Travis Steed. I cover medical devices at BofA. Next up, we have PROCEPT BioRobotics. We have Larry Wood, CEO, and Kevin Waters, CFO. Thanks both for being here today. Maybe we can start with Q1. You just reported revenue, which beat by 3%. Systems were a little better, and procedures a little light versus the street. Maybe you can just start high level with an overview and the drivers of Q1 results. Sure. Thanks. Thanks for being here. Yeah, you know, I think coming out of Q4, there were a lot of questions that a lot of people had. You know, we obviously had the big inventory reset. I think there were a lot of concerns about systems being a little soft and pricing being a little soft. I think, you know, there were a lot of things that people had a lot of questions on. What we really tried to do is put a high-quality quarter on the board in Q1. I think, you know, we guided to the inventory issue being behind us, and we thought we'd be one-to-one on procedures for the full- year. We were at 95% in Q1, which I think bodes really well for us being a one-to-one full- year. System placements, we were very pleased. We did 47 greenfield placements, we did it at our highest price point than we've ever done, which I think represents the strength in capital, which I think people were concerned was starting to weaken. You know, our ASP in Q1 was more than $83,000 per system, which was by far our highest ever. We guided that, you know, we were gonna be at ASP, ASPs at $3,500 for the full year. We already achieved that in Q1. We talked about margin improvement. We were at 61% in Q4, we were at 65% already, which is what our full-year guide was. I think a lot of the things that people were worried about, you know, or concerned about, rightfully so, I think we were able to check those off. The one thing is procedure growth. You know, we guided to 12,000- 12,800. We ended up a little bit lighter than where we wanted to be at 12,200. You know, we have our guidance of 60,000-64,000 cases for the year. We haven't changed our guidance there, you know, we need to have a big step-up in Q2 and continue to have step-ups for the rest of the year. I think when you look at our financial guidance of $390 million-$410,million the steps that we've taken on pricing and margin and all those other sorts of things, you know, we continue to feel very good about the guidance that we provided and, you know, hopefully having some upside to that. Mm-hmm. You just touched on some of these, but just overall guidance for the year was maintained at $390 million-$410 million. Yeah, if there are any other puts and takes that you would call out on the full year following Q1? I don't think so. I think again, you know, we need to continue to deliver on the ASP, and, you know, we did guide that we think ASP is going to be higher than what we guided to at the Investor Day. We didn't have any IDN placements in Q1 to speak of. When you get large IDN orders, that's going to affect your ASP a little bit because we, you know, we'll provide a little bit of discounting there. Overall, we, you know, we really feel strong with where those things are. Any comments on guidance, Kevin? Yeah, no, I think we just wanted to continue to take a conservative approach. I mean, Larry and I both said it multiple times on the call. We feel great about pricing, but there's really no need to get out over our skis. Let's get another quarter under our belt, and then we'll more formally update those metrics. Feel great against the public guidance range. Then you mentioned the procedure guide, you know, implies a ramp to growth in the back half of the year to 50% versus the 31% growth you did in Q1. Maybe you can just talk about what gives you the confidence in maintaining that procedure guide and also in the ramp. Well, I think as we scale the launch teams and we get more capability to launch more systems in the launch team, I think that's one area of benefit that we'll see. I think, you know, getting our core utilization team under the new org structure, more focused on, you know, their installed base, I think that helps. I think every system we replace is another opportunity to relaunch a system, and I think that those are gonna benefit us. I think those are all things we got to do. It starts in Q2. We need to see a sequential step-up from Q1 to Q2. You know, we're gonna need to see 1,500, 2,000 units, you know, from what we did in Q1. I think if we start to see that incremental pickup, you know, then it's easy to plot out with the rest of the years. That's our goal, and that's really the area of focus we have. We have to continue to deliver on capital and deliver on those other things, but we have an intense focus on procedure growth. Got it. On the system ASP, you mentioned this, but just to understand it a bit more, the Q1 ASP level was a bit higher than what you were expecting. For the rest of the year, you expect that to be in the $450,000-$460,000 range. Maybe you can just explain that a bit more, like what was that dynamic in Q1 mean versus the other quarters, or? Well, it doesn't imply we're gonna get less disciplined again. We're gonna maintain our discipline. We didn't have a lot of IDN orders in Q1. I don't think we had really any, they were all single placements. Which I think, again, speaks to the strength of capital. It wasn't driven by, you know, some big order or a couple of big orders. I think that that's really good. I think some of the IDNs, we have contractual pricing with them. We have other things with them that is gonna be below that 483 number. I feel really good about where we are on pricing. We guided to the $450-$460 range. I, you know, frankly, I think there's more upside opportunity than there