Good afternoon, and welcome to Natera Inc's Q2 Earnings Conference Call. All participants are on a listen-only mode. After the speaker's remarks, we will have a question and answer session. To ask a question at that time, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mike Brophy, Chief Financial Officer. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thanks, operator. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining our conference call to discuss the results of our second quarter of 2024. On the line, I am joined by Steve Chapman, our CEO, Solomon Moshkevich, President, Clinical Diagnostics, and Alex Aleshin, General Manager of Oncology and Chief Medical Officer. Today's conference call is being broadcast live via webcast. We will be referring to a slide presentation that has been posted to investor.natera.com. A replay of the call will also be posted to our IR site as soon as it's available. Starting on slide 2, during the course of this conference call, we will make forward-looking statements regarding future events and our anticipated future performance, such as our operational and financial outlook and projections, our assumptions for that outlook, market size, partnerships, clinical studies and expected results, opportunities and strategies, and expectations for various current and future products, including product capabilities, expected release dates, reimbursement coverage, and related effects on our financial and operating results. We caution you that such statements reflect our best judgment based on factors currently known to us, and that actual events or results could differ materially. Please refer to the documents we file from time to time with the SEC, including our most recent Form 10-K or 10-Q and the Form 8-K filed with today's press release. Those documents identify important risks and other factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in or suggested by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements made during the call are being made as of today, August 8, 2024. If this call is replayed or reviewed after today, the information presented during the call may not contain current or accurate information. Natera disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. We'll provide guidance on today's call, but will not provide any further guidance or updates on our performance during the quarter unless we do so in a public forum. We will quote a number of numeric or growth changes as we discuss our financial performance, and unless otherwise noted, each such reference represents a year-on-year comparison. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Steve. Steve? Great. Thanks, Mike. Let's get to the highlights on the next slide. We had another excellent quarter across the board. Revenues were up 12% sequentially versus Q1 of 2024 and up 58% compared to Q2 of last year. This was driven by record volumes and another strong quarter of ASP growth. Volumes were up over 23% compared to Q2 of last year. We had a great quarter winning new accounts in women's health, and despite the typical Q2 seasonal headwinds, we grew volume sequentially versus Q1. In organ health, we posted another strong volume quarter, and in oncology, Signatera grew another roughly 13,000 clinical units over what was a very strong Q1. We delivered a strong gross margin quarter with excellent ASP and COGS trends that I'll get into shortly. All of that means we can raise our guidance in revenues and gross margin for the full year. We are now centering the guide around roughly $1.5 billion in revenue and a 55% gross margin. At the midpoint, the new guide implies annual revenue growth of nearly 40% and an increase in gross margins of roughly 10 percentage points from the 45% gross margins we posted last year. We're excited about our progress, and our transformational year continues. We also had many positive developments on the clinical and product side that we'll discuss on today's call. First, I want to flag that the ALTAIR investigators let us know that they are not going to make the timeline for the submission to ESMO in mid-September. As you know, there's a huge amount of patient review and data analysis to generate the results and ready them for presentation, and the CIRCULATE investigator team needs more time to get everything done. Their current plan is to target ASCO GI in January, so we'll stand by and let them do their work. In the meantime, we have an extremely full calendar of important data readouts in colorectal and other cancers, and we'll spend time reviewing that today. This includes the very significant 36-month readout from the GALAXY study, which we believe is of critical importance because it marks the first prospective overall survival data readout for Signatera in colorectal cancer. These results will be shared at ESMO. In addition, Solomon will provide an update on organ health and some recent news on Prospera and Renasight. He will discuss a major win with the new consensus paper published by the National Kidney Foundation that recommends genetic testing for the majority of patients with kidney disease. We also launched a new differentiated feature for our Prospera Heart test that enhances the detection of organ rejection for heart transplant patients and allows us to deliver a more accurate risk assessment across both acute cellular rejection and antibody-mediated rejection than with donor-derived cell-free DNA percentage alone. Finally, on the legal front, the Federal Appeals Court in July upheld the preliminary injunction of the RaDaR MRD assay made by NeoGenomics. As a reminder, the preliminary injunction was first issued by the District Court late last year, so this recent decision upholds that order, barring sales of the assay with limited exceptions. We are pleased with the outcome and look forward to presenting our case to the jury next year. Okay, let's get into some of the business drivers on the next slide. The first slide shows the year-over-year volume progression we've had over time, both in terms of growth rates and absolute unit growth. This quarter looks like one of the best Q2 results we've had in the last 5 years. As a reminder, volumes from our existing women's health customers usually decline 5%-10% compared to Q1, because clinics see fewer new pregnancies in Q2. Given the large book of existing business we have in women's health, that drag of same-store sales volume is hard to overcome with new account wins. So I was particularly pleased to see the new volume growth in women's health above and beyond our strong quarter in Q1. The outperformance was partly enabled by our differentiated new product features, especially the non-invasive fetal RhD analysis, which we launched in May, in the midst of a nationwide shortage of RhoGAM that continues to affect the industry today. We continue to see very strong interest in our core women's health products, Panorama, where we're the market leader in NIPT, and Horizon, where we're the market leader in expanded carrier screening. In addition to that organic growth, we got a full quarter contribution from the Invitae deal that we announced in January, which further boosted our growth in the quarter. We also saw another great quarter for both Prospera and Renasight. We continue to perform well here, and growth is accelerating. Of course, Signatera was a major source of growth in the quarter, and we had another outstanding result in clinical volumes, as you can see on the next slide. The left-hand chart is the total