Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Cellectar Biosciences' Third Quarter 2025 Earnings 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. This call is being recorded on Thursday, November 13, 2025. I would now like to turn the conference over to [audio distortion] Jim Caruso, CEO. Thank you operator. Good morning and welcome to Cellectar Biosciences' third quarter 2025 financial results and business update conference call. Joining us today from Cellectar are Jim Caruso, President and CEO, who will provide an overview of the company's progress before turning the call over to Chad Kolean, CFO, for a financial review of the quarter. Following this, Jarrod Longcor, Chief Operating Officer, will give an update on the company's progress and plans for its promising clinical development pipeline of radiopharmaceuticals. Cellectar issued a press release earlier this morning detailing the content of today's call. A copy can be found on the investor page of Cellectar's corporate website. I want to remind callers that the information discussed on the call today is covered under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. I caution listeners that management will be making forward looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those stated or implied by our forward looking statements due to risks and uncertainties associated with the business. These forward looking statements are qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained in today's press release and in our SEC filings. The content of this conference call contains time sensitive information that is accurate only as of the date of this live broadcast, November 13, 2025. The company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this conference call and webcast. As a reminder, this conference call and webcast are being recorded and archived. We'll begin the call with prepared remarks and then open the call to your questions. I'll now turn the call over to Jim Caruso. Jim? Thank you Anne Marie and thanks to all participants for joining us this morning as we review Cellectar's progress in the third quarter of 2025. I'm pleased to share that we have made significant strides throughout the quarter, marking a period of strong operational execution on key corporate priorities, including the strengthening of our balance sheet, making significant advancements with our global regulatory strategy for Iopofosine I 131 in Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia or WM, and advancing our clinical and preclinical programs. These achievements underscore our commitment to innovation in oncology and position Cellectar as a company with transformative potential. As we head into the final stretch of the year and prepare for an impactful 2026, let me begin with our lead asset, iopofosine I 131, which continues to show strong promise as a first-in-class radioconjugate therapy for patients with WM. The third quarter brought exciting developments that further validate its potential and may accelerate its path to market. We've been closely collaborating with the EMA to align on a clear regulatory strategy. Importantly, following a thorough review by the EMA Scientific Working Party, we received confirmation of our eligibility to file for conditional marketing approval in the EU based upon the CLOVER-WaM study, a major milestone that could bring iopofosine to patients as early as 2027. This endorsement not only reflects the strength of our data and the urgency of the unmet need, but also carries a high probability of success with 80% of such filings ultimately receiving approval. Confirmation of our eligibility to file for a conditional marketing authorization in the EMA gives us further confidence in our regulatory strategy with the U.S. FDA. As previously reported, the FDA requested 12 month follow up data on all patients from the CLOVER-WaM study. With the 12 month follow up data now available, we plan to submit an NDA under the accelerated approval pathway upon initiation of a confirmatory phase III trial. As you may be aware, in the second quarter of this year, iopofosine I 131 was granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for WM by the FDA. Data from a recent Jefferies research report showed that 79% of oncology drugs which have been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation are successfully awarded accelerated approval by the FDA. The momentum provided by the success of our global regulatory strategy in Europe and our strengthened regulatory position in the U.S. significantly enhanced the value of iopofosine I 131, potentially reducing time to commercialization and making it an increasingly attractive opportunity for strategic collaborations. To support these efforts, we are in active discussions with potential partners, both regional and global, who share our vision for iopofosine. These partnerships are designed to provide iopofosine I 131 to patients and as quickly as possible to secure non-dilutive capital and commercial expertise while preserving long-term value for our shareholders. With our bolus of positive clinical data, a favorable safety profile, expedited review designations in the U.S. and Europe, as well as a compelling commercial market potential, we believe iopofosine I 131 represents an attractive candidate for potential