actual events or results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements and their implications involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results or performance to differ materially from those projected. On this call, we will also refer to non-GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP measures are used by management to make strategic decisions, forecast future results, and evaluate the company's current performance. Management believes the presentation of these non-GAAP financial measures is useful for investors' understanding and assessment of the company's ongoing core operations and prospects for the future. You can find a table reconciling the non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP measures in today's press release. I would now like to turn the call over to Brian Sullivan, CEO of Celcuity. Please go ahead. Thank you, Porvich. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining our Q3 operating and financial update conference call. The past few months were busy and fruitful ones for Celcuity. We made significant progress achieving a number of clinical and regulatory milestones while also significantly bolstering our balance sheet. These achievements lay the groundwork for us to potentially establish Gedatolisib as a new standard of care second-line therapy for patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer. Amongst the key clinical and regulatory milestones achieved, first, we released top-line data results from the PIK3CA wild-type cohort of the phase III VIKTORIA-1 study, and then subsequently presented detailed efficacy and safety results for this study at a late-breaking oral presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology, or ESMO, Congress. We also presented at this ESMO Congress updated clinical results from the phase I portion of a clinical trial evaluating Gedatolisib in combination with darolutamide and then with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Third, we completed enrollment of the PIK3CA mutant cohort of the phase III VIKTORIA-1 trial, and we now expect top-line data in late Q1 2026 or during Q2 2026. Fourth, the FDA accepted our request to submit our new drug application, or NDA, under their real-time oncology review program for Gedatolisib based on the results from the PIK3CA wild-type cohort of the VIKTORIA-1 trial, and we expect to complete the submission this quarter. Fifth, to strengthen our balance sheet, we completed concurrent offerings of convertible notes, common stock, and pre-funded warrants, which resulted in net proceeds of approximately $287 million. We also amended our term loan facility with Innovatus Capital Partners and Oxford Finance to increase the total term loan facility size to $500 million, including $350 million in committed capital and up to $150 million at the mutual discretion of Celcuity and its lenders. Future draws of committed capital under the facility are subject to the achievement of certain milestones. The most consequential milestone of the quarter for Celcuity was, of course, the release of positive data from the PIK3CA wild-type cohort of the VIKTORIA-1 trial. We have discussed previously the historic nature of the results and the new milestones they achieved in HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer. To recap, median progression-free survival, or PFS, for the Gedatolisib triplet, which is Gedatolisib, palbociclib, and fulvestrant, was 9.3 months compared to only two months for fulvestrant, which is a 7.3-month incremental improvement in median PFS. The hazard ratio was 0.24. For the Gedatolisib doublet, which is Gedatolisib and fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.4 months versus 2.0 months with fulvestrant, a 5.4-month incremental improvement in median PFS. The hazard ratio was 0.33. These results set several new benchmarks in HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer. The hazard ratios for both the Gedatolisib triplet and doublet are more favorable than have ever been reported by any phase III trial for patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, ABC. The 7.3 and 5.4-month incremental improvements in median PFS for the Gedatolisib triplet and doublet over fulvestrant, respectively, are higher than have ever been reported by any phase III trial for patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer receiving at least their second line of endocrine therapy. Gedatolisib is the first inhibitor that targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway to demonstrate positive phase III results in patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, PIK3CA wild-type breast cancer whose disease progressed on or after treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. As a follow-up to the release of the top-line data in July, additional data were released at a late-breaking oral presentation in October at ESMO. In this presentation, we reported, among other things, that the objective response rate of the Gedatolisib triplet was 32% compared to 1% with fulvestrant, and the median duration of response was 17.5 months, and that the objective response rate of the Gedatolisib doublet was 28%, and the median duration of response was 12.0 months. The median duration of response for fulvestrant was not determinable because there was only one objective response. These results also established new benchmarks. The median duration of response and the incremental improvement in the objective response rate relative to control for the Gedatolisib triplet and doublet are the highest reported for an endocrine therapy-based regimen in second-line HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer. Additionally, the results demonstrated the clinical benefit of the Gedatolisib regimens was consistent across patient subgroups. One patient subgroup of note, patients enrolled in the U.S. and Canada, achieved median PFS of 19.3 months with the Gedatolisib