Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Profound Medical Corp. Third Quarter 2022 Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star 1 1 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising that your hand is raised. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to our speaker today, Stephen Kilmer, investor relations. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by pointing out that this conference call will include forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws of the United States and Canada. All forward-looking statements are based on Profound Medical's current beliefs, assumptions, and expectations and relate to, among other things, expectations regarding the efficacy of the company's treatment technologies, results of future clinical trials, the ability to obtain coding and/or reimbursement from third-party payers, anticipated financial performance, business prospects, strategies, regulatory developments, market acceptance, and future commitments. Such statements may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from those implied by such statements. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed. Listeners are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements which speak only as of the date of this conference call. Profound undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, other than as required by law. For the benefit of those who are new to the Profound story, I would also like to take a moment to summarize our business. Profound develops and markets customizable incision-free therapies for the ablation of diseased tissues. We are currently commercializing TULSA-PRO, a technology that combines real-time MRI, robotically driven transurethral ultrasound, and closed-loop temperature feedback control. The technology is designed to provide customizable and predictable radiation-free ablation of the surgeon-defined prostate volume while actively protecting the urethra and rectum to help preserve the patient's natural functional abilities. TULSA-PRO is CE marked, Health Canada approved, and 510(k) cleared by the FDA. In the U.S., we employ a pure recurring revenue model for TULSA-PRO, where we charge customers on a per procedure basis for TULSA-PRO consumables, lease of medical devices, and services associated with extended warranties. Outside of the United States, we primarily deploy a capital and consumable sales and service model separately as the situation warrants. We are also commercializing Sonalleve, an innovative therapeutic platform that is CE marked for the treatment of uterine fibroids and palliative pain treatment of bone metastases. Sonalleve has also been approved by the National Medical Products Administration for the non-invasive treatment of uterine fibroids, and Profound Medical has recently obtained FDA approval under a humanitarian device exemption for the treatment of osteoid osteoma. The business model for Sonalleve systems is currently a one-time sale of the capital equipment. On the call today representing the company are Dr. Arun Menawat, Profound's Chief Executive Officer, and Rashed Dewan, the company's Chief Financial Officer. With that said, I'll now turn the call over to Rashed. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our third quarter 2022 conference call. On behalf of the management team and everyone at Profound, I would like to thank you for your ongoing interest in our company. For those of you who are shareholders, we appreciate your continued interest and support. I will turn the call over to Arun in a moment for an update on our commercial activity. However, before I do, I would like to provide a brief update on our third quarter 2022 financial results. To streamline things, all the numbers we will refer to have been rounded, so they are approximate. For the three months period ended December 30, 2022, the company recorded revenue of CAD 2 million, with CAD 1.2 million coming from recurring revenue and CAD 800,000 from the one-time sale of capital equipment. Third quarter 2022 revenue was consistent with the previous quarter and decreased from Q3 2021 revenue of $2.5 million, due primarily to lower one-time sales of capital equipment in international markets. Total operating expenses in the 2022 third quarter, which consist of R&D, G&A, and selling and distribution expenses were $9.3 million, an increase of 8% compared with $8.6 million in the third quarter of 2021. Breaking that down further. Expenditures for R&D increased 17% on a year-over-year basis to $4.7 million. G&A expenses decreased by 5% to $2.4 million. Selling and distribution expenses increased by 8% to $2.2 million, primarily due to a higher foreign exchange gain. Net finance income for 2022 third quarter was $3.3 million compared to $1.7 million in the same three-month period of 2021. Overall, the company recorded a third quarter 2022 net loss of $5 million, or $0.24 per common share, compared with a net loss of $6 million or $0.29 per common share for the same three-month period in 2021. At September 30, 2022, Profound had cash of $46.2 million. We believe that this, combined with the CAD 10 million term loan we entered into today