collaborations or partners seeking impactful innovation and oncology assets with accelerated pathways to the global market. We remain equally excited about the progress from our next generation radiopharmaceutical pipeline, including our recently initiated phase 1b study of CLR 125, our iodine-125 auger-emitting agent which targets solid tumors such as triple negative breast cancer, and CLR 225, our actinium-225 alpha-emitting radioconjugate, targeting several other solid tumors with significant unmet need, including pancreatic cancer. We have also been extremely active in showcasing data from these programs at medical meetings throughout the quarter, including posters and oral presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research and Special Conferences in Cancer Research. We encourage everyone to visit the posters and publications section of our investor website to view our presentations. Operationally, we have raised approximately $12.7 million in recent financings to help strengthen our balance sheet and have also engaged in selective supply and trial support agreements with partners to secure the necessary supply of actinium-225 and to complete our phase I study for CLR 125 for the treatment of triple negative breast cancer. In summary, we are closing out 2025 with strong momentum and entering the new year with a clear regulatory path for iopofosine in Europe and the U.S. and maintain the promise of a unique and robust pipeline addressing challenging solid tumor cancers with significant unmet medical need. As a result, we have several near-term milestones to look forward to that we believe place Cellectar in a position of rapid growth. We are energized by the opportunities ahead and remain deeply committed to delivering innovative life-extending therapies to patients with cancers. With that overview, I'll now turn the call over to Chad Kolean, our Chief Financial Officer, for a review of our financials. Chad? Thank you Jim and good morning everyone. Here are my comments on our financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2025. We ended the quarter with cash and cash equivalents of $12.6 million, which is compared to $23.3 million as of December 31, 2024. In July 2025 we raised a net of $5.8 million through the issuance of common stock, pre funded warrants and new common warrants and following the close of the third quarter we raised an additional $5 million net through investors' exercise of certain outstanding warrants and the issuance of new common warrants and now expect that our cash on hand is adequate to fund budgeted operations into the third quarter of 2026. Turning to our results from operations, research and development expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2025 were approximately $2.5 million compared to approximately $5.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2024. The overall decrease in research and development was a result of lower costs related to the CLOVER-WaM study where the patient follow up effort continues to decline as patients are moving of study. Additionally, manufacturing costs have declined as in the third quarter of 2024, we were investing more heavily in establishing a second manufacturing source for iopofosine, an effort that is now complete. General and administrative expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2025 were $2.3 million, compared to $7.8 million for the same period in 2024. The decrease in G&A was primarily driven by a reduction in pre-commercialization and market assessment efforts and lower personnel costs. Net loss for the three months ended September 30, 2025 was $4.4 million or $1.41 per basic and diluted common share as compared with $14.7 million or $11.18 per basic and $12.13 per diluted common share during the three months ended September 30, 2024. With that, let me turn the call over to Jarrod for a regulatory and operational update. Thank you, Chad, and good morning, everyone. As Jim just reviewed, we believe iopofosine I 131 has a high probability of approval in Europe and, pending the initiation of the confirmatory study, its approval in the U.S.. We have had extensive communications with both the EMA and the U.S. FDA throughout 2025 and look forward to continuing these interactions through the approval process. As a reminder, this is a program that has received EMA Prime Designation, FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for the treatment of WM, five Rare Pediatric Disease Designations including most recently one for relapsed refractory pediatric high grade glioma, as well as multiple FDA and EMA Orphan Drug Designations. These rare pediatric disease designations provide eligibility to receive a priority review voucher which can be used to expedite the review process for future new drug applications or biological licensing applications for any drug or can be sold or transferred to another party. All of these updates have positioned iopofosine as a major value creator heading into the fourth quarter and early 2026 and underscores its potential in strategic collaborations. Now let's turn to our two exciting earlier stage radioconjugates, CLR 125, our lead auger emitter, and CLR 225, our alpha emitting actinium based compound. CLR 125 may provide the greatest precision in targeted radiotherapy as the auger