oncology volume metric we've always shown, which includes Signatera clinical, as well as Altera orders and pharma clinical trial units. The right-hand chart shows the quarterly volume progression of the clinical setting over time. You can see in the past, we typically have added about 8,000 or 9,000 units per quarter. We had a big step up in Q1, and now we followed that with roughly 13,000 sequential units in Q2. While we still think roughly 8,000 to 10,000 units of quarterly growth is the right baseline expectation going forward, clearly, the experience physicians and patients are having with Signatera continues to drive meaningful adoption. So all that volume growth helped us to drive one of the best Q2 revenue growth performances in recent memory. This next slide shows the Q1 to Q2 change in revenue the last two years alongside the 2024 results. In addition to volume trends, we continue to see very positive trends in ASPs, really across the businesses. Signatera ASPs were up modestly over Q1, but we're modeling some additional growth ASPs for the rest of the year, as we've seen some continued positive momentum from both Medicare Advantage Plans and biomarker state reimbursement that can be a source of upside through the year. Women's health ASPs were very strong once again this quarter. Even without the tailwind potential new guidelines, which we're still very positive on, we continue to make improvements on the fraction of cases that are getting reimbursed. That has been a major undertaking internally, and we made substantial investments in data analysis, engineering, and persistent appeals and payer outreach to make that happen. We model women's health ASPs remaining stable through the rest of the year, but we have a list of projects that may provide upside as we work through them. All of this effort is driving cash collections in excess of the revenue accruals we set last year, which is why we are seeing these revenue true-ups in 2024. These true-ups will be lumpy, and so we don't include future true-ups in our guidance, but they do represent execution above our prior expectations. While the ASPs improve, we continue to benefit from the efforts of our R&D team to reduce our cost of goods sold. Signatera COGS modestly declined again in the quarter and are now just above $400, and our women's health COGS remain in the range we achieved in prior quarters. The net result is that we had another record gross margin quarter. This slide shows both the total gross margins as well as the underlying gross margins, net of revenue true-ups, and both metrics tell the same story. Underlying organic gross margins grew about two full percentage points above the Q1 results and now stand above 54%. The next slide shows our cash burn trajectory over time. For those of you that are newer to the story, you can see that historically, we made substantial initial investments to launch Signatera, and now we are getting scale on that commercial and operational base, while women's health continues to generate cash. We are very pleased to be cash flow breakeven for the second consecutive quarter, which is above our expectations, given the potential for seasonal headwinds in Q2. Looking into the second half of the year, we are well positioned to hit the guide of cash flow breakeven for the full year, even when incorporating the stepped-up investment in R&D and sales we announced in May. I'll say this again, we did not get to cash flow breakeven by slashing investments into our future. Our strategy is to keep our foot on the gas and to make sure we're doing everything we need to deliver fantastic products for our patients. With that, let me hand the call over to Solomon to cover organ health and commercial updates from oncology. Solomon? Thanks, Steve. Good afternoon, everyone. I'll start with updates in organ health. Since we launched the Renasight test in 2020 for renal genetics, key trial data and now society guidelines have reinforced the importance of genetic testing for the 37 million patients in the U.S. affected by chronic kidney disease or CKD. We are pleased to share that the National Kidney Foundation published a new consensus paper last week with a strong endorsement for comprehensive genetic testing in the majority of patients with CKD. The consensus paper included input from experts in nephrology, clinical and lab genetics, kidney pathology, and genetic counseling, in addition to patients who also provided their perspectives. The NKF paper recommended a broad multigene panel as the primary choice for testing. Natera agrees with that position, and our Renasight test covers 385 genes. NKF also clearly recognized the clinical utility and benefits of genetic testing across a wide range of renal conditions and patient characteristics. We, too, reported on that strong utility in our recent RenaCARE trial, which showed one out of five patients with a positive genetic diagnosis, one out of two positives leading to a change in diagnosis, and one out of three positive cases leading to a change in therapy. The NKF paper follows the recent guideline update from KDIGO, which we spoke about on our earnings call in May. This means we now have support for genetic testing from two of the major organizations in nephrology. We believe these recommendations will continue to have a positive impact on clinical adoption of the Renasight test. Moving on to Prospera, where we are seeing multiple account wins in kidney, heart, and lung. Following some turbulence last year after changes in Medicare reimbursement, we see the market has fully rebounded and on a positive growth trajectory, and we believe Prospera is taking a disproportionate share of the growth. I would like to highlight that we recently launched a product enhancement for our heart transplant test called DQS, or Donor Quantity Score. Previously, Prospera Heart reported out the fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in the blood compared to the total cfDNA. But the donor fraction can be influenced by fluctuations in background cell-free DNA. For example, patients who are fighting off an infection, a malignancy, or who just underwent surgery, all of those can cause the background levels of cell-free DNA to vary. With DQS, we have a second threshold, which is independent of those background cell-free DNA levels. This feature was previously introduced for Prospera Kidney, and now it's available for Prospera Heart, too. In a study presented at the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation in April, we showed that the addition of DQS increased Prospera's sensitivity to rejection in heart transplants from 80% to 88%, and it also reduced false positives by approximately 37%. We plan to submit this study for peer-reviewed publication later this year. This new and improved test enables clearer clinical decisions and fewer unnecessary biopsies, all using dd-cfDNA. Turning now to oncology. On the commercial front, as Steve noted, we saw excellent growth for Signatera clinical volumes, driven by multiple factors. We saw another impressive increase in the number of ordering physicians, with over 40% of all oncologists in the US ordering at least one Signatera test during the quarter. There was also strong growth in new patient initiation, which was observed across all major disease indications, led especially by colorectal cancer and breast cancer. This growth is being driven by the core value proposition of Signatera: to inform risk-based treatment decisions in the adjuvant setting