is downside risk for that. As Kevin said, one quarter doesn't make a trend. We don't wanna get out in front of ourselves on any of these things. We wanna deliver, we wanna tell you guys numbers, we wanna go hit or see them and just keep our head down and, you know, execution is what's gonna take us where we wanna go, and we just wanna keep the focus there. Got it. On the commercial realignment, you know, those initiatives modestly affected the Q1 procedure growth. Just curious how that trended relative to your expectations. You made two main changes where you realigned the commercial team and also created a dedicated launch team. What was the main source of disruption? Well, I continue to feel good about all the changes we've made. I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the changes. I think it's just people have new roles, and they have new responsibilities and new expectations. I mean, we were just in one of the breakouts, and as you know, the simplest analogy I have is if everybody in this room covers urology and tomorrow your boss came to you and said, "I want you to cover cardiovascular," you might be really excited about it, and it's an exciting thing, and you might be really up to do it. You're gonna walk into that job, you're gonna have to build new relationships. You're gonna have new expectations. You're gonna have new companies you follow. You're gonna have new all those things. I don't even know that I'd call it disruption. It's just maturing into whatever the new job is and going through that learning curve, where, you know, we're asking our core utilization team to drive, you know, really same-store sales and to grow their existing base. That's something we haven't really asked them to do historically. Historically, you know, they could live off just new systems coming into their region and live off that growth. You know, we were a little bit farmers in some ways that, you know, a customer would call us on Friday and say, "Here's the cases I have next week," and we'd say, "Okay." Now, you know, we're looking every single system we have has a growth plan associated with it. That means, you know, if we have a busy doctor, but they're doing 50% of their cases on our system, we need to figure out how to get them to 80% or 90%. If we have somebody who's doing 100% of their cases, but they're just not a high-volume person, we have to figure out how to get another high-volume surgeon to come adopt the technology and make that their standard of care. Every account that we have has a different, you know, growth model, a different growth expectation. Now there's a plan for every single account that people need to go execute on. They all don't all get the same priority. They don't all get the same focus. That's what we need to drive to. You mentioned the commercial realignment, contributing to the back half is one of the things that gives you confidence in the procedure ramp. I guess just what have you seen in terms of improvement, exiting Q1 into Q2? I've been really, really pleased, and I think people are embracing the change. Even things that you would think, you know, externally that would be controversial. You know, when I went to the sales team and said, "We're gonna put pricing floors in, we're gonna eliminate this discounting, we're gonna eliminate these, all these things," I expected at some level there would be pushback from the team. Like, I'm taking away their flexibility. I'm taking away the tools that they had. The reaction has just been the opposite. People want guidance. They want guidelines. People are excited now about, like, not discounting at the end of the quarter and being able to just tell customers, you know, the price is the price. Let's talk about procedures. Let's talk about other things. They're not distracted by managing all the supply chain, managing inventory, and managing all that. It is still new expectations for people, and it is new relationships with people. A lot of people got new bosses, some people got new accounts, and they just have to grow into what those new responsibilities are. You know, I'll say this, there's no decision that we've reversed. There's no decision that we've said, "Oh, that, you know, in retrospect, that was a bad decision." I think all of these things are playing out the way we do. It just takes time, and I, you know, I used the analogy earlier. You know, you throw all the ingredients in a cake, and you throw it in the oven. You can't open the door every two minutes and see how it's going. You know, at some point, you have to make all your changes. You have to let it sit and let the leadership do their job. That's kind of a little bit the boat that we're in now. We have the dashboards, we have analytics, you know, that we look at every day, the entire leadership team looks at every day. We're not gonna get to the end of the quarter and find out there was a problem someplace. It's the first we've heard of it. I feel like we can significantly improve just our day-to-day execution on things. That's where we have everybody focused on. Look, it's not easy. It's not easy to grow procedures sequentially quarter over quarter. It's not easier to change the standard of care. It's not easy to do any of these things. All of these foundational steps we've taken are all the things that are necessary to be able to take us where we wanna go. Got it. You know, maybe just digging a bit deeper into that on the new structure for clinical and sales functions reporting to a common regional leader. Maybe you could just talk a bit more about how that helps drive procedure growth more effectively? Yeah. Well, I think, you know, in the, in the old structure, we had people that only covered cases, and