emissions only travel a few nanometers, meaning the isotope has to be delivered within the cell and near the nucleus or the DNA. Our phospholipid ether delivery mechanism provides this necessary targeting to the tumor, entry into the cell and transport to the nucleus. As validated through clinical studies, it has been demonstrated that CLR 125 provides significant tumor uptake and depending on the dose results in tumor volume reduction or growth inhibition with no toxicities being noted, including no hematologic toxicities at any of the doses tested across multiple challenging animal models including triple negative breast cancer or TNBC and metastatic breast cancer. The phase 1b study of CLR 125 in relapsed triple negative breast cancer will utilize dosimetry to determine tumor versus normal tissue uptake and will evaluate the activity of three distinct doses of CLR 125, a dose of 32.75 millicuries per dose for four cycles versus 62.5 millicuries per dose for three cycles versus 95 millicuries per dose for two cycles. With four doses per cycle and approximately 15 patients per arm with a planned expansion arm and the proposed phase II dose. The primary endpoint for the study will be to determine the recommended phase II dose and dosing regimen, and we will also evaluate safety and tolerability as well as initial response assessments per RECIST as well as progression-free survival in patients. We expect to start dosing patients imminently and could have multiple patients dosed by the end of the year. For the phase 1b study, we will be partnering with Evestia Clinical for full CRO services with the Mayo Clinic Network serving as a treatment center for the trial and Dr. Pooja Advani acting as our lead investigator. The initiation of this trial will be a significant milestone for Cellectar as it brings us closer to being able to evaluate the safety and optimal dosing of CLR 125, but we expect to have dosimetry data and efficacy data throughout 2026. Moving to CLR 225, our lead alpha emitting radio conjugate product candidate, which also has shown excellent biodistribution and uptake into solid tumors preclinically with demonstrated activity across multiple solid tumor animal models including challenging to treat pancreatic and refractory colorectal cancers. CLR 225 has been observed to be well tolerated in these experiments which we highlighted in our presentation at the AACR Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Research Conference held in Boston in September. Pending the necessary financing, our phase I trial for CLR 225 is designed to comprehensively evaluate the compound's biodistribution, safety and tolerability in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The study will commence with a dosimetry phase aimed at determining the absorbed dose in both normal and tumor tissues. Following dosimetry, the study will progress to a dose escalation phase, systematically evaluating increasing doses of CLR 225 to establish the maximum tolerated dose. We believe this approach gives us an opportunity to demonstrate proof of concept for our innovative combination of phospholipid ether or PLE technology with alpha emitters, potentially showcasing its radioconjugate's unique ability to safely treat large bulky solid tumors like pancreatic cancer. We also recently announced a partnership with ITM wherein they will provide actinium-225 to help support our alpha-labeled phospholipid ether radiopharmaceutical candidates. CLR 225 actinium-225 is a powerful alpha-emitting isotope used in targeted cancer therapies and is a rare and in limited supply isotope. This collaboration further underscores our strategic approach to a diversified supply chain to ensure the supply of key resources and thereby guarantee patient access to these therapies. All of these updates and more reinforce our position as a premier radiopharmaceutical company to watch as we look towards the end of the year. There is incredible value to be found in the iopofosine story that will aid in spurring the development of CLR 125 and CLR 225. With alignment from U.S. and European agencies, we feel more confident than ever in the position of our programs. With that overview, let me turn the call back to Jim for closing remarks. Jim. All right, thank you Jarrod. This has been a very successful quarter for our team. We've maintained consistent dialogue with the appropriate global regulatory authorities and feel that iopofosine now maintains its strongest position to marketing approval and commercialization with our earlier stage assets CLR 125 and CLR 225. We have made significant progress advancing these radioconjugates and have recently initiated the phase 1b study for CLR 125 in triple negative breast cancer. Additionally, we've strengthened our balance sheet with runway out to the third quarter of 2026 and are positioned to execute across multiple near term priorities including filing for iopofosine conditional marketing approval in the EU, initiation of our CLR 125 phase 1b clinical trial with important dosimetry and early efficacy data readouts over the first half of 2026. We continue to advance our plans to file for accelerated approval of iopofosine in the U.S. pending funding required to initiate the phase III confirmatory study. We remain committed to achieving these key milestones