triplet and 14.9 months with the Gedatolisib doublet. The ESMO presentation also provided detailed safety results that showed the Gedatolisib triplet and doublet were generally well tolerated in the trial with mostly low-grade treatment-related adverse events. Study treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events was reported in 2.3% of patients treated with the Gedatolisib triplet and 3.1% of patients with the Gedatolisib doublet. Now, in the presentation of results from the PIK3CA wild-type cohort of the VIKTORIA-1 study at ESMO, additional data from a phase Ib clinical trial that evaluated Gedatolisib in patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer was included. The analyses reported efficacy data from patients who were treated with the same drug regimen evaluated in the VIKTORIA-1 study: Gedatolisib combined with fulvestrant and palbociclib. These patients were included from the escalation arm B and expansion arms B, C, and D of the phase Ib study. Median PFS and the objective response rate, or ORR, were assessed in subgroups of patients according to their PIK3CA status. For the 30 analyzed patients with PIK3CA mutant tumors, median PFS was 14.6 months, and the ORR in response evaluable patients was 48%. For the 60 patients with PIK3CA wild-type tumors, median PFS was 9 months, and the ORR in response evaluable patients was 41%. Now, let's turn over to our VIKTORIA-2 study, which is a phase III clinical trial evaluating Gedatolisib plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor and fulvestrant as first-line treatment for patients with HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer who are endocrine therapy resistant. We dosed the first patient for this study in late July, and enrollment is ongoing. We believe the positive results from the PIK3CA wild-type cohort of our VIKTORIA-1 study are as well for the potential efficacy our Gedatolisib triplet may induce in this patient population. Now, let's turn to our phase II clinical trial that is evaluating Gedatolisib in combination with darolutamide in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We presented detailed data for the phase I portion of the study at a poster presentation at ESMO. In this portion of the phase II study, 38 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard doses of Gedatolisib, and either 120 milligrams of Gedatolisib in arm I or 180 milligrams of Gedatolisib in arm II. Among the 38 patients enrolled, 61% had received one line of prior systemic therapy, and 39% had received at least two or more lines of prior therapy. The phase I data set utilized an August 15, 2025, data cutoff and median duration of follow-up was 9 months. The six-month radiographic PFS, or RPFS, rate was 67%, and the median radiographic progression-free survival for patients was 9.1 months from both arms combined. For patients treated with 120 mg of Gedatolisib, the six-month RPFS rate was 74%, and the median RPFS was 9.5 months. For patients treated with 180 milligrams of Gedatolisib, the six-month PFS rate was 61%, and the median RPFS was 7.4 months. These results compare favorably to historical results for patients with mCRPC who were treated with an androgen receptor inhibitor as second-line treatment. The combination of Gedatolisib and darolutamide were generally well tolerated in the trial with mostly low-grade treatment-related adverse events. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in either arm. The only grade 3 treatment-related adverse events for patients from both arms combined included rash in about 5.3% of patients, stomatitis in 2.6% of patients, and pruritus in 2.6% of patients as well. No Grade 3 hyperglycemia was reported. Additionally, no patients discontinued the study treatment due to an adverse event. Now, as we near what we hope is an FDA approval for Gedatolisib in 2026, our efforts to prepare for the potential launch of Gedatolisib have ramped up per our strategic launch plan. Foundational to these efforts was the additional cash we raised and the enhanced financial flexibility our $500 million term loan facility provides us. We began laying the groundwork for a potential Gedatolisib launch 18 months ago, and we've since made significant progress building the organization and internal systems required to operate as a commercial stage company. Now, as planned, once the VIKTORIA-1 wild-type data was in hand, our commercial launch preparation efforts significantly accelerated. Except for the field salesforce, we've mostly completed hiring of the individuals needed to execute the launch. We're very fortunate to have attracted an incredibly talented group of individuals who have a strong track record of successfully launching novel oncology therapeutics. Our sales management and customer operations groups have defined our regional and sales territories and our go-to-market objectives for each one. The medical science liaison and KOL engagement teams have done a great job of exchanging scientific information with key opinion leaders and community practice leaders and obtaining important insights and feedback from them. Now, key efforts today include extensive outreach across the country to the payers and population health decision-makers in various treatment settings, including health systems, integrated delivery networks, and community oncology practices that will play a key role in providing oncologists access to Gedatolisib for their patients. We've made strong progress engaging with these decision-makers, and we're very pleased with the feedback and enthusiastic response these efforts have yielded. We're also very encouraged by the results of research we have fielded to gauge the willingness of community and academic oncologists to prescribe Gedatolisib should it get approved. These results make us optimistic about the possibility of establishing Gedatolisib as the new standard of care in the second-line setting for HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer in the wild-type patient population. Now, in light of this feedback, we believe obtaining majority market share in this setting appears not only achievable but potentially too conservative. Based on analysis of published epidemiological data, we estimate there are 37,000 patients in the U.S. with HR positive, HER2 negative, advanced breast cancer who've progressed after treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Now, using internal duration of treatment estimates and pricing assumptions consistent with currently available novel therapeutics for breast cancer, we estimate the total addressable market for Gedatolisib in the second-line setting is $5 billion-$6 billion. Given the significant penetration our research is suggesting we can achieve, we believe it's reasonable to estimate that a second-line wild-type indication or a second-line indication in general for Gedatolisib can potentially generate peak revenues of $2.5 billion-$3 billion. The progress we've made to date is encouraging and exciting. We look forward to providing you updates over the next few quarters. We believe the resources we've raised will enable us to advance multiple potential blockbuster indications in breast and prostate cancer while also aggressively preparing for and potentially launching Gedatolisib commercially should we receive FDA approval. Gedatolisib is well positioned to address critical needs in the second-line space with its unique mechanism of action and potential first-in-class and best-in-class safety and efficacy profile. I'd like to now hand the call over to Vicky to review our finances. Thank you, Brian, and good afternoon, everyone. I'll provide a brief overview of our financial results for the third quarter of 2025. Our third-quarter net loss was $43.8 million, or $0.92 per share, compared to $29.8 million net loss, or $0.70 per share for the third quarter of 2024. Our non-GAAP adjusted net loss was $37.2 million, or $0.78 per share for the third quarter of 2025, compared to non-GAAP adjusted net loss of $27.6 million, or $0.65 per share for the third quarter of 2024. Research and development expenses were $34.9 million for the third quarter of 2025, compared to $27.6 million for the third quarter of 2024. Of the approximately $7.3 million increase in R&D expenses, $5.6 million was related to increased employee and consulting expenses, $3.2 million of which related to commercial headcount additions and other launch activities. The remaining $1.7 million increase was primarily related to activities supporting our ongoing clinical trials. General and administrative expenses were $7.9 million for the third quarter of 2025, compared to $2.5 million for the third quarter of 2024. Of the approximately $5.4 million increase in G&A expenses, $4.9 million increase was related to increased employee and consulting expenses. Of this increase, $4 million was related to non-cash stock-based compensation. The remaining $0.5 million of the $5.4 million increase primarily related to professional fees, expanding infrastructure, and other administrative expenses. Net cash used in operating activities for the third quarter of 2025 was $44.8 million, compared to $20.6 million for the third quarter of 2024. We ended the quarter with approximately $455 million of cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. As Brian mentioned earlier, in July of 2025, we conducted a concurrent public offering of $2.75 million convertible senior notes due in 2031, common stock, and a pre-funded warrant offering. The net proceeds from the combined offerings were $287 million after deducting underwriting discounts, commissions, and the company's offering expenses. In September of 2025, the company entered into an amendment to its existing senior secured term loan facility with an affiliate of Innovatus Capital Partners and Oxford Finance and certain of its affiliates. The amendment increases the total term loan facility size to $500 million, including $350 million in committed capital and up to $150 million at the mutual discretion of Celcuity and its lenders. In connection with the release of the positive top-line data from the PIK3CA wild-type cohort of the Victoria I phase III clinical trial, Celcuity achieved the Term D milestone and was eligible to draw an additional $30 million under the term loan facility. In connection with the amendment to the term loan facility, the Term D loan was disbursed, and Celcuity received net proceeds of $27.8 million. The upsized facility strengthens Celcuity's ability to manage its capital structure efficiently while providing additional funding to support commercial launch preparations for Gedatolisib and other strategic initiatives. Also triggered by the release of the positive top-line data was the 75-day expiration date for warrants that were issued pursuant to a private placement that closed on December 9, 2022. Warrants that were exercised generated cash proceeds of $12.8 million. We expect cash, cash equivalents, investments, and drawdowns on our current debt facility to fund operations through 2027. I will now hand the call back to Brian. Thank you, Vicky. Operator, could you please open the call for questions? Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. If you have a question, please press star followed by the number one on your touch-tone phone. You will hear a prompt that your hand has been raised. If you would like to withdraw from the polling process, please press star, then the number two. If you are using a speakerphone, please make sure to lift your handset before pressing any keys. Your first question comes from the line of Maury Raycroft from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hi. Congrats on the progress, and thanks for taking my questions. You're planning on having additional data at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Conference. Maybe talk about what the main focus of the presentation is going to be, and do you anticipate sharing more detailed subpopulation data related to ESR1 wild-type and mutant in the near future? Thanks, Maury. We'll present the data when it's presented. Typically, these presentations that follow the detailed initial presentation include additional subgroup analyses for efficacy, additional data that might relate to certain safety or quality of life aspects of the study. We expect to follow that approach with the data we released to San Antonio. Okay. Understood. Maybe a question just related to the front-line setting. Wondering if you can comment on whether enrollment in Victoria II has been positively impacted by the second-line data, and is there anything additional you could say on timelines? Thank you for the question. No, enrollment's on track. I mean, certainly, investigators who are participating in the Victoria II study were very excited about the results, and I think that, of course, would impact the visibility for their patients and the credibility of the study itself. We think it will have a favorable effect. As far as additional phase III studies, I mean, certainly, we have a long-term life cycle development plan, and over time, as we make progress, fleshing that out or making some decisions about timing and approach, we'll announce those. We're not ready to do that yet. Got it. Okay. Thanks for taking my questions. Y ou're welcome. Y our next question is from the line of Andrew Berens from Leerink Partners. Please go ahead. Hi, everyone. This is Amanda, on for Andy. Thanks for taking our question. For the real-time oncology review submission process to the FDA, you're guiding to completing that fourth quarter. We're just kind of trying to figure out if the wild-type submission will be completely separate from the mutant submission. Are there any implications to this? Do you also expect the mutant submission to be a real-time oncology review? Any color would be helpful. Thanks. Sure. We're on track, as I indicated, with the submission for the wild-type cohort completed by the end of this quarter. We've had specific conversations about the approach that we're taking with this NDA and the RTOR submission, and that was ultimately approved by the FDA. That reflected that we'll just be submitting and seeking an NDA for the wild-type population. We're in sync with the FDA on that front. We would, depending on the data, request a real-time oncology review for the mutant data, but it's always a function of the data. These real-time reviews are typically only granted when the data is very, very clear and the potential for a new standard of care is possible. We hope that's the case, but until we have the data, we can't necessarily commit to that. Got it. Thank you. You're welcome. Next question is from the line of Tara Bancroft from TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. I'm hoping you can maybe expand a bit more on what you believe the eventual duration of therapy will be, especially in the commercial setting for the triplet based on the data that you've seen so far. Then separately, I'm wondering if you could tell us what assumptions would go into your pricing strategy and what are some good comps to look for there. Thanks. Sure. Okay. As far as the duration of therapy, I mean, there's a couple of ways to think about that because we did find variation in the outcomes according to region. In the U.S., for instance, we reported that PFS was 19.3 months, which was significantly longer than the intent to treat. We have an internal estimate of what we think is reasonable yet. We'll do some further analysis before we might share that externally, and that'll be a function of providing additional subgroup analyses over the coming months. As far as assumptions for pricing, there have been drugs launched recently that are novel therapeutics targeting, in this case, the PI3K pathway. I think the wholesale acquisition costs for one therapeutic or several therapeutics that are in this HR positive, HER2 negative space are in the range of, let's call it, $25,000 plus or minus. That's a reasonable benchmark. You also have to factor in potential discounts that would be associated with distribution of the drug. Oral drugs typically will have probably closer to a 30% discount, gross to net, of 70% discount. Medical benefit drugs like Gedatolisib would probably only have a 20% discount. You could potentially get a better price in this market just by virtue of being a medical benefit on a net basis with the same wholesale acquisition cost price. Now, we're doing research in this area now. We haven't made a final decision on our pricing approach. For purposes of trying to estimate what the addressable market value is, we think it's reasonable to use the numbers that I just shared. Great. Thank you. That's very helpful. Your next question comes from the line of Brad Canino from Guggenheim Securities. Please go ahead. Afternoon. Just one question from me. What is the plan to bring Gedatolisib to patients outside the U.S.? Thanks. Sure. I think we've discussed in other calls, or at least we've mentioned that we expect to commercialize in the U.S., as I discussed on the call, and then find a partner or partners to commercialize the drug ex-U.S. We are holding off finalizing or really moving forward with intense discussions on that until we have our mutant data available and until we've submitted what we hope is an sNDA for the mutant population. Coincident with the submission of the sNDA for the mutant population, if all goes according to plan, we would soon after expect to file an MAA to the European medical authorities that would comprise both mutant and wild-type patient data. Additionally, we've also been working with the Japanese health authority to identify their requirements for submission. We think we're aligned with them on an approach that makes sense to us. We are moving forward on a regulatory path that will allow us to stay on track with as rapid a commercialization