Procept BioRobotics at 2025 Truist Conference: Strategic Growth Path

On Tuesday, 17 June 2025, Procept BioRobotics (NASDAQ:PRCT) presented at the 2025 Truist Securities MedTech Conference, providing insights into its strategic growth and operational performance. The company expressed optimism in its procedure volume growth and capital sales while acknowledging challenges such as saline shortages and potential impacts from CPT code changes. Procept BioRobotics is focused on expanding its market share in the BPH treatment sector through innovative solutions like the Hydro system.

Key Takeaways

• Procept BioRobotics is experiencing positive momentum in procedure volume, with high surgeon retention rates.
• The Hydro system is a key driver of increased utilization and efficiency in hospital operations.
• The company is targeting strategic partnerships with Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) to enhance sales predictability.
• Procept BioRobotics is progressing in prostate cancer treatment, aiming for commercialization by early 2028.
• Despite potential physician fee reductions, the company anticipates minimal impact on adoption due to CPT code changes.

Financial Results

Procept BioRobotics reported a strong performance in Q1, with notable procedure volume growth despite saline shortages affecting January and February. The company expects low to mid single-digit year-over-year growth in utilization.

• Average Selling Prices (ASPs) have risen to $430,000 - $440,000 from $300,000 in 2021.
• Procept plans to install over 200 robots in 2025, reflecting robust capital sales expectations.
• Operating expenses are guided around $300 million, with potential revenue upside.

Operational Updates

The Hydro system has been well-received, with 95% of users utilizing the FirstAssist AI feature. This system allows for greater utilization and mitigates reliance on single points of failure within hospitals.

• Surgeon retention rates exceed 90%, supporting sustained procedure volume growth.
• The AquaBlation program holds approximately 50% market share within existing accounts.
• Procept is strengthening its relationships with IDNs, which represent a significant portion of BPH surgeries.

Future Outlook

Procept BioRobotics is optimistic about its growth prospects, driven by the Hydro system and strategic partnerships.

• The company aims to penetrate over 90% of high-volume hospitals, with plans to install more than 200 robots in 2025.
• Despite a slight decrease in physician payments due to CPT code changes, facility payments are expected to remain stable.
• Procept is targeting early 2028 for the commercialization of its prostate cancer treatment.

Q&A Highlights

During the Q&A session, Procept BioRobotics addressed its market expansion strategies and the potential impact of middle volume hospitals on utilization growth.

• AquaBlation is projected to achieve a 50% market share within existing accounts.
• Middle volume hospitals are not expected to dilute overall utilization.
• Procept is working towards securing bulk purchase orders from IDNs.
• The earliest commercialization of prostate cancer treatment is anticipated in late 2027, with early 2028 as the base case.

For a detailed understanding, readers are encouraged to refer to the full transcript.

Full transcript - 2025 Truist Securities MedTech Conference:

Rich, Analyst: Have a capital component and you’re launching a new robot here in earnest, what your second quarter with Hydro is really, I would say. So I thought maybe we could start off with the trends coming off a rebounded and accelerating procedure curve in 1Q and then kind of the trends that you’ve seen on the capital side in 1Q and within the context of the rest of the year. How are you feeling about the business? What trends did we see in 1Q? What drove that reacceleration and how sustainable is that?

And then how are you feeling about the capital pipeline?

Kevin: Yeah. Thanks, Rich, having us, by the way. I’ll start with the procedure side of the business. And coming off of Q1, we had a nice procedure beat in the first quarter. We didn’t feel at the time we would be truly rewarded for being overly aggressive on kind of the full year handpiece guide, which is kind of we baked essentially the Q1 beat into the rest of our full year guide.

Our strategy was to preserve future beats and raises on the procedure side of the business. As we mentioned on our Q1 call, in early January and February, we’re still seeing some of the lingering impacts from the saline shortage that was primarily a Q4 phenomenon. But exiting March, strong procedure momentum. We’ve made some commentary here in Q2 that strength has continued into April and May and just feel really good about the underlying trends in the business around procedures. Not just procedures themselves, but surgeon metrics, new account launches, launching accounts with multiple surgeons.

Our surgeon retention rates continue to be above ninety percent, which is all fantastic. And feel really good about the trends we’re seeing there and helping those trends. I do think transitioning into capital is helping. The hydro system, while early in its launch, you’ve pointed out, we’re seeing great receptivity. Our funnel has never been larger both in terms of the number of systems and then also the selling prices that we’re seeing in the funnel continue to be positive.

And again, good about how we’re set up for the full year on capital.

Rich, Analyst: That’s great. Let’s start a little deeper on the procedure side. I guess, January was kind of just a drag on the 1Q and understated probably what the 1Q trend really was in March and April were stronger, much stronger. Anything you can tell us on daily volumes or growth rates or anything? Just what was the trajectory in those stronger months?

And did that continue to get better or just kind of sustain at those elevated levels as you moved into April, May?

Kevin: Yeah, I think it’s sustained. We saw meaningful improvement in March and then April did improve off of March somewhat. And now I think we’re operating really for the first time in the last twelve months with really a clean slate. And what I mean by that is we mentioned last year some headwinds with rack audits. We launched a new robot.

And all of that is now clearly in our rearview mirror and then obviously the salient impact in the fourth quarter. So the trends continue to be positive. Think the ability to continue having kind of that low to mid single digit year over year growth in utilization, while maybe doesn’t sound impressive on the surface, when you actually think about the number of systems we’re adding to the business on an annual basis and the fact that we could still expand utilization, we think is a nice proof point around the receptivity of the technology.

Rich, Analyst: Got it. And as we think of where and how you’re driving that utilization growth, one of the things we think about, I don’t know if it’s the right way, but same store sales, if you will, or like the earlier adopter cohort and those guys and girls getting stronger or seeing increasing use up to some peak penetration. I think you’ve talked about high volume EPH centers on average doing 17 a month, right? So where are we on your higher utilization cohort on moving towards that? And are the other is everyone moving up their adoption curve at a similar cases and what you would expect?

The newer adopters, the middle the middle cohort of onboards and then, you know, your original class, if you will. Can you just talk to that?

Kevin: Yeah. So right now, all things being equal, you can view an AquaBlation program as about a 50% market share within our existing accounts, which for us means we’re very early in terms of not just cannibalizing the resective market, but there’s a whole