and confident that these achievements will create value over time. We look forward to finishing the year and believe we are in a strong position to bring iopofosine I 131 and our pipeline of radiopharmaceutical therapies to the patients who continue to battle cancers with high unmet need. With that, operator, we are ready to open the call to questions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will now begin the question and answer session. Should you have a question, please press the star followed by the 1. At this time, you'll hear a prompt acknowledging that your hand has been raised. Should you wish to withdraw your request, please press the star followed by the 2. If you are using a speakerphone, please lift the handset before pressing any keys. One moment, please, for your first question. Your first question comes from Aydin Huseynov, Ladenburg. Please go ahead. Good morning guys. Congratulations with the significant progress with the EMA application. I got a couple of questions for the EMA strategy and the decision from Scientific Advice Working Party. Could you help us better understand the specific data that we're considering before making a recommendation? Because it sounds like they're allowing you to do it post-BTKi, which could be second line and in your trial your prior lines, I think the median prior lines were four lines. So could it help us better understand what they were looking for? Hi Aydin, this is Jim. First of all, thanks for your participation in the call today and certainly appreciate your question. As you are likely aware, we put together a very comprehensive data package for our friends across the pond and as you appropriately identified, we have recently received additional data from CLOVER-WaM relative to post-BTKi, which gives us a high degree of confidence of our capacity to move iopofosine further upstream. As you suggest, post-BTKi could be as early as the second line. With that as an opening comment, I'll turn this over to Jarrod to provide some additional detail relative to the package itself and the consumption of that data from the EMA. Jarrod? Yeah, thanks Jim, and thank you Aydin. Great question. Let me sort of try to unpack that a little bit for you. There are a couple elements. One, the EU bribing pattern is a bit different than in the U.S. In the U.S. sediment, as you just outlined, BTKis now are generally used in the first line setting, either in monotherapy or in combination, but predominantly in first line setting anymore, which would mean a post BTKi population or post BTKi approval in the United States is representative of a second line. However, in Europe at this time, the post BTKI patient population would still be a third line setting. Generally in Europe, they start with a rituximab combination and continue to follow that with BTKi. At this juncture, they are starting to shift to earlier utilization of BTKi, but that hasn't taken over in the vast majority of the 28 member countries at this juncture. Based on that, what the EMA evaluated, what the SAWP evaluated was the totality of our data. All patient population, but they did focus in on that. In their opinion, in Europe at this juncture, the greatest unmet need that would warrant a conditional market authorization is a post-BTKi patient. As Jim just alluded to, when we look at that patient population, we have the vast majority of our patients in our CLOVER-WaM study are post-BTKi. Of those, many of them, obviously the majority of them responded well to the treatment, did very well. We do have statistical significance there. When we look even deeper into that, into varying subsets of that, where we look at combination of refractoriness across those patients, what you see is a continued high response rate and even in some sense a much higher response rate than that of the general population. Based on that, the agency, the EMA, as the SAWP, felt that the drug warranted or should apply for conditional market approval. Focusing in on that post-BTKi patient population at this time. I'll stop there. Yeah. Aydin, thank you. [crosstalk] Thank you, Jarrod. Aydin, as I think you brought to our attention a handful of months back, you know, approximately 80% of all drugs that apply for conditional marketing authorization that have received eligibility to apply for a conditional marketing authorization are granted the CMA. Right? Yeah. That's great news. You know, given that you don't have to run any trial, you just need to submit. For the FDA, you only need to initiate a phase III trial. How much resources do you think you need just to initiate a trial in the U.S. and whether your current balance sheet would be enough just to start it? It's only 200 patients, 24 months. Can you just start the trial and finish it once you have more resources? Yep, that's a very good question, Aydin. Aydin. Based on our assessment, you know, the total overall cost of the study in totality, including, you know, multiple years of follow up, is approximately $40 million. Importantly, we're estimating approximately $15 million to full patient enrollment and it's $10 million to initiate the trial. I'll have Jarrod in a moment talk to detail around expectations by the FDA for accelerated approval. The net here is essentially it's trial initiation which would allow us to submit the