after surgery, and monitor for recurrence in conjunction with standard imaging, enabling earlier interventions. For example, over 85% of colorectal cancer recurrences are historically caught too late for curative intense surgery, which is the preferred treatment approach. Number three, to monitor for response to neoadjuvant therapy and immunotherapy. We're also investing heavily in user experience. Record numbers of customers are choosing mobile phlebotomy and engaging with Natera through our digital portals and EMR integrations. Test results are being delivered reliably in under 3 weeks from the time of specimen receipt for initial cases and under a week for subsequent cases. One final note on the commercial side. I want to comment on our partnership with Foundation Medicine. The deal with Foundation was originally signed in 2019 and was up for renewal this summer. For business reasons, the companies have decided not to renew the agreement. This allows Natera to maintain our focus on growing Signatera, Altera, and Empower, and adding new cutting-edge products and services to our oncology portfolio. For continuity of care, we will continue monitoring services for any existing FoundationOne Tracker patients. Now, I'll turn it over to Alex to discuss our clinical roadmap in oncology. Alex? Thanks, Solomon. Operational improvements and volume growth in the oncology business continue to outperform our expectations, and the clinical utility of Signatera continues to gain traction based on the core value proposition from the previous slide. At the ASCO meeting in June, Signatera was featured in over a dozen publications, and I wanted to highlight one particular multi-institutional study from UCLA and other academic institutions that really nicely delineates this clinical utility. As highlighted on this slide, this study examined 464 patients with stage 1 to 3 breast cancer. The vast majority of the patients tested Signatera- negative, offering valuable reassurance in a time of high anxiety. In the 12% of patients who tested Signatera positive, the investigators reported a treatment change in 91% of these patients, with evidence that treatment change resulted in possibly improved outcomes. Some of you will remember the INTERCEPT study in colorectal cancer from MD Anderson. This study is very similar, but in breast cancer. This is a great showcase of how Signatera is being adopted into clinical practice and having a positive impact for patients across the country. We are also pleased to publish several new peer-reviewed publications during this quarter, including the expanded EBLIS study, which we discussed in the Q1 call. But since then, there have also been new studies in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, and Merkel cell carcinoma. The latter two represent first-time publications for Signatera in these disease indications, and we believe they are both areas of significant clinical unmet need. For example, in the Merkel cell carcinoma paper, Signatera testing after curative treatment was associated with significantly higher risk of recurrence. The hazard ratio reported was 7.4. This outperformed established Merkel cell carcinoma risk factors currently being utilized by clinicians. We look forward to presenting these new indications to Medicare later this year, adding to the multiple submissions that are currently under review, and we will provide an update on these submissions in the future. Looking ahead to future data readouts, we have a strong pipeline of prospective randomized trials that we believe could, if successful, further change clinical practice in the United States and globally. As Steve mentioned, the ALTAIR investigators notified us of the need for more time for data review, analysis, and interpretation, so they plan to delay the study readout to ASCO GI in January. We defer to the PIs on the timing and look forward to announcing these results at that time. Meanwhile, we are looking forward to the readout of the new GALAXY data at the ESMO conference in September, with 36-month outcomes being reported in over 2,000 patients and mature overall survival data being presented in addition to disease-free survival data. This will be the first time prospective overall survival data in colorectal cancer will be presented. Looking forward to 2025, 2026, and beyond, we have a full suite of phase 3 studies in colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and breast cancer, including both escalation and treatment on molecular recurrence studies. Furthermore, we have trials focused on de-escalation and some trials that span both of these indications. In bladder cancer, we're expecting the IMvigor011 trial to read out in 2025, with the MODERN trial also continuing to enroll well after being recently opened. We also have important breast cancer trials that we've previously presented on. This is just a snapshot of our data pipeline, and we continue to invest in generating high-quality clinical evidence to achieve our vision of Signatera as part of standard clinical practice. I also want to provide an update on our early cancer detection program. We continue to make progress in developing a differentiated blood-based assay to detect colorectal cancer. We are finishing a study utilizing prospectively collected, colonoscopy-managed, average-risk blood samples supplemented by colorectal cancer samples. We look forward to sharing these results in the near future, and I will provide further details on our plans at that time. Now, I will turn it over to Mike to cover the financials. Mike? Great. Thanks, Alex. The next slide is just a summary of the P&L in Q2 and the year-over-year progress. Steve covered the key points on revenues and margins. On the expense lines, just as a reminder, we've made several growth-oriented investments in SG&A over the past year. For example, picking up the women's health sales team from Invitae, which is working out very well. We also had a modest step up in R&D in clinical trials. These measured increases in OpEx are consistent with the Q1 guide and I think are indicative of how we would like to proceed for the time being. We'd like to maximize investments to grow revenues and margins while holding our cash balance relatively constant. That's what we achieved here in the second quarter, and we were able to break even despite the seasonal headwinds that Steve described, and our cash balance actually grew slightly with interest income. Okay, let's get to the revised financial guidance on the next slide. On revenues, we are now expecting $1.49 billion-$1.52 billion. This represents a bump of $70 million at the midpoint as compared to the roughly $30 million beat in the quarter when removing revenue true-ups Steve talked about. The annual revenue guide now implies about 40% revenue growth versus 2023. The guide also implies we are bullish on the second half of the year, and we are off to a good start so far in Q3. On pacing, we expect steady sequential growth in volumes and revenue in Q3 and Q4. Our guide always assumes $0 in true-up revenues in future periods, and if we continue to generate cash above our expectations in the second half, any true-ups would represent upside to our guidance. We are also modeling largely stable ASPs in the second half for the overall business, though we do expect to see continued modest sequential improvement in the Signatera ASP, given the current momentum that Steve described. We are leaving the OpEx guide and the cash guide unchanged versus Q1, and we are still on track to make all the necessary growth investments we have planned for this year. I'll repeat my disclaimer on cash burn. Now that we are operating at this break-even level, it's important to understand that we expect to have fluctuations in quarterly cash burn due to timing of capital expenditures and working capital. The timing of reimbursement from payers can easily vary in a given quarter, so I wouldn't be surprised to have a quarter where we have negative cash flow and others where we are positive, and the guide just represents the full year result. The income statement, of course, is less prone to these swings, and so I expect our losses to continue to gradually narrow through the course of the year. Okay, so with that, we're very pleased with the quarter and happy to take your questions. Let me hand it to the operator. Operator? Thank you. As a reminder to ask a question, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. Our first question comes from Dan Brennan from Cowen. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thank you. Congrats on the quarter, and thanks for the question here. Maybe, maybe just on the clinical trial readouts on ALTAIR and GALAXY. I appreciate the ALTAIR readouts delayed just due to the PIs needing more time. But is there anything to read into this at all from either- you know, given the time that they need from either the PFS or the, you know, the OS that you might see coming out of this trial. And then on GALAXY, you know, OS would be something, you know, understand this is an observational trial, not a randomized trial. So how do we think about, you know, the expectation here if we see an OS benefit, what that could actually mean either for, util- you know, for kind of, doctor usage and/or, NCCN? Yeah. Thanks, Tim. Good question. So, yeah, on ALTAIR, I mean, there's, you know, obviously a lot of work to do to get the patient data together and complete the analysis, and I think the timeline leading into ESMO was just a little bit too tight. So the PIs want to move to the next kind of large-scale conference, which is ASCO GI, and, you know, of course, we support that. But we're definitely excited about reading out the GALAXY 36-month data at ESMO. And I think, you know, for having the first prospective overall survival data readout on Signatera is going to be a big milestone, and it's something that we're really excited about. So Alex, do you want to talk a little bit more about, you know, I think the, the this readout coming up at ESMO? Yeah, definitely, Steve. Thanks for the question. You know, for colorectal cancer in the adjuvant setting, 3-month, 3-year DFS is usually considered kind of the gold standard as we think about predicting overall survival. And I think the timing is perfect in that the overall survival data from the GALAXY cohort is also now maturing, and we're able to read it out. So we think that kind of provides two big upsides. You know, I think the first, it shows kind of how Signatera results predict with long, long-term outcomes, both DFS and OS, and it also builds a framework for looking at ctDNA dynamics as possible surrogates for future clinical trial developments. Great. And then if I have a follow-up, just on pricing, true-ups have been obviously a big driver here the last two quarters. I know you don't guide to them, but any way to characterize what that opportunity could look like? And then, Mike, on Signatera price in the back half of the year, sounds like, I think from the last call, you were assuming flat pricing. Now, maybe you're assuming a step up in price. Maybe just discuss if anything changed there. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for the question. So on the true-ups, it wouldn't surprise me to see us have some additional true-ups, but again, they're just because they're hard to forecast is really the more the reason why we don't guide to them. I do expect that to moderate. I mean, we've stepped up ASPs very meaningfully in response to the better cash collections that we've seen over the last 18 months or so. So I think as the ASPs go up, hopefully, you know, more of that revenue is just going to be accrual rather than a true-up a year later. But nonetheless, I mean, this will be kind of a process, I think. So that's on true-ups. On pricing, yeah, I mean, look, we've seen continued progress with the, you know, reimbursement for Signatera, and we think that that can yield, you know, the guide presumes some modest step-ups in the ASP in the second half, but not something heroic beyond, you know, what we think is eminently achievable just based on reimbursement from Medicare and Medicare Advantage payers. Great. Thank you. Our next question comes from Rachel Vatnsdal from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thank you, guys, for taking the question. So first up, on women's health, great to see the continued progress there this quarter, especially given the typical seasonality dynamics. So can you break out for us what was the contribution from the fetal test that you guys highlighted? And then also on the Invitae side, can you walk us through how much did Invitae benefit? You talked about some of the integration of the sales force there. So how should we think about that contribution in the back half? Yeah. Thanks a lot. So yeah, we were really excited to launch the fetal RhD test. You know, it seemed like we were meeting what continues to be a very significant unmet need. And, you know, we've seen a lot of interest in continuing interest, you know, particularly, I think, leading to us closing new customers. And one of the things that drove this outperformance in Q2 was an increase in new customers as we came out of Q1, and then, you know, that continued on in Q2, and a lot of that is from the organic growth of the women's health business. So of course, Invitae made a contribution. I think we said in sort of Q1 that, you know, Invitae was maybe, like, 25% of the women's health growth or something in that range. And, you know, I think it's similar, you know, in Q2, as now we're getting a full quarter of the Invitae volume coming in. But, you know, a lot of the new volume coming in is organic growth, and we're just continuing to see interest in the Natera prenatal portfolio. Great. And then just for my follow-up, you've had another really solid quarter on the gross margin front. So I guess, how should we think about this progress continuing into the back half of the year? And can you kind of break down for us, especially on the Signatera side, you mentioned some of the COGS dynamics. How much of that gross margin progression on Signatera was due to, you know, getting into the subsequent test for patients versus that first test, where you really do the whole sequencing bet on the patient, versus, you know, further operational efficiencies? And how do we think about that into the back half? Mike, you want to take that? Yeah, sure. So, yeah, you're right. The gross margin guide is influenced, of course, by continued improvement in the Signatera gross margin. But I'd also highlight that the women's health ASPs are looking quite strong, as Steve kind of mentioned in the call, and we're very gratified to see that. Specifically on the Signatera gross margin dynamics. We saw another kind of, you know, modest step down in the COGS for Signatera, sequentially versus Q1. And that is, a lot of that, I think, is really kind of related to kind of the scale and the volume that we're seeing. There's still, I