with CIBC, will be sufficient to support our operations through early 2025. With that, I will now turn the call over to Arun. Thank you, Rashed. As usual, I would like to start with the key highlights of the quarter. First, and most important, to drive clinical adoption of TULSA technology, it is about clinical data. Treatment options is one of the top two topics researched by prostate cancer patients before they undergo any procedure, and clinical data is very important to them in making the right selection. The four-year follow-up data from our TACT pivotal clinical trial of whole gland ablation were presented by Dr. Laurence Klotz, one of the study's investigators at the recent FOCAL 2022 conference in September. As you may recall, the primary efficacy and safety endpoints of TACT were PSA reduction at one year and the frequency and severity of adverse events, respectively. At one year, PSA decreased 95% from a median pretreatment baseline value of 6.3 nanograms per milliliter to a nadir of 0.34. By four years, the median PSA nadir further declined to 0.28. Importantly, PSA reduction was durable over the extended follow-up period, increasing just 0.33 from 0.53 at one year to 0.86 nanograms per milliliter at four years. The one-year TACT data showed that following treatment with TULSA-PRO, there were no grade 4 or higher adverse events, no rectal fistula or injury, and no intra-procedural complications. At the four-year follow-up, there were no new device or treatment-related adverse events. TACT's secondary endpoint included progression to additional treatment for prostate cancer and functional side effects commonly associated with current prostate cancer therapies, including erectile and urinary functions. At four years, only 16% of patients in the TACT trial underwent additional intervention for prostate cancer. This percentage compares very well to additional interventions needed after the current standard therapies. In terms of functional side effects over the four-year follow-up period, not a single patient experienced severe erectile dysfunction and 87% of previously potent patients reported erections firmness sufficient for penetration, demonstrating continued improvement from 75% at one year. Urinary function was durable over the four-year follow-up period, with 99% of patients preserving urinary continence. Lower urinary tract symptoms were stable, improving from median international prostate symptom score of 7 at pretreatment baseline to 5 at four years. I would like to emphasize that this was the first trial conducted in the United States using the TULSA technology. Most of the physicians who were part of the study had never performed the TULSA procedure before, and that this was whole gland ablation study. Despite that, these are outstanding results, and although this was a single-arm trial, the results compare favorably to any other type of treatment, including radical prostatectomy or radiation. In addition, I loved the title of Dr. Klotz's presentation, as he put it eloquently. MR Guided TULSA, not just another focal therapy. Focal therapy has its place, but its applicability is limited to 15%-25% of the patient population at best. Whereas Dr. Klotz discussed with examples that TULSA is applicable to majority of the patient population, as it can easily be used for whole gland therapy where that makes sense, or focal therapy where it makes sense instead. Indeed, that unique flexibility isn't just theoretical. About 3,000 patients have been treated with TULSA so far. About 50% of those have been whole gland, and the other half focal patients. This quarter also marked a milestone in the SPARC study, a single center investigator-initiated randomized controlled study of focal ablation versus radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, conducted by Dr. Eduard Baco and team at University of Oslo in Norway. One-year follow-up has been completed for the entire patient cohort of 213 men with biopsy-proven MRI visible unilateral prostate cancer, who were randomized to receive either focal ablation using TULSA or HIFU or robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, or RALP for short. The first report from this study with the complete cohort of patients has been submitted to the European Association of Urology, or EAU annual meeting next year. This first report focuses on comparing postoperative complications, demonstrating a statistically significant reduction of serious complications in the focal ablation arm. Additional reports with patient-reported quality of life, such as erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, are expected to be presented along with early efficacy outcomes at additional conferences planned in 2023. Finally, we're continuing to make good progress in our sponsored CAPTAIN trial, which is the first Level 1 study ever conducted comparing emerging technologies head-to-head with radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer. To date, eight sites have been activated and currently recruiting patients. Turning to the next key highlight. I'm pleased to tell you that we have now installed 30 systems in the United States and remain on track to achieve 35 