NDA and then have a study which is ongoing, enrolling patients at the time of the FDA assessment of our accelerated approval. As you know, with breakthrough designation and fast track, that's approximately six months further downstream. Based on the high level of interest in iopofosine by both patients suffering from WM as well as, you know, thought leadership in the area, we would expect the study to enroll very, very quickly. Jarrod, I think it's fair to say based on our assessment, approximately $15 million or so to full patient enrollment. Let me correct that. It's about $28 million to full patient enrollment. It's about $15 million to the point at which we would have sufficient enrollment for the agency to act on an accelerated approval application. Aydin, if I back you up a little bit, as Jim said, to initiate the study itself because of CRO cost and the startup cost, that's approximately about $10 million of the $40 million that Jim outlined as the total cost. What happens is obviously you get the study started. The requirement, as you alluded to, is initiation of a confirmatory study. Assuming that would happen, the agency also has the obligation or the statement in the regulations now that the study must be considered ongoing, which they have enunciated as some level of enrollment. They have not specified what level of enrollment. We are estimating that somewhere between 10% and 25% of patient enrollment will probably be satisfactory in our calculation, that is somewhere between 20 and 50 patients. In order to achieve that, we think it would take about $15 million, including the $10 million startup, to achieve that number. Obviously, as Jim said, $28 million to get the full enrollment and then $40 million to see out the rest of the study, including all of the long term follow up. We do believe that if we were to have enough funding to really launch the study and get to that first metric, I think of having the agency respond to the submission, we would absolutely want to initiate and go. Thank you. Super helpful. [crosstalk] No, I appreciate the question. Aydin and Jarrod, thank you for the clarification on that. As a recent, and I cited in my opening comments, a recent assessment by Jefferies research report identified those oncology drugs that have been awarded breakthrough designation. There is a 79% approval rating for accelerated approvals. Both Aydin, yeah, and net both with the EU at approximately 80% likelihood of success. Based on this Jefferies report, with the BTD for iopofosine in the U.S., approximately 79%. We view those as certainly reasonable statistics that stack up in the favor of iopofosine. Right, right. Given that it appears that you will be first launching in Europe, then in the U.S., and given all these MFN discussions, could you help us understand its pricing potential for perforcing in Europe and U.S., and also whether you would consider different brands, maybe given potentially different labels for EMA and FDA? Just curious to hear your thoughts on this. Yeah, I'll open. You know, we anticipate submitting our application for the CMA in the middle of 2026. If you estimate an approximately 12-month review by our friends across the pond, you know, that's an approximately middle of 2027 marketing or commercial launch ex-U.S., and to your point, it's not only Europe, it's 30 major countries except for China, Japan, and the U.S. that would be, you know, have the capacity to market iopofosine. So it's a significant market size comparable certainly to that of the U.S. when you look at incidence and prevalence numbers for WM. Now taking a step back before, you know, we address the pricing question and we're not going to give you specific numbers, but we'll give you, you know, it's clearly a premium priced opportunity, but as you cited earlier, you know, with the approximate $10 million to initiate our phase III confirmatory study in the U.S. and with, with that, as Jarrod cited, approximately 6 months or so to get to the necessary patient enrollment that we would believe would satisfy the FDA's requirement for an accelerated, for the granting of an accelerated approval, you could actually have a horse race depending on when that study was initiated. If in fact the study is initiated in the first quarter or second quarter of next year, within 6 months, you're obviously submitting your application to our friends at the FDA. Because of breakthrough and fast track, et cetera, it would be an approximate six month review. In reality you could have access to the U.S. market and approval in the U.S. market prior to that of the EMA. From a pricing perspective, that would certainly make pricing both in the U.S. and ex U.S. a little bit easier. Jarrod, without providing price points, if you could provide any additional detail for Aydin and our core participants, I think that would be helpful. Absolutely. I'm going to go in two directions or take this in two steps. Again, as you mentioned, Aydin, the most favored nation discussion has resulted in some interesting, I think, as I'm sure you are aware, that for pharmaceutical pricing nature that some companies, some of the larger companies have taken a position of rather than decreasing prices in the U.S. they've taken a strategy of a more flat universal price globally and thereby negotiating