they were just clinically based, and they reported up to one leader. That leader's goals would've just been to make sure we do good cases. You know, like there's no other goal associated with it. They weren't tied to growth. They weren't tied to execution. They weren't tied to anything. Then you had sales people over here, and they were tied to a quota, and they were tied to growth. Even that, you know, there were other things in their plan that I will call just behavioral science issues that weren't really just tied directly to financial performance and quota-driven. That would mean that sometimes, you know, we might have a clinical specialist in a case, and you might have the sales rep there too because he wants to meet with a doctor and talk about growing their practice. Now I no longer even have that 200% case coverage because I have two people in the room. By having people go into a common leader, now we can eliminate all of that. If the case is being covered by a clinical person, great. The rep, they have a different set of jobs that they gotta go out to do today to go build the practice, to go build the program and do the things that they need to do. It just allows us to be much more efficient. The goal that I want is I want the region leader to be the CEO of that region, and I want them to have all the resources available to figure out how to grow their business, and I want them to act like an owner. I want them to act like a CEO. I want them to figure out, you know, if I have these 12 people, how do I maximize these 12 people to be able to further the goal for the region? They just didn't have the capability to do that before because of the way the organization was bifurcated. I think our comp plan wasn't necessarily doing us any favors either. Now everybody carries a number. Everybody carries a growth target. That doesn't mean that we're walking away at all from patient excellence, because you can't grow anything if you don't deliver great outcomes for patients. We don't walk away from that at all. To say we wanna deliver great outcomes for patients and we wanna grow, those two are not incoherent. You know, those are there. For as much as I think the company always had a patient-centric culture, I think the way that they thought about being patient-centric is not how I think about being patient-centric. I think the company thought being patient-centric was every case that came to you made sure that patient had a great outcome. That is certainly important, and it's certainly part of it. You know, when I was in the TAVR space, you know, being patient-centric to me meant every single patient got the best therapy for them. If we have patients that are getting TURP instead of getting Aquablation, we're not patient-centric. We have the best outcomes in BPH, and I don't think anything competes with us clinically. Any patient, you know, almost any patient getting a TURP or any patient getting some of these competing procedures, they're not being well served by getting these things. Being patient-centric means we should be getting all of the patients that benefit most from having an Aquablation procedure. That would clearly put us in a market leadership position. Right now, we're, I don't know, 10%-12% of the BPH space, and that's just an unacceptable number. Being patient-centric is a lot more than just doing good cases for the patients who come to us. Then on the, you've created dedicated launch teams as well. You've talked about a 50% reduction in time from the PO to doc completing their first 10 cases in the pilot rollout. I guess any other positive anecdotes that you would share, and do you think this sort of result can hold up when it's launched more broadly? Well, I think it speaks broader to, you know, everybody wants to focus on, like, the utilization number, and we talk about it all the time. You know, I don't like the number. Everybody else wants the number. I know why everybody loves it, 'cause it fits very cleanly into a spreadsheet. You know, you put in the number of cases, number of systems, divide, do the math, and you get to a utilization number. The problem with it is it creates, you know, trying to sit here and say, we have 800 systems, and we want to grow them all 0.3%, you know, or, you know, 0.3% cases for the quarter. I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you communicate that in terms of a strategy. I always feel like we have to approach this in segments. The first segment that we went in and attacked was new systems. Every new system now we track time from PO to first case, or we track time from PO to the utilization target. Now, every system we place, we place with a utilization target that they're expected to hit very early in their life cycle. That's the utilization target is well above our corporate average. It varies by site depending on whether there's one surgeon champion or whether there's two or three. We put a utilization target in there, and we've been able to show that we can achieve those utilization targets, and we can do it in a lot less time. This is a capability we have to build. I think in Q1, 20% of our systems launched under the launch team model. I think we want to be 40%, 50% in Q2. By the end of the year, we want to be launching everyone at 100%, you know, we want 100% to be launched. That's the capability. It's just no regrets to me. The best time to get somebody's attention is during that initial honeymoon period. Somebody just paid $500,000 or $600,000 for a robot. They, you know, that's the time that you have their attention, and everybody wants to see what it can do. If they block out all day Tuesday and they do five cases every Tuesday, you're going to wake up six months from