think, room to run in terms of reducing the COGS associated with, you know, running the tissue in-house, particularly as we, as we stand up the Austin lab, but we really get scale, in that facility. So I, I think that's a, that's a positive driver, for the back half. And I think, you know, if you just kind of, in terms of the gross margin progression, you just kind of think about the, the underlying kind of non-true-up, progression we've seen here. I think you can still see kind of modest sequential improvement in that kind of underlying trend, you know, sequentially in Q3 and Q4. That's, that's what the model implies. Our next question comes from Puneet Souda from Leerink Partners. Please go ahead, your line is open. Yeah, hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions, and, if you don't mind, I'll ask both of them together. On ALTAIR, just wanted to understand perspective from Alex. You know, I mean, I appreciate that it's getting pushed out, but just in terms of overall benchmarking of this 240 patients trial, 80% powered to deliver DFS of, you know, at a hazard ratio of 0.67, is that the right benchmark? You've talked about MOSAIC trial before, where Natera wasn't involved, but maybe just tell us, how should we benchmark this? And then, you know, a second question follow-up for Mike is on gross margin. You know, what's behind the 54%-56% gross margin estimate? I appreciate there's a true-up difference here, but is there anything else beyond that, that we need to consider? Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Puneet. Yeah, Alex, why don't you go ahead and talk about what good looks like, and then you can hand it to Mike. Yeah. Thanks, Puneet, for the question. I think as we've previously discussed, and I think we stand by that benchmark. You know, MOSAIC is, we think, the best kind of DFS number to really target. You know, I think that study showed a DFS of 0.77. And it was the last study done, led to a change in treatment guidelines in the adjuvant setting. So we think that's still the right number. And, you know, I think we are just awaiting the final results to be generated and reported out by the investigators, and, you know, we continue to look forward to those when they're available. On the gross margin, yeah, I mean, I think the key delta to need is just that the, you know, the second half just presumes zero and true ups, right? So that's the key difference between first half and second half. I do think that backing out the true ups, as I'd mentioned, I think kind of the organic underlying gross margin, I think there's room for there to be sequential improvement, both in Q3 and Q4. And so the guide is a blend of those couple of variables. So pretty bullish on the kind of organic underlying gross margin progression. Okay, got it. And if I could just squeeze a quick one around FMI. With the partnership termination, does that change your volume growth expectation for Altera or, you know, any impact on Signatera? Thank you so much. Yeah, thanks. That's a good question. No, as you know, we, we mentioned, you know, we're not, we're not continuing the partnership going forward, and it, it doesn't change our guidance or our volume forecast at all in any way. All right, guys. Congrats. Thanks. All right. Thanks. Our next question comes from Tejas Savant, from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead, your line is open. Hey, guys. Good evening, and thanks for the time here. Sticking with the Signatera theme, Alex, can you share some color and just in light of the delay here, and ASCO GI, I think it's January twenty-third, is early next year the right time frame for when we can expect a top-line readout from you guys? And then in terms of framing that readout, right, so should the trial not meet that sort of 0.77 hazard ratio bar you talked about, do you think we could still get enough evidence from the subgroup level analysis to demonstrate that Signatera performed as it should, and it was the drug that failed to meet the bar? Just any color on those two points would be great. Yeah. So maybe I'll comment on the readout, and then, you know, Alex, you can talk about the performance. So, so yeah, I think it's, you know, we're kind quite a ways out here now from, you know, ASCO GI, which is the next major conference, and as we get closer there, you know, we'll kind of discuss the communication plan. I think with... You know, we're planning to read out, you know, top-line results if they were available, you know, a couple of weeks before the conference. But, you know, we'll meet with the PIs and decide what we want to do as we get a little closer to ASCO GI. Alex, you want to talk about some of the subgroup analyses? Yeah, definitely. So I think the first question about assay performance, you know, Signatera is being used in GALAXY. ALTAIR is obviously a portion of that study. You know, we've published on assay performance in GALAXY. We're updating the performance estimates at ESMO, and that will also be published. So in terms of assay performance concerns, you know, I think the data is out there, and it's been published, and I think that's what we expect. Now, in terms of subgroup analyses, you know, here, I just don't even want to speculate. You know, I think we're awaiting the final results, and depending on what the results show, you know, subgroup analyses may be important, may not be important. They're pre-specified, so we'll take a look at those, as soon as that data is available to us as well. Got it. That's helpful. And then just as a follow-up, you know, one of your competitors recently talked about, you know, greater physician preference for tumor-naive approaches in the surveillance setting, just due to, you know, apparently a lack of conviction that a tumor-informed approach can continue to provide relevant results, given the time since diagnosis. So I'm just curious as to your take on that, and as we think about, you know, your MRD pipeline, you've got a few things in the hopper here. Is that one aspect that you will look to address, either via, you know, an improved version of Signatera, perhaps a broader tumor-informed panel, or, or a tumor-naive approach of your own? Yeah. So, you know, we think at this point, you know, the decision on whether tumor-informed or tumor-naive is gonna be more successful, I think is, you know, it's pretty clear, right? If you just look at the volume and the physician interest in the marketplace, and, you know, the question about kind of tumor dynamics over time, you know, that's not really the relevant. You know, I think, you know, generally, we're looking at clonal mutations that are present, you know, even if there's developments in the tumor over time. So I don't really think that, you know, the way that it's being described is relevant. You know, look, we always keep our eye out on what's happening with competition and what's happening in the marketplace, and obviously, we've been successful, you know, doing innovative things and innovating and evolving products over time, and we'll continue to do that as the market evolves. But I think at this point, things are pretty clear. You know, the tumor-informed approach is, you know, clearly the chosen approach by physician. Got it. Super helpful, guys. One final one for me. Just on ACOG, Steve, as you think about that as a catalyst, I mean, it's still in the framework, but do you think it happens between now and year-end, or you just don't know, and it's, there's a possibility here that this could slip to 2025? Yeah, I think we still feel very positive about, you know, ACOG guidelines, both for carrier screening and on 22q, and that's really grounded in looking at the data and looking at physician preferences and looking at the studies that have been done. So I think, well, we expect to see something this year. You know, we feel very strongly that things are coming. Awesome. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Yep. Our next question comes from Matt Sykes from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Congrats on the quarter. My first one is, do you expect ASPs in women's health to decline at all for the second half, assuming ASPs, you mentioned, will be stable in the second half with a sequential step up in Signatera ASPs? Hey, it's Mike. I'll take that one. Hey, so thanks for the question. No, I-- we actually kind of model kind of stable ASPs in the women's health space for the second half, so do not, do not expect a decline, which as the long-term followers in the Natera will recall, and that's a little bit of a deviation from the way that we typically guide. We've historically guided, you know, to some erosion in the ASPs, but that's just inconsistent with the momentum that we've seen in the women's health space. We've seen, you know, just continued progress really across the board in getting that long tail of recalcitrant payers, so just reimburse, particularly for NIPT. Now that it's been kind of the standard of care for a few years now, you kind of get this kind of conversion of that long tail of payers, and we're definitely seeing that now. So feeling very good about the women's health ASPs at this time. Got it. And then is the CIRCULATE France study that you're expecting data from shortly, is that similar to the CIRCULATE Japan study? Does it also have an escalation and de-escalation arm, and what are you expecting there incrementally that's potentially different from the Japan study? Yeah. Alex, you want to take that? Yep, absolutely. So CIRCULATE France, you know, we're looking at the lower risk stage two patient population, where the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is, you know, hotly debated. The majority of patients in the, probably the world, are not giving adjuvant chemotherapy, but, you know, many of these patients still recur. So that is a study that's randomizing Signatera-positive patients after surgery in that kind of narrow stage, defined patient population to either receive adjuvant chemotherapy or follow kind of the standard of care, which is observation. So in, in many ways, I would say it's pretty different than ALTAIR, and it's asking kind of a post-operative adjuvant question. There is no de-escalation arm, since again, these patients, as part of standard of care, are not usually getting adjuvant chemotherapy. The Signatera negative patients are being just followed, and their outcomes are observed, but there is no randomized de-escalation component. Got it. Thank you. Forgot to mention, this is Prashant on for Matt. Thank you for the question. Our next question comes from Doug Schenkel, from Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, good afternoon, guys. I wanna just go through a few loose ends on Signatera. So, actually, I want to come back to the topic of competition, but let me put that to the side for a second. What's the mix of first-time tests versus surveillance as we sit here today? When you talk about COGS improvement, I'm assuming that's independent of mix, so that, you know, gets better even more so over time as the mix shifts towards more surveillance. And then kind of building off of this, keeping in mind that you seem to be on track to go Signatera revenue over 80% year-over-year. If we think of how you've been tracking on first-time tests, and then think about the annual tail of four more predictable tests per year for surveillance purposes the following year, and then you stack that on top of new first-time test growth, doesn't that mathematically support an outlook for sustained 50%, maybe more volume growth in the year ahead? Hey, thanks for the question, Doug. It's Mike. Yeah, look, what we've seen is, at first when we launched Signatera, obviously, you know, there's very few surveillance tests in the, in the cohort. Then we've kind of grown to where, you know, historically it's been kind of gotten to, like, a 50/50 kind of balance, and it's been quite stable there, you know, for some time. It's continued to evolve, but I would characterize it very broadly. It's still kind of in that zone, where you have, very high compliance of patients staying with Signatera into the surveillance, setting. And I think, you know, steady state, that's probably the vast majority of your volume, 75%-80% of your volume. So, like, over time, mature product would be, that, that tail of patients kind of getting surveilled in the recurrence monitoring setting. We haven't seen, that progression happen as rapidly as you might expect, because the top of the funnel just keeps getting filled. I mean, there just continues to be kind of new, account wins, physicians adopting the test, new patients coming in the top of the funnel, and so that's kept that mix, you know, much more balanced, okay? And so, to your point, I do think that, it's kind of a unique dynamic, the fact that you've got this kind of long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient, where you, you stack up kind of classes of patients that stay with the test. It does support, I think, you know, longer term, you know, outlook, for growth potential that, you know, that we're quite excited about, because we think that can be extremely useful to patients over time. And you asked a two-parter, and I'm only smart enough to remember one part, so ask, ask the second one again. I mean, I think it was essentially just the COGS improvements that you talked about. That's independent of mix, and I think you kind of just answered that because your, your mix is stable at 50/50. So I think we're good on that, Mike. Yeah, exactly. Yep. My follow-up is on competition. You know, Guardant reported data from the COSMOS study yesterday. Specificity was 98%, sensitivity was 81%. Recognizing that these studies are done in a way where, you know, it's hard to make perfect apples to apples comparisons, this seems to be well below, you know, certainly what we've seen in studies from you. You know, especially, you know, sensitivity, which, at least to me, looks like it was over 10 points lower. That said, Guardant's clearly asserting that their study data is actually better than what we've seen with Signatera. Are you seeing anything that suggests this is equivalent or better than what you guys have presented? Based on what's out there, you know, what part of the market positioning would be at risk for you? And, you know, should we be contemplating any moderation in growth as folks potentially contemplate shifting to a study which, I'm sorry, an assay that, you know, may be more convenient, but, you know, from a performance standpoint, I think you'd have to, you know, once again view that convenience is more important than performance? Yeah. Thanks, Doug. You know, so I guess I'll say, you know, Guardant's been out since, I think, 2021, promoting their tests and, you know, we've seen them in accounts, we've seen them in the field, and they announced, I think, the COSMOS results maybe in January of this year. So that's been out there for a while, and it's good that they've gotten the paper