installed systems by January 2023. I'm also pleased to report that most of the additional systems that will come online by January are the result of an agreement we recently signed with HALO Diagnostics for the installation of four TULSA systems at four sites, two in California and the other two in Florida. As you may recall, Dr. Scionti was one of the earliest adopters of the HIFU technology. To our knowledge, he has conducted more HIFU cases than anyone else in the United States, and for many years was the lead educator and proponent of the technology to the urology community. He was also the first to use TULSA in a commercial setting in the U.S. and has performed approximately 90 procedures so far. Dr. Scionti is now the medical director of HALO's prostate program, and he recommended that TULSA becomes HALO's primary prostate cancer treatment modality going forward, and HALO agreed. We expect these to be higher volume sites with 3 of the 4 operational by year-end, and the fourth that requires a new MRI coming on stream in January 2023. We're also happy to share that despite a slow start, RadNet is currently installing the system at their second site in Phoenix, which should be operational by year-end. Similarly, Paragon Imaging, another company with whom we have signed a multi-site agreement, came on stream in the third quarter. With 35 currently installed, we expect to reach 34 by year-end and the last of our 2022 target of 35 sites coming online at the beginning of 2023. While we remain confident that TULSA will change the standard of prostate care, I will be the first to admit that adoption at this early stage has been progressing more slowly than what we had hoped. Reflecting on our market entry strategy, our first targets were early adopters. Dr. Scionti's practice treatment volumes and his successful recommendation to HALO is a case in point of the success of that strategy. Our next targets were teaching sites, of which we currently have over 15. We recognized that these would not be high volume sites, but we saw the value in their ongoing research to be presented to the urology community, conducting education programs for residents and other practicing physicians, and providing the necessary support to the societies and payers for reimbursement. Indeed, that has also panned out very well. We had an excellent showing at the American Urological Association's 2022 annual meeting. Now we're expecting five podium presentations later this month at the world's largest radiology conference, the Radiological Society of North America's, or RSNA's, annual meeting, which will further increase awareness of TULSA. The final target group, which is now our focus, is higher volume imaging centers like RadNet, HALO, and Paragon, as we have signed multi-site agreements with all of them, and we're excited about their potentials in 2023. While the pace of adoption has not been as fast as we would like, for a variety of reasons, there's no doubt that the strategy overall is working and that usage will continue to pick up. Turning to our reimbursement strategy. We announced in September that we withdrew our CPT Category I application for TULSA from consideration at the September 2022 CPT editorial panel meeting, as the application only contained 2021 usage data. The withdrawal was due to the complete usage data set not being available early enough for consideration at that meeting. We plan to submit an updated application with support from the same society and which will include all 2022 utilization in 2023. In the meantime, 11 hospitals are currently using the existing C-code C9734 and are getting paid for their TULSA procedures. Earlier this week, CMS released its final OPPS reimbursement rule for calendar year 2023. As expected, the rule will increase reimbursement to a hospital billing under C9734 by approximately 3.6% to $13,048, with that change taking effect on January 1, 2023. We're pleased with this hospital payment level. Finally, the increasing number of TULSA sites and a growing set of utilization data affords a higher level of predictability of our U.S. TULSA business, such that we expect to be able to provide some level of guidance beginning in 2023. To summarize, we are very pleased with the four-year TACT data, which are even more compelling and demonstrate the durability of the TULSA treatment. We continue to get positive feedback from urologists regarding TULSA's flexibility, that they can use it routinely for ablative treatment of whole gland or focal therapy, or even for patients who have a combination of BPH and early-stage cancer. We will achieve our 2022 goal of 35 active sites in January, with the newest sites expected to be higher volume than the teaching sites. We will refile our CPT Category I application for TULSA in 2023 and have a higher level of confidence in being successful. While adoption has been taking longer than we originally expected, we believe that our overall strategy is working and that a few of the new sites that are coming on stream now are expected to be higher volume sites. We look forward to providing some level of street guidance in 2023. This ends our prepared remarks for today. With that, Rashed and I are happy to take any questions you might have. Operator. Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you'll need to press star 1 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from Michael Sarcone with Jefferies. Thank you for standing by. Michael, your line is now open. Thanks. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. My first one, really nice quarter on the system placement front. It seems like you're making some real good headway in the imaging center channel. I was wondering, can you talk about, you know, quantitatively the utilization potential for these imaging center systems and how that stacks up to utilization that you're seeing at your teaching sites? Good afternoon, Mike. I just think the teaching sites all started with a very narrow focus, and they had typically assigned, you know, one urologist to basically treat patients. They have been, you know, careful, and they are growing, but they've been careful and generally, you know, wanted to see their own outcomes before they would increase usage. I think with these multi-site agreements that I described, you will see multiple urologists who will begin to treat patients at the same time. Obviously, it, you know, we're just getting started with a couple of these sites. The Paragon and the HALO site we'll just be getting started. I would anticipate that we would do at least, you know, twice as good as compared to the teaching sites that we're doing. I think that the momentum, given that they have access to more urologists, will pick up over time also. Great. That's really helpful. Just a follow-up. You know, was wondering if you could talk about the hospital environment and how things are trending there, just in terms of your ability to continue to install more systems at those teaching sites? Sure. Mike, I think that, you know, we are, at the moment, pretty small. The teaching sites, generally, we are actually continuing to see good reception. We are continuing to see that the teaching sites are now also opening up the usage to additional urologists. A few of the top leading sites among the top 10 in the country are actually starting to open the dialogue about installing interventional MRs. I think the idea that MR-guided therapy is likely to have a big place in treating patients in the future. I think some of the teaching sites are already strategically starting to align to that idea. I have not seen, you know, a big change in terms of the reception from the hospitals. Where we are seeing an impact is certainly that a number of the patients, because we are, you know, more than 80% cash-pay patients, I think the macro environment, certainly I think in Q3, I saw a bit of an impact of that. I think we're certainly seeing that a little bit. I don't see an impact on the reception for our technology. Great. That's really helpful. If I could just sneak one more in on that front. Sure. You know. Sure. Given that we are, you know, heading into a recession in the U.S., you know, some point in 2023, you know, how do you think about your patient volumes through 2023 just given that, you know, there's gonna be a lot of people that may not be able to come out of pocket for an expense like that? Yeah, I agree with you, and I think we are looking to balance a lot of this. I think as I already mentioned, I think that the cash pay model could have a little bit of an impact from the recession. At the same time, I'm really pleased with the fact that the C-code is paying. At the teaching sites, in some of the leading sites, it's paying as much as $17,000 per patient. I think what we are looking to do is drive adoption everywhere we can and mitigate and balance, you know, considering what's going on. I do think that the utilization and the number of patients that we would treat in spite of the potential recession will continue to increase, partly because the sites are increasing, partly because the payment in the hospital setting is decent, and partly because of increased awareness and that this is a serious disease. I think there are a number of positive factors, and I do think that we will continue to increase. Yeah, I agree with you. We will be careful and assess how recession is affecting, and we'll adjust ourselves according to that. Now, obviously, we you know strengthening our balance sheet a little bit in this quarter is part of that preparation to make sure that we have the runway you know to last till early 2025. Got it. That's really helpful. Thanks a bunch, Arun. Excellent. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Our next question comes from Rahul Sarugaser with Raymond James. Thank you for standing by. Rahul, please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, Arun, Rashed, Stephen. Thanks so much for taking our question today. My first question was just to follow on a little bit from Michael's questions on utilization. You indicated that now that you're bringing on more high volume sites, those will be about twice the volume of the teaching sites. How should we be thinking sort of on aggregate about the escalation of utilization per quarter? Maybe you could give us a quick update as to how you've seen escalation in utilization between Q2 and Q3, given that you have seen approximately 15%-20% quarter-over-quarter in the several previous quarters. Yeah. Well, you know, we are running, you know, the business pretty, you know, with a good deal of strategy in mind. You know, I realize we were, you know, when we started commercialization, COVID was the first thing we faced, and now we're facing a potential recession and so on. It's kind of hard to, you know, predict all the numbers. As I said, I do think that, starting next year we will be able to provide some kind of guidance. I can, you know, provide you with some color in terms of what we are learning and what the potential is. Maybe that will help you see how we do remain quite optimistic about the growth. You know, to give you some examples, you know, I talk about the teaching sites, and these sites, for example, started with, you know, one urologist, very narrow focus on focal therapy only. They're watching how the patients have done, and they're now been increasing the usage by adding different types of cases, patients with that different types of disease, in some cases, whole gland or other unique aspects where they think TULSA can certainly be used. I think, for example, one of the top teaching university that is now coming up to be about two years, the latest data I can certainly share with you is that they are already at about 25% TULSA volume compared to radical prostatectomy. For every three radical prostatectomy they're doing, they're doing one TULSA already. They're finally opening it up to everybody. They're full for the next four months at least, maybe six months, to their capacity that they've allocated to TULSA. There has been a lot of learning for us in terms of how they opened the doors, how they created the communication link, how did they train the technologists and the technicians, and how is the workflow of the patient changes is totally different, right? I think that those are the things we've accomplished. Now, for 2023, what our mindset is that we wanna be able to, you know, take these models and expand them to more sites. I think that's how we're looking, that's why we're kind of continuing to be optimistic about growing in the near to midterm. I don't know if that answers your question properly. That does. Thank you very much, Arun. It's actually a terrific segue to my second question, which is, now that you know, you have you know, 30 sites established on, you know, well on track to 34, 35 end of year January. What you talked about in terms of physicians, urologists, you know, taking their time to learn and then start broadening the utilization. Could you maybe talk to you know, your learnings from your install base? Are there standard operating procedures that you can now start to replicate from these, from a certain subset of reference sites that you'll then be able to apply to your existing install base as well as to your pipeline? Yeah. That's a great question. You're right. That's kind of where our head is at, is that it did take a lot for a couple of these universities to start doing these operating protocols. How do you decide which patient is a TULSA patient versus still a prostatectomy patient? If you decide that's a TULSA patient, how do you then bring them into the hospital setting? How do they go through from beginning to the end? As I said, because it is a very different procedure compared to what they're used to, it took them some time. I can. I'm happy to share with you other examples. The other site, which is a big teaching hospital on the West Coast, they started the same thing. They said, "Well, we're gonna assign one person only focal therapy." Even within focal therapy, they were focusing on only a certain type of patients. Then, you know, they saw, for example, the other hospital doing these, starting to open up to a variety of patients. Now they are also starting to open it up and, you know, last week we heard that they're doing their first even palliative patient. I think that concept that you just mentioned, that, you know, we now have a much better idea of what the workflow should be and that we can now take these best practices and start to move them to other hospitals. I think that is a very viable strategy for us to follow. While I'm at it, I'm happy to share more examples because these are. This is a tremendous amount of information that we're getting and we're absorbing and we're moving it forward. Historically, we've talked a little bit about BPH. I would say about three weeks ago, one of our sites in Texas did a case of a patient who had BPH. This patient actually had the UroLift technology about five years ago. They had the UroLift clips put in about five years ago. The prostate continues to grow when you put those in. This patient had come back to the original because the prostate had grown. The urologist basically took the clips out and did TULSA on the patient, and the patient is doing very well post TULSA. We are basically taking these examples, you know, talking about the flexibility and the potential of this technology. We're making sure that we can talk about this so that the future urologists don't have to just rely on their own