now, and Tuesday is just the PROCEPT day, and we can do whatever we want on that day because that day's blocked out. Staffing knows. Everybody knows about it. I think one of the challenges that we've seen in trying to list some of our legacy systems, if a system's been limping along doing, I'll make it up, three cases a month for three years, and now you come in, and you say, "We want you to do six," or, "We want you to add a day." Well, the lab's full. The lab's being utilized. Staff are fully used. Now, how do you grow the system that's been on this legacy system? Your allotment is 2 hours every Tuesday, and that's the only time that you have set aside. We need to maximize that honeymoon period and make sure we get every system performing above that average. That's the first segment. We'll attack that. We have replacements. Every system that we replace is an opportunity to relaunch that system and create an economic argument for upgrading to HYDROS. We'll go attack that segment. We have legacy HYDROS systems. How do we go attack those? Frankly, legacy AquaBeam systems, I'd rather just upgrade them. We need to attack every segment with its own unique strategy, with its own unique tactics, because that's the only thing that's going to work. You look at that versus going out and telling everybody, "Do one more case every quarter on each instrument." There's no strategy there. There's no tactic there. There's just going out and begging for a case. That's just not going to get us where we need to go. Frankly, I think that's why utilization has been a little bit stagnant. I think we have a really good strategy. I think we have a good plan. We have to execute on it. People have to grow into their new roles. They have to mature into it. Overall, I just think these are all no-regrets decisions. Okay, maybe shifting gears a little bit to competition. PAE has been topical, given the shared screening among some docs. What's your view of the competitive landscape currently? Does that change as you try to expand the types of patients that you're targeting to treat? I don't, you know, I don't think PAE is a headwind for us at all, honestly. I think PAE is a big red herring. It's a procedure that really doesn't get performed in any volume in Europe. The reason it doesn't get performed is because it doesn't get paid for because it's not a very good procedure. If PAE had to compete just on a level playing field for reimbursement, I don't believe anybody would do PAE. It doesn't show any durability for its patients, and it's not a great procedure. The reason I don't see it as a big headwind for us is I don't believe the patients that are getting PAE are patients that impact us, and I'll explain. Again, I don't have data to back this up. I can't point to a study. I can't point to a thing. It's just my own interpretation from going out and talking to clinicians and understanding the market. If a patient has very mild symptoms, low to mild symptoms, I think a doctor will say, "We can do PAE, and maybe we can stop your prostate from growing, and maybe we can, you know, head off you going down this road." That patient is not going to come and get a resective procedure with anybody's technology. I think that there's another group of patients that have moderate to severe symptoms, and they do PAE on them, and it doesn't work. Those patients show back up in a month, and they have the exact same symptoms they had before, and now they're going to be looking for some other procedure, for some other thing that's going to work for them. It's the minority of cases being done. There's, I don't know, 30,000, 35,000 PAEs that are done. We have 200,000 TURPs that are being performed every year that are done in-hospital, that we have better outcomes. You know, I think we have advantageous economics versus what we've got. I talked about that. I think that's the target for us to go after, and I think PAE can just be a big distraction. Got it. Maybe we can just touch on some of the patient activation activities, since you mentioned that that's a driver of procedure growth. Can you elaborate on what these activities are and if they're geared towards a more specific patient population? Yeah, sure. I think, you know, when the company was founded, it was founded on a kind of this clinical excellence model. I think there was a little bit of a, if you build it, they will come sort of model. They just depended on the clinicians to build their own practices based on the clinical excellence that we delivered on it. When we went out and surveyed patients, only 1% - 2% of patients with BPH had ever heard about Aquablation. For those of you non-marketing people in the room, that's a very low number. Not something that we were excited about. I think part of it is we need to build that awareness. We want people to come in and be asking for Aquablation by name. We want people to understand what the therapy has to offer. There's just a huge educational lift that we have to do, and we can't depend on clinicians to do that. We have to depend on patients to do it. It's also an opportunity to talk about procedures through a patient-centric lens. This is where I think things have really gotten missed, which is how a clinician might view a patient's journey versus what a patient actually wants. I think clinicians view the journey as, "Hey, maybe we'll start with these drugs," which makes perfect sense. Everybody would rather take a drug than have a procedure, given the choice. If the drugs are effective, fine. If the drugs don't work, they say, "Well, maybe we'll try PAE. If that doesn't work, then maybe we'll try a GreenLight, or maybe we'll try a UroLift. If that doesn't work, then maybe we'll try a resective