published. You know, we don't think the dynamic really changes much. You know, it's. They've been out, you know, they, they've had the data out for seven months now. You know, so I don't think it will impact much. We feel really good about our test performance, 50 peer-reviewed publications, plus, you know, multiple further studies in the pipeline. We're seeing, you know, 40% of oncologists use the product, great operations. Things are going really well. Okay. Thanks, guys. Yep. Our next question comes from Tycho Peterson from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, thanks. Couple of cleanups here, I guess, going back to ALTAIR. Just wanna make sure I understand kind of the pacing here. I think you previously talked about, you know, the CRC committee for NCCN meeting this summer and incorporating ALTAIR. Now, that's pushed out till next year, how do you think about, you know, timing of NCCN? And do you still think this is kind of a driver versus CIRCULATE- US? So that's the first question. Yeah, I'll take that. So, you know, look, so first, we were happy to see, you know, Signatera and MRD testing being incorporated already as a, as footnote in NCCN, you know, based on the data that's out there. And we're excited about this, 36-month, prospective overall survival data that's gonna be read out, at ESMO, which we think is a very positive thing. You know, the committee, I think, previously has said they're, they're looking for overall survival data in this prospective manner. You know, of course, we're looking for randomized data as well, and that's why we're doing all of these randomized clinical trials. So, you know, we can't always predict what's gonna happen with the NCCN committee. You know, but, you know, certainly doing all these studies, I think, puts us in a, in a positive position. You know, it's also important to remember, as Solomon described, I think in his section, you know, the different use cases of Signatera, right? So, you know, we have adjuvant decision-making, which is largely covered by the GALAXY study. You know, we then have surveillance with the notion of doing surgery with curative intent if you find a recurrence. You know, and that's those two things are really driving a lot of the utilization today. And then you have the ALTAIR study, which is looking at sort of a new paradigm of treatment on molecular recurrence. You know, but it's not necessarily the indication that's been driving all of the growth that we've seen today. Yeah, so look, we'll have to see, but we're doing everything we can. We're putting ourselves in the right position by doing these studies to see guidelines and see impact over time. Then I guess on kind of use cases, I think last quarter you talked about some bumps in bladder cancer, ovarian cancer, you know, ovarian on the back of Medicare coverage. Can you maybe just talk a little bit about, you know, some of those newer indications and if you're doing anything around kind of market development there? Yeah. So we're actually seeing a lot of interest in these other areas. And one of the things I think that is great about the Signatera strategy is that we've been able to generate peer-reviewed data and get coverage in multiple different indications now. And in fact, in this last quarter, as Alex announced, we just had data on Merkel cell and now pancreatic cancer. So we're continuing to generate evidence in new tumor types, and those will all be submitted for Medicare. So when we've gotten coverage, we definitely see a bump as we go out and the sales team starts promoting in those indications. And then as we look towards, you know, 2025, actually one of the exciting areas I think is bladder cancer, with, the IMvigor011 results, you know, potentially being read out in 2025. So we continue to see a lot of interest across the board, and we think, that the pan-cancer approach, backed by strong clinical data, is the right approach. Great. And then last one, is it a little bit of a change in strategy on tumor-naive for MRD? I think in the past, you talked about spending about $15 million this year on datasets and maybe some readouts this summer and in the fall. Understanding, obviously, it's a smaller part of the market, not a huge focus, but I think you previously talked about spending on tumor-naive. Yeah. So, I think we've—you know, what we've said before is that we're definitely, you know, kind of looking at the competition, understanding what's happening, understanding what physicians are interested in. We definitely think tumor-informed, you know, is, I think the winning approach at this point. You know, but certainly we are, you know, aware of what's happening in the marketplace and, you know, what types of test physicians are using. I think we've said we're, you know, we're innovating, and we're doing different things, and we expect to announce some different MRD enhancements and product line extensions in the future, and I think we'll just have to wait and kind of see what those are. As far as early cancer detection, I think that's generally where we talked about having that spend in the range of, like, $10-$15 million and having some readouts coming later this year, and those are actually on track. So, you know, we expect in the, in the very near future to be able to give a readout on, you know, our, our progress in, in early cancer detection, which we're excited about. Great. Thank you. Yep. Our next question comes from Catherine Schulte from Baird. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Thanks for the questions. Maybe first on women's health ASPs, just regarding your comments on improving the fraction of tests you get paid on, even without guidelines, does that hold true on microdels? Are you seeing improved collections there, or was that more of a carrier screening comment? Yeah, Catherine, good question. I, you know, I'd say that's not the case on microdels. I think there, you know, the improvement is really gonna come from a guideline change. I think what we're talking about is where there's a covered test, and, you know, maybe the payers aren't paying when they're supposed to, and you need to really, you know, do things with the payer to try to make sure you get paid, like, for example, collecting medical records, you know, appealing after an unjust denial, you know, things like that. And we're just getting better at that as time goes on and we learn more. You know, but certainly, you know, the upside on something, you know, that generally doesn't have coverage, like microdeletion, still rests with guidelines and getting coverage in place. Okay. Got it. Then for Signatera, you mentioned, I think, over 40% of oncologists ordered it in the second quarter. What percent have ordered it, you know, at all, cumulatively since launch? And, you know, what portion of your sequential volume growth was from new ordering physicians versus penetrating existing accounts? Yeah. So we actually see, you know, once doctors start using Signatera, they're generally, you know, pretty consistent. You know, but obviously there's groups across the board that have different ordering patterns. But I would say the typical pattern is they trial it out on a couple of patients, they like the experience, they see the clinical utility, and then they start expanding into their practice, into other patients. Maybe other doctors within the practice start ordering the test, and then maybe they move beyond colorectal, move beyond breast, you know, to other tumor types. And so, you know, I would say that, you know, once people get on board, generally, there's a very strong rate of recurrent orders and expansion within those practices. Now, with that said, we definitely track, you know, new physicians coming on board, and, you know, we, we see a very healthy pipeline there of, of new physicians coming in with interest—you know, that, that maybe they were waiting for, for more data to come out. You know, maybe they just, they hadn't, you know, hadn't decided on the, the right timing for them to use it yet. But we're certainly seeing a lot of new people come in, in addition to, expansion within the physicians that are currently using. Great. Thank you. Our next question comes from Subbu Nambi from Guggenheim. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my question. Do you believe that the delay in the ALTAIR readout will have any impact on market demand? I don't think so, but just wanted to confirm any signs that clinicians were holding off on adopting, pending the readout. Yeah, that's a good question. So, you know, just as a reminder, what ALTAIR is studying is, is sort of a new paradigm, which is, which is treatment on molecular recurrence. You know, where you would need to go get approval for this particular drug to be used without clinical relapse. And so, you know, the vast, vast majority of the usage that we've seen today and the growth that we're seeing is based on different indications. And those indications are adjuvant decision making, where the doctor's trying to make a decision about whether to give adjuvant chemotherapy or not. That's not being studied in ALTAIR. Or just standard surveillance and recurrence monitoring for the intent of doing surgery. Because in colorectal cancer, in a significant portion of the patients, if you catch the cancer early, you can actually do surgery and, you know, in, in many cases, the patients can be cured just from that surgery alone. So neither of those two indications are being studied in ALTAIR. Yeah, so you know, the delay obviously won't have any impact on the current status quo. And, you know, I think we remain excited about reading the results out as we turn the corner into 2025 and potentially expanding the market opportunity further. That's super helpful. And, consistently in our checks on ALTAIR trial, it appears that even if, if it reads out positive, it could be practice-changing, just like what you said, a new use case. But if it reads out negative, Signatera ordering behavior wouldn't be impacted because I think they point out the trial design is complicated and there are multiple subgroups. Is this how you're thinking about it internally? Yeah, I mean, look, we, we've thought about it as potentially opening up a new area of growth, this idea of sort of treatment on molecular recurrence. You know, and I, and I think that's really the view of how we're looking at things. And, you know, of course, the core volume growth today and all the utilization, or the vast majority utilization that we're seeing, and we're still very, very under-penetrated, I think, around adjuvant decision making and recurrence monitoring with the intent to do surgery. You know, so we'll have to see how things go, you know, after the data reads out and, you know, what additional uptake we get from this. Perfect. Thank you, guys. Our next question comes from Eve Burstein from Bernstein. Go ahead. Your line is open. Great. Thanks so much for the questions. Two for you. First one, you said that your base case is to add 9,000-10,000 Signatera tests per quarter. At this point, though, you've had 2 quarters in a row with test growth clearly well above that. So, two parts to this. One is, part of the reason you've given for anchoring on that 9,000-10,000 number is 'cause you don't plan to increase your sales force, but you're clearly seeing interest from the market, so why not increase sales force at this point? And then two, given that strong tailwind from surveillance, even if you don't increase sales force, you'll have that working in your favor. So don't you think it's reasonable to increase the base case at this point? Yeah, that's a good question. And look, we're in a very under-penetrated market. There's lots of demand. We've been growing. We have seen two really strong quarters in a row, you know, of very solid volume growth. You know, but look, I think we have to just kind of stay conservative with our expectations as we normally are and try to outperform them, which we generally have been able to do. But you know, look, it's hard to—you can't judge things on a quarter-to-quarter basis because, you know, there's sometimes a different number of receiving days, sometimes there's holidays, you know, sometimes there's big major conferences where doctors are out. So I think part of the point of, you know, just sort of reiterating, you know, the kind of the base case is just because things can fluctuate every quarter. But when you take a step back and you look at an annual basis, you know, I think that's kind of a probably a better way to look at things. You know, but of course, we've given the same pitch before about the 8,000-9,000. I think we reiterated that in Q1, and then we delivered 13,000 units of growth. So you know, it's just a kind of a standard, you know, baseline that we keep reiterating and, you know, has nothing to do with sort of our views on exactly how the next particular quarter is going. Got it. Thanks. As a follow-up, following up on the partnership with Foundation, you said that deciding not to renew that isn't changing your guidance or forecast in any way. That partnership made a lot of sense strategically because you could piggyback off the 150,000 or 200,000 therapy selection tests they were doing, and Altera is clearly well below that. So, if you're not changing your forecast, it makes me think that the partnership wasn't really delivering a ton of value. Why not? And why not sort of fix the things that weren't going right for you? And then what, if anything, will you plan to change about your Altera marketing going forward to try to drive volumes there? Because I imagine that they in turn really could drive volumes for Signatera. Yeah, I would say, look, when you look back to when we signed the partnership back in 2019, I mean, things have really changed quite a bit since then, right? So Signatera growth has accelerated and grown, you know, immensely. And we're just in a very different place than we were back when we, you know, when we signed that partnership. And, you know, as a reminder, we were running the plasma test, but, you know, the partner laboratory was responsible for commercial distribution. And, you know, I think for business reasons, both sides decided, you know, that it didn't make sense to continue. But like I said, it doesn't impact our forecast. We're focusing on Signatera, the opportunity that we have with Altera, which, you know, I think we're doing really well on. We continue to do really well in immunotherapy monitoring, where we've had very strong data, where a lot of times we see the Altera being ordered, you know, alongside those immunotherapy monitoring patients. So, you know, we're continuing to, you know, to move forward in that indication, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense anymore to, you know, continue the partnership. You know, you know, it sort of, you know, we're moving on. Okay. Thanks a lot. We are out of time for questions today. This will conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.