harder in Europe and other places for higher prices. I think that that is a trend that is going to likely continue. You know, there will likely be some downtick in the U.S. price in order to sort of get them more mirrored. But that there's significant increases in Europe now as it relates to iopofosine directly. Obviously one of the processes that we have to go through is now to work through the HTA process, which was recently, earlier this year announced, particularly for oncology drugs, that this has to be done sort of in parallel with our CMA. That process. As Jim, you know, I can't, as Jim sort of alluded to, we're not positioned at this juncture yet to give specificity on pricing. We have given what we believe and based off our pricing estimates for what we would expect in the U.S. Traditionally in Europe those prices can be anywhere from similar to 50% of that as a whole. You know, that really comes down to that discussion. The HTA requirement is for even if you do not have a comparator in your clinical study or in your initial, in our case, in the initial study for CMA, what it would require is that we would do research to evaluate the potential clinical benefit of iopofosine I 131 over comparative drugs. I think the key takeaway on that is that obviously based off of the regulatory, the SAWP and in general the EMA process with PRIME and everything else, there is a significant unmet medical need that this drug is needing. In their own words, that is essentially driven by the fact that these patients do not have treatment options available to them. There is a justification for negotiating higher percentages under that the more, the greater the value to the patient and the patient outcomes, the greater the price point can be. Our expectation is based off the research we have historically done, recognizing that there is no direct comparator that wants to utilize, that we are in a position of strength to negotiate or with a partner, negotiate a stronger price point in Europe. Yeah, super helpful, super helpful. You know, for modeling purposes, sounds like 2027 is the launch year for both U.S. and EU, which makes. It is sort of a global launch perspective. Thank you. Thanks so much and congratulations with this significant progress this quarter. Yeah, thank you, Aydin. Aydin. Appreciate your participation. Appreciate the questions, very helpful. Okay, our next question comes from Jeff Jones, Oppenheimer. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys, and congrats on the progress and the regulatory wins so far. Great progress. Can you comment at all on how the partnering discussions have evolved since the EU regulatory update and how you're thinking about partnering, be it U.S., Europe, or globally? Hi, Jeff, thank you for the question. Much appreciated. Hope you're doing well on your end. Obviously, when, you know, we anticipated a positive outcome with our friends across the pond and, you know, did the necessary work on the costs associated with our clinical trial or confirmatory study for the U.S. it became apparent to us to slow play corporate development discussions until we had, you know, the blessing, certainly from the EMA on our capacity to file. Obviously that becomes now iopofosine as a near term oncology asset in a very robust ex U.S. market at a minimum. And then when we also, based on our further communications with the FDA, were able to really drill down in terms of line of sight and this, you know, $10 million-15 million for upfront ish to the necessary patients enrolled. As Jarrod cited earlier, in order for us to receive an answer from our friends at the FDA, we felt as if we would be in a much better position with both of those. We kind of, over the, you know, the early part of the year here, middle part of the year, really slow played our discussions. It also allowed a handful of other companies to kind of get up to speed on their diligence. We have a number of companies all in and around the same spot in terms of their understanding of where we currently sit, certainly from a regulatory perspective. Quite frankly, the latest data that we've mined from our clinical trial is also very, very supportive of our regulatory approach. Jarrod has been overseeing and has done a great job in terms of communication on the corporate development side and making certain that we were in a position of strength, you know, to optimize the potential value for our stockholders with iopofosine on a number of different fronts. I'll turn this over to him, you know, to provide some additional detail. Jarrod? Sure. I'll confess, Jeff, great to talk to you, but I'll confess that I'm not sure that I can add much more detail. Jim did a great job there explaining, you know, exactly where we sit. I would say that we, you know, obviously as you get closer and closer to a regulatory approval, the interest and activity heats up, especially when you start to be able to position this sort of, as we just talked about with Aydin, with the conditional market approval in Europe, the potential to negotiate from a position of strength on pricing through the HTA process, the potential to, you know, the potential. And our approach to manufacture and cost of goods, all of those things puts us in a very positive light with most, with various partners and opportunities. We've