procedure, then maybe we'll try an Aquablation, we'll try something else." That's not what a patient wants. When you talk to patients and you survey them, the number one thing on their list is they want relief from their symptoms. Number two thing on their list is they do not want to have a second procedure. Number three on their list is preservation of urinary function, and number four on their list is preservation of sexual function. Those four things are all tightly grouped together. This idea that one of these procedures is less invasive than another, once a 24 French device goes through your urethra, tell me how one procedure feels less invasive than another. I used to say when I was in the cardiovascular space, I think every patient should get between zero and one sternotomy in their lifetime. I believe every patient should get between zero and 1 24 French device through their urethra. When you put it through that lens, and you say, "What is going to get you maximum relief of your symptoms? What is going to be a one-and-done procedure? What is going to preserve your urinary function? What is going to preserve your sexual function?" Nothing. Nothing competes with PROCEPT through that lens. What we need to do is make sure everybody is looking through that lens. I mean, even the guidelines that came out and said, "PROCEPT is a good alternative for TURP, especially for men who want to preserve their erectile function." Doesn't everybody? Is anybody looking for a procedure that destroys that? I don't think so. Even the guidelines, I think, are acknowledging that now, but we have to make sure that patients understand what their choices are. I believe when patients understand their choice, some of these other things that people focus on, when the doctor says, "I can do this in office, or it might require an overnight stay." If you think those things are equal, then you might take office. If the question is, "I can do this in the office, it's not going to work very well, and you're going to be back here within a year and need another procedure. We can do a procedure, you'll be one and done, and you'll go home tomorrow, and you won't have any symptoms in five years." You know, there's a 92% freedom from reprocedure. That's a completely different question to ask a patient and let the patient make that. We need to educate the patient on what questions they need to be asking their clinician, but also grading what is important to the patient and having the patient reiterate that to the clinician. I think when they do that, and especially when they do it with a physician that's familiar with PROCEPT and Aquablation, I think the choice becomes super easy. That doesn't just happen. That doesn't just organically happen. It doesn't just happen through Facebook chat rooms. You have to be very intentional about it. Those are some of the works that we're doing on education, and we're running a number of pilots now in regions. Everybody worries about, is this gonna get really expensive? We're not doing Super Bowl ads. We're not going out and doing that. We can do very targeted programs. The advantage we have in doing direct-to-patient in this space, unlike what I dealt with in cardiovascular. In cardiovascular, I had to go after everybody who's over the age of 70, and most patients who have severe aortic stenosis, they walk into the hospital with shortness of breath. You're more likely to get an inhaler than you are to get an order for an echo. You had to educate people; shortness of breath means you might have a heart problem. It also might mean you have 10 other things. Every person who has BPH knows they have BPH. Every person taking FLOMAX is taking FLOMAX for a reason. We can go target people very deliberately. People don't want to be taking these medications. The medications aren't very effective. If you can offer them a truly one-and-done definitive solution with great durability, great symptom relief, and preserving all the things that matter to them, I think it's a very attractive procedure. That's the work that we need to go do. It's a build-from-scratch. None of this work had been done, you know, six months ago, and now we're building it out. That's why we've added Pooja Sharma to the team. You guys saw her at the Investor Day, and she did this for me at Edwards, and I'm very confident she can do it for us here. Makes sense. Maybe turning to the P&L, gross margins this year, expecting them to be 65% versus 61% last year. Maybe you can just talk about drivers of gross margin expansion. Yeah. How sustainable that is? Yeah. As Larry said earlier, we're really pleased with Q1 coming in 65%, which is our full year guide. Consistent with pricing, we feel good about the trajectory of margins. We didn't want to get out over our skis. We expect improvements throughout the year, exiting probably somewhere around 66% or slightly north of 66%. The primary driver for us really today is selling more procedures in the consumable side of the business. We're at a point now where we have a good solid operations team. We're gonna leverage that base. As we shift to a more consumable type of business, that's the primary driver of margins and feel good still about obviously the 65%. Importantly, we gave guidance back in February for 2027 of 68%-70%, and I think, we're well on our way to achieving that objective. On EBITDA, you guided to positive Adjusted EBITDA Q 4. Maybe you can just similarly talk about the drivers of the improvement through the year. Yeah. The first thing I wanna say is the growth opportunity, as Larry alluded to, is still huge, and we're still going to invest in this business to drive growth. You know, that's still priority number one. You know, right