experiences, but they now have benchmarks, and they can talk to the other physicians who have already done these things, and thereby we can begin to accelerate adoption of the technology. That's perfect. Thank you. Yes, those are three very good examples. You know, given what you're saying about these real early glimmers of traction starting to really take hold, and you starting to apply these best practices across your existing pipeline, and we've talked about the existing. Perhaps maybe you can talk about, you know, what your forward-looking pipeline looks like. You said 35 by January, you know, what should we be looking like for 2023. Any further details in terms of on the ground work that your team has been doing to set up for 2023? Yes. You know, it's a question everyone asks, you know, what does your pipeline look like? I've been thinking about, you know, what's the way to sort of talk about that in a quantifiable way. I can share a couple of things, I guess. One is, I think number one, you know, we have a small but very effective sales team. I'm very proud of it, the sales team that we're building. But to answer your question, I think one tangible way I can share with you the strength of our pipeline is that when we are talking with sites and they are looking to install a TULSA system, at some point, when it gets to be serious enough, then we actually send one of our service people to, you know, do a site assessment. You know, is the MR compatible? Do they have the right software version? Is there a workflow where a patient can be moved in and out? Is there a recovery area? Is the anesthesia working, because we're converting an MR from diagnostics to intervention and so on. There's a lot of work that we actually assess upfront, and we give the sites a report on what needs to be upgraded and changed for them to be ready for a TULSA. I can tell you there are at least 25 sites where we have actually completed this site assessment. You know, not everyone is gonna convert, but I do think that it gives us fair amount of confidence in terms of what the install base, how it could grow, going forward. That's a great color. Thank you so much for indulging my questions, and congratulations on getting to 30 sites and on that trajectory to 35, and I'll get back in the queue. Thank you. Thank you so much, Rahul. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 1 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Our next question comes from Brian Gagnon with Gagnon Securities. Thank you for standing by. Brian, please go ahead. Hi, guys. Can you hear me okay? Yes, Brian. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I wanna talk about comps in the sites that you have today. I understand that docs will do a few procedures, see how the patient does, and then if they see success, they'll adopt it more quickly and begin to roll out. What are you seeing and how are you tracking, for lack of a better term, comp store sales for your customers? Yeah. We've segregated them into various categories because it's kinda hard to do a comp because we have, you know, certain early adopters, and then there we have some hospitals, and then we have some very new sites. Putting them all together into one bucket is really hard to do because the average, interestingly, if you think about it from a statistics point of view, the average actually comes down right now because the number of sites that are new is so high. If I look at the comps from the perspective of segregating them into various buckets, I think for example, the teaching site, and I've mentioned a couple of things about it, that these are the couple of sites. I have no doubt that we will hit the target of 100 procedures per year, and at least one or two of the teaching sites will be there next year. I think the early adopters, like we've talked about historically, Dr. Scionti or Dr. Busch in Atlanta, who are really likely to be focusing primarily on TULSA, I think they will definitely get to the 100 procedures per year volume. Busch recently celebrated his 200 case as well. I think if I look at the early adopter bucket, I think getting to that 100 is a reasonable expectation over time. I think the teaching hospitals, if we can start to take the benchmarks and move them, I think those original goals are realistic to getting to them, those numbers. The new sites, Brian, I am a little bit cautious, to be honest, because I think as I said in the prepared remarks, things have grown slower than I expected, and the learning curves have been really, you know, pretty. They've been very conservative in how they have grown. I think, you know, the number of these new sites will probably still take another year before they really get to volumes. But I'm certainly hopeful that the multi-center sites will learn from each other faster than how the teaching sites are learning from each other. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. If I take what you had said about you have at least 25 sites that completed a site assessment, and I know not everybody. Yeah. In your past history, what percentage of sites went through this whole process of an assessment and then went through with the contract for install? Is it 50%, 80% or better? I mean, I think that it's more than likely between 25%-50%. Usually, I mean, the sites don't want to waste their time either. It takes a few hours to do this, and they have to dedicate resources to it. It is a, you know, it's sort of middle of the pipeline. You know, maybe over time the conversion rate would increase. I think some of the reasons why I said 25%-50% is sometimes, particularly in this year, there have been a lot of supply delays and so on, particularly MR installation delays. There are at least four or five sites that we have agreements where the MRs are delayed as much as a year. I think those could be among the reasons why, if we find that, hey, their MRI versions are not right or they need a MRI compatible anesthesia equipment which is in short supply right now, those could be the reasons why they could get delayed. I think that the conversion rate over time as those supply chain issues become less important, I think probably will go up. For now, 25%-50% is probably not a bad place. Okay. I know you have a backlog of existing systems to install for, with contracts you've already signed. Do you also get to see what the backlog of patients is in your centers? 'Cause obviously you have to ship them kits well ahead of time. If so, do you see that number continuing to improve? Yes. We, you know, we do have some level of forward visibility. The numbers, I would say at least in 80% of the sites is continuing to improve. Now, some sites might be doing one case a month, and it'll go to two cases, which is improvement. It's still not a very high number. Yeah, I do think. Then there are sites that are at least 10% of our sites, maybe more than 10%, but certainly number of sites where they are in fact booked for at least the next four months, maybe longer than that. Wow. We are definitely starting to see that portion of it. Again, as I said, I think our numbers are still small, but most definitely, we are, you know, we see ourselves as the sort of the marathon, and we're looking at every site. We're finding out where the bottleneck is, and we are working with the site to resolve them. The reason I say this, and I think the reason this is different and important is, as you know, I spent a good bit of time in the prepared remarks on the clinical value of our product. None of our sites have any concerns or questions related to the technology or the clinical value, or in fact seeing any value. Because even when you think about it, even the C-code is paying, you know, reasonable amount, paying them. It's $13,000 in a C-code is a good number. I think the issues that we face are not issues related to, you know, just bringing a technology that is a better mousetrap, and you're switching from one to the other. The issues that we face are related to, you know, how do you educate the physician on assessment of patient selection? How do you give them comfort by having them do the variety of cases? How do we educate the patient with the uniqueness of this technology? How do we educate the technicians to look at imaging not as diagnostic but as a therapeutic? Those are things that game-changing technologies have to do, and that's what we are doing, and that's the difference. Okay, great. Two last questions for me, if you would bear with me. RadNet, you signed a multi-center agreement. I'm very glad to hear that the second system is coming online. Do you have any thoughts as to what their plans are for the next bunch of systems? Are they gonna be rolling this out across the country? Yes. I had dinner with their chief medical officer a couple of weeks ago. They are fully committed to it. In fact, I think this was maybe yesterday or day before yesterday. They were on local Los Angeles television promoting, describing the game-changing technology of TULSA. It's actually. I don't know if we can put it on our website. I definitely think if you look at RadNet Los Angeles television, they put out. There was an interview, and their chief medical officer actually was promoting TULSA as the one, you know, a game-changing technology for patients. They're very, very committed to it. There's no doubt about that. Next one. We actually had it on two TV stations. One is the KABC, and the other one is KTLA. KTLA? Yes. KTLA, which is channel 5, and KABC, which is channel 7 for the local market. I'll have to do some Google work. Lastly, CPT code delay. Can you give us some more color on that? What really gives you the confidence that you're going to be able to push this through with the societies in next year? That's a great question, Brian. You know, when we met with the societies in spring of this year, their feedback was that 2021 utilization data was sufficient. They were pretty convinced that this technology is a winning technology, and they very strongly wanted to support it. We went all the way through. We said, okay, we'll support the application. They sponsored it, and we went through that. When the application was reviewed by AMA, they went to the point of putting this on the agenda, which is kind of unusual, but then they were still asking some questions on usage. When we submitted the 2022 data that we had at