seen, as Jim said, an increase in that. I think the second part of your question, which I can dig into a little bit more, which is the strategy, I think we've talked about this before and we continue to be in this situation. We have ongoing discussions with parties who I would say are either globally focused or are focused on the two predominant regions right now for radiopharm, which is the U.S. and Europe. We do have various regional conversations ongoing that are advancing rapidly. Those are, you know, those might be part of those territories or all of those territories. Said another way, you know, solely Europe could be solely U.S., could be other territories outside of that. As Jim alluded to, we have quite a number of parties right now who have either completed or nearly completed due diligence, who have supplied and move forward into the next phases of partnering. We continue to try to drive that, maximize both the return for the organization and to ensure, as Jim said in his opening remarks, ensure that the drug is developed in such a way that it does get the patient actually benefit. Great. Really appreciate it, Jarrod. Apologies if I missed this on the call. With respect to 225 and the pancreatic program, I know you're moving, you're actively moving 125 ahead and that trial's kicking off. Any gating items on 225 to begin that trial, or is that something you would move ahead with absent additional financing, or is that one pending? Yeah, I believe the team, Jeff, you know, has put us on the precipice of a phase I ready study there with the pancreatic cancer 225. It is a function essentially of financing as the gating issue there. Jarrod, any additional color you'd like to provide? I would agree with you. I think that the financing is the gating element. As Jim said, we currently sit in a position to essentially initiate the study as soon as the capital is in hand, so to speak. We have the CRO, we have the submissions, we have sites, we have everything ready to run for that study. Part of the reason we have announced the various supply agreements is because, particularly around actinium, what we have done is make sure that we have a consistent supply of actinium so that we are not delayed in any way, shape or form as it relates to actinium sourcing. That supply gets us from where we sit today, based off our forecasting, all the way through into commercialization on the actinium program. That is exactly why we've done that, so that there are no hiccups or delays on that front, as we've seen with other parties. We expect, you know, again, pending the capital, we expect to initiate that phase I. I'll call phase 1 a study. It is a dose escalation safety study with the dosimetry components. At the end of the day, what we'd be looking at is, you know, clear safety and understanding of the uptake and distribution of the molecule, which we don't expect to be very different than what we've seen historically. Got it. Great. James. [crosstalk] No, I was just going to make a comment. No worries. I was just going to make a comment on how significant we view the trip. You know, as an example, the triple negative breast cancer study, it is solid tumor, as Jarrod cited. We believe our drug, or conjugate, will behave in a very similar manner to what we have observed with other isotopes as well, 124-125, as well as 131. This is really, I think, for the company and for validation of our platform, very significant. Jarrod, perhaps you could just expand a little bit for our audience. The imaging and dosimetry data that we expect to collect very early on in this study, that we believe will be, you know, further validating of our platform and in particular, our capacity to be very effective in challenging solid tumors. Sure. I'm going to blend this because it's the same whether I'm talking about the actinium program and pancreatic cancer with, you know, CLR 225 or the triple negative breast cancer program with CLR 125. In both cases, we're utilizing dosimetry. For folks that may not be as familiar with the radiopharmaceutical radiotherapeutic, targeted radiotherapeutic strategies here, the benefit of dosimetry is, unlike other therapies, where we take blood samples and we use that to sort of calculate and guesstimate the amount of uptake into the tumor and also into other healthy tissues. In this case, what we're able to do is actually image the transit of the drug inside the human body and we're able to identify exactly where it is at different time points. Utilizing that data, we're then able to calculate both the absorbed dose in the healthy tissue and be able to know when we might achieve a level that would be neurotoxic. On the other side, we're able to calculate the absorbed dose into the tumor and thereby calculate the expected dose and dosing regimen necessary to be an active therapy in that tumor type. Utilizing that data, you could get what's called a therapeutic window. You get the opportunity that that is the difference between your therapeutic dose, your therapy dose, and when you start to see toxicity. We expect, as we have seen with iopofosine, that this therapeutic window will be significantly wide enough, interestingly enough, in the CLR 225 program. Back to the pancreatics for a moment. One of the great challenges in pancreatic cancer is not just