behind that is we understand we have a responsibility to get this business to profitability. I think we have guided to that in the fourth quarter at a decent amount. Again, looking forward to 2027, you know, we still feel really good about the EBITDA range we gave of $25 million-$30 million. The drivers there on the P&L are primarily leveraging the existing base that we have. When we look at things like R&D, R&D today is kinda mid 20% of revenue. That ends up being somewhere in the mid-teens at scale. Our sales force, as people grow into their new roles and responsibilities, we will expect, you know, the procedure rep today is going to do more per rep in 27 than they're doing today and will give us a lot of leverage there. When you get gross margins north of 65%, you find a business that has the potential to generate a significant amount of profit. At the Analyst Day, I think you also talked about moving to a hybrid support model as a margin driver. I guess what's the plan for rolling that out? I wanna let Larry speak to that. I don't want anybody to think we are doing that or that is a primary lever to get to profitability. If we were in every case in perpetuity, we could still have a profitable business. With that, maybe I'll just hand it off to Larry to speak to. The going to a hybrid support model is really not about trying to drive leverage out of the P&L. What it's really about is trying to drive procedure growth. What I worry about is that we could be losing procedures here and there because, you know, a doctor sits there on a Thursday and says, "You know, shucks, I got two more cases tomorrow. I could do Aquablation, but, you know, I don't wanna call the rep, or maybe the rep's not gonna be available, or I know he doesn't like to. You know, he's always in Missoula on Fridays." What I don't wanna do is ever lose any cases because we can't get somebody there. I want our team routinely visiting with our customers. I want them routinely making sure the system setup is being done properly. You know, there's a lot of turnovers of staff in hospitals. There is a set of elements to the robot, and we wanna make sure that people are doing that right and doing it correctly. I always want our people in and out. There's never gonna be something where, you know, we don't see a customer for three months and they're just ripping off cases. I think there's actually, at some level, there's a risk to the business if you quit paying attention to your customer, then you just open the door for other people to come in. We're always going to be there doing that. I just don't want somebody dependent on us. I don't want somebody saying, "If a rep can't get there, if a rep's sick tomorrow, I can't do cases, and thus I'm gonna have to convert them to something else." I just see this as a lever for us to be able to continue to drive case growth more than I see it as an operational lever. Now, the byproduct of it is if we can double the number of cases and we can keep our sales footprint, you know, the same or grow it slightly, obviously, that just means it drives tremendous leverage for us. It's a byproduct. It's not the reason. Okay. Maybe in the last two minutes here, can you touch on the prostate cancer opportunity? It sounds like the WATER IV enrollment is going well. Maybe just high level, how you're thinking about the opportunity and path to commercializing that. Well, I think it's, you know, it's a perfect adjacency for us. It leverages our system. It leverages our handpiece. It, you know, it's largely the same procedure. We're a little bit more aggressive about how we do the procedure, but we're excited. You know, it's gonna be just a year from now that the WATER IV data will be presented at AUA, is our expectation. I think if this does what we expect it to do, I think this can be transformational for patients with prostate cancer. The fastest-growing segment of prostate cancer patients right now is watch and waiting. That's not because people wanna have cancer in their body. It's the reality of, you know, I used to say when a patient was adverse to getting a sternotomy, that was a little bit irrational fear because people recover from it very well, and in a year they do completely fine. A man not wanting to have a radical prostatectomy, there's nothing irrational about it. The overwhelming majority of men end up with severe erectile dysfunction, and 25%-33% end up with incontinence. When faced with those choices, men in their 50s and 60s are like, "I'd rather live with the cancer in my body and hope I'm a slow progressor." That's a terrible thing. You add onto it patients that already have symptoms from BPH because they have an enlarged prostate. They already had a terrible quality of life, and that's probably a lot of the men that are willing to undergo the procedure. I think if we have a procedure, we can relieve their BPH symptoms, our incontinence rate in our feasibility work was virtually zero, and our sexual function rate was maintained. I think if we can offer people a great cancer treatment and preserve all the things that are important to them, I think it's gonna be a very attractive procedure, especially for all these men that are sitting on the sideline waiting with their cancer. I don't believe anybody wants to live with cancer in their body. We're excited about the opportunity, but you know, it all starts with the data. We need to put a great, WATER IV data set on the board, and once we have that data set and, depending on the strength of that data, that's what opens the doors up for us to really maximize that opportunity. Okay, great. Well, I think we're just about out of time but thank you both for being here. Thank you for having us. Thank you.