as possible, even without a marketing partner. We would expect to start engaging in those discussions, I would say, the middle of next year, once our data was available and the regulatory submissions were on their way. Okay. That's clear. Thanks, Brian. You're welcome. Next question is from the line of Stephen Willey from Stifel. Please go ahead. Hey, can you hear me? We can. Okay. Hey, this is Dara. I was on for Steve. Brian, you announced plans to develop Gedatolisib for endocrine-resistant front-line well before the Victoria I readout. I'm curious, has your thinking around the type of front-line population to be enrolled changed at all now that you have phase III data from the wild-type population? You have this interesting signal from phase IB subgroup analysis. And I'm assuming you have KOL feedback, investor feedback. What is your philosophical view around the need to conduct an endocrine-sensitive trial in the front-line setting? Thank you. No, thank you for the question. I mean, certainly, we believe that there's an important opportunity to help patients delay their progression for even longer than is possible with the current CDK4/6 letrozole regimens. We base that view on the data that we obtained in our phase Ib study in treatment-naive endocrine-sensitive patients. Now, the standard of care CDK4/6 letrozole regimens, the three of them, offer patients, at least as reported in their phase III studies, about 25 months plus or minus median PFS. In our phase Ib study, which, again, only 41 patients, single-arm study, so you have to caveat it, but a meaningful enough population that it's probably not a random result. We reported about 48 months median PFS. That, we think, helps establish or certainly provide preliminary evidence that this pathway is an important driver in treatment-naive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In effect, it kind of confirms our hypothesis and certainly helps demonstrate that this pathway, the PAM pathway, is really one of three driver pathways promoting breast cancer: PAM pathway, CDK4/6, and endocrine therapy or pathway. We think there's a very, very strong rationale to develop this drug for that population. It's a long study, given the potential progression-free survival of both the control and study arm, and probably a fairly sizable number of patients as well. Again, we are wanting to step back, as you suggested, given the results we have here, where we really saw profound effect in wild-type patients, and be very thoughtful about how we would design that study in light of the current study in endocrine-resistant patients. Yes, we believe it's an important opportunity to help patients further. It represents probably two-thirds of women who are treatment naive in the metastatic setting. We think it would be an important thing for us to do, and we think there's a lot of strong rationale to do it. Over time, we will provide updates on our thoughts on that. Hello? Your next question comes from the line of Oliver McCammon from LifeSci Capital. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking my question. I'm just curious if you can speak to the potential impact of a favorable overall survival trend in the second and third-line setting, caveating that we've seen interim OS data so far. I'm also curious if you can speak to essentially what role these data could play in the regulatory process as well. Thanks again. Sure. In conjunction with the primary analysis, our stats plan, and typically is required, but our stats plan performed an interim OS analysis to demonstrate or hopefully to reveal what, if any, effect you might have on overall survival for these patients. The requirement from a regulatory standpoint is that you do not show any evidence that you are reducing patients' likelihood of survival, i.e., you have to have a hazard ratio that is below one. In the case of the interim analysis for our study, the hazard ratio was, I think, 0.69 for the triplet and about the same for the doublet, which, again, we believe is a favorable trend. We think that that supports our submission for drug approval and is supportive of that. As far as the impact of an overall survival positive readout, certainly we think impactful. It has been a very high bar to beat in the second-line setting. There has not been a drug yet in the second-line setting that has showed an OS advantage. That is just because of the heterogeneous nature of the patients and the subsequent drugs they receive. We will see. I mean, certainly, we look forward to reporting out those numbers. When you have a study of our size with the sample size, you have a relatively small number of events that you are using to characterize what is only a certain effect size. It is a high bar to beat with a small sample size. We will see. Certainly, if successful, it will be very impactful. Thanks again. Your last question comes from the line of Chase Knickerbocker from Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Please go ahead. Hi guys. Thanks for taking the questions. This is Jay Kahn for Chase. In light of this administration's focus on domestic manufacturing, could you just remind us where GETA is manufactured? Sure. We have several sites for manufacturing, and we have an approach that we think allows us to have flexibility in how we manufacture where we manufacture the drug. We have not really announced where we are manufacturing the drug. Based on our kind of inventory approach and also our approach of finding second sources, we are basically taking the steps necessary to make sure our supply chain is as bulletproof as you can make it. Great. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back to Brian Sullivan for closing comments. Sir, please go ahead. Thank you for attending our call, and I look forward to providing further updates in the future. Goodbye. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you very much for your participation. You may now disconnect.