the nature of the tumor and the late stage which patients are diagnosed, but it's also, there is a, what they call interstitial pressure in the tumor which prevents most drugs from actually being able to penetrate the tumor because there's fluid pressure pushing back against anything entering. Interestingly enough, as what we saw when we did this in the animal studies, our phospholipid ethers, again, give us a unique ability to actually penetrate through that and actually get inside the tumor and get deep inside the tumor, which is one of the reasons why we think, particularly in pancreatic cancer, we have a competitive advantage over other programs in that tumor. Specifically, obviously, in triple negative breast cancer with the CLR 125, we've seen similar sort of results, but that comes at it from a different perspective, particularly because you have limited targets now in breast cancer and being able to overcome that with our targeting mechanism that is based off of metabolic need. Greatly appreciated. Thank you, Jarrod. As a reminder, if there are any further questions, should you have a question, if you have a question at all, please press the star followed by the 1. At this time, you will hear a prompt acknowledging that your hand has been raised. Should you wish to withdraw your request, please press the star followed by the 2. Our next question comes from Jonathan Aschoff by ROTH, please go ahead. Hi, guys. Good morning. Congrats on the regulatory progress. I was curious, just because full approval is based on PFS, can you remind us where you are in CLOVER-WaM follow up and where that PFS last came out or at least, or at least what it at least is, and how that compares to standard of care for WM. Of course. Jonathan, thanks for your participation. We have not updated our data since January of last year relative to PFS and at that point in time it was very robust and well beyond what you normally would see with salvage therapies and the lines of therapy that we were treating. Jarrod, if you want to provide some detail there, I think it would be helpful for Jonathan and our audience. Yeah, Jarrod, before you do that, I had 11.4 months after eight months. But you last said you had follow up beyond 12 months. I just did. Didn't get any further PFS with that additional follow up. So I'm kind of just trying to reconcile where it is. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for confirming what I was about to say to you. What I was about to say is it was 11.4 months with 8 months of follow up. We now have 12 months of follow up on all patients. That is correct. That is, you know, that was one of the criteria that the FDA for submission for accelerated approval had requested. We now have that. As you might under, as I'm sure you are aware, you know, basically where we are in the process, we have not announced additional data. We do not wish. We. We're not in a position. I only want to say we do not wish. We're not in a position to announce additional data at this juncture, largely in part because we are now in a process of trying to submit this for FDA regulation and we don't want to be caught in a situation where the FDA may view us as being promoted as it relates to this data prior to a submission. At this juncture, the most recent data is that data from January of last year and that won't be updated in the near term or, you know, I'll say in the near term based off of the requirements and discussions with. Okay. By the way, the order for pancreatic is file the indicator, get funding, start the trial. Correct? Sort of. Sorry, Jim, if I jumped in there too fast. The pancreatic cancer study is one that we're not running in the U.S. It will be filing, and we have filed ex-U.S. with the appropriate authority to execute the study and have that accepted already. We're in a position now where it is await the capital and then initiate the study. Excellent. Thank you, guys. No worries. The only additional information that I'll Provide. In regards to the PFS question, Jonathan, is that when we did multiple advisory boards with global thought leadership for Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia, what came across very, very clearly was in the patient population and just for all participants, this was, you know, iopofosine being used essentially as fifth line therapy for this patient population. One, you know, the response rate that we achieved was, you know, that 60% range was considered outstanding. More importantly, they gave us insight that four to six months of PFS for that patient population would be an excellent outcome. You know, as you cite it yourself, with our initial cut of data, we're at approximately one year of PFS, so almost doubling or greater the expectation of thought leadership in WM in terms of what would be considered, you know, an excellent result for patients. Okay. There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call over to Jim Caruso. Please continue. Terrific. Thank you. Operator. This concludes our call for today. Certainly appreciate the great questions from our analysts and for your participation as well as, you know, all participants, of course. This will be up on our website and a transcript will be following this call. Thank you all very much. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.