the time, it was pretty good data. The technicality was that AMA could only assess the application that was submitted. They were not going to look at any new information that was submitted to them. Our read of all this is that once we submit the 2022 data, that issue will, you know, hopefully, I guess we can't make the final decision on. It's their decision. I think that once we submit the 2022 data with the application next year, we should be in far better shape. That is what's giving us the confidence. If I take all this in context, you're delayed on the CPT application. You'll have stronger data and much more data that they'll be able to review when you submit in 2023. If I do my math correctly, even by the time you receive reimbursement, the likelihood that the CAPTAIN trial will be fully enrolled and potentially even have early efficacy data is probably pretty high at the same time? I would say that's very accurate. What you're describing is very accurate. Excellent. Thank you, guys. Talk to you soon. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Our next question comes from Rahul Sarugaser with Raymond James. Thank you for standing by. Rahul, your line is now open. Hi, Arun. Just one last question since I have an opportunity. I'm glad that Brian asked about the CPT one, and I know you're quite you know, conservative in your estimates there. He asked about timeline and your confidence, so I'll leave that aside. Given that your C- code is now at $13,000, we saw EDAP's code just go to about $8,000. One last question is, you know, do you have a sense for if and/or when the C- code is issued, you know, the general quantum of what that reimbursement would look like? That'll be all for today. Yeah. I mean, that's something we... It's hard to predict. I just think that if you look at comparables, you know, the HIFU code is much better now for next year than it was, and I'm very happy about that. I think recognizing the importance of ablative therapy is important. But I think if you look at the original reimbursement amount that was set, it was pretty close to the C-code that was being used prior to HIFU getting the Category I code. Then they submitted data that showed that the cost was actually higher, and then it got adjusted based upon the data. I think in our case, if we're in that $13,000 range, I just, you know, logically kind of feel like we should be in that range or higher based upon the data that has been submitted by the 11 hospitals that are using the code. At least theoretically, I think we're doing all the things that we can to be sure that we submit to the hospitals and those who are doing the procedure submit all their costs correctly so that the amounts that are assessed are based upon, you know, the costs of that procedure. You know, if you look at 8,500, you know, one of the differences here is that we use MR, which is, you know, typically MR, if you look at incremental cost of using an MR at the hospital is about $500 per hour. You know, you look at two hours of MR time as the additional cost. I still think 13,000 with all that is a very reasonable place to be based upon that. I think I think the hospitals should be able to justify. I think that in the meantime, you know, as Brian was asking, like, you know, we are looking to get things aligned. If we just had one, if we get approval next year, becomes effective January 2025. The CAPTAIN data, hopefully by that time we can produce some early efficacy data as well. Third, that the utilization at the site continues to increase as our primary focus. I think that as we pull all these three things together, you know, when a hospital is justifying using new technology, they will look at all three, utilization, potential payment amount, and clinical data. Certainly that summarizes our strategy very well. That's great. I apologize, I am gonna ask one more question. Sure. Recognizing that you just added $10 million of commercial bank debt, which is terrific. You know, could you maybe talk to your cash position and your runway and your intentions around cash? That'll be it for me today. Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I mean, our burn rate is in that neighborhood of about CAD 5 million. We think that strengthening the balance sheet now ensures that we will not raise equity in the near future. That we can get across the hump, you know, hopefully again, it's AMA's decision, but really the idea being that we can get across the Category I code. You know, if there is a recession next year that we can, you know, manage through it. I think from that perspective, I feel, to be honest, Rahul, very, very good about it. I feel, we've our balance sheet is in a decent place. I think that the adoption is a little slower, but it is there. I'm actually looking forward to 2023. That's terrific. Thank you very much, and best of luck with Q4. Thank you. Thank you. I would now like to turn it back to Dr. Arun Menawat for closing remarks. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for the questions. We're looking forward to updating you at the next year-end call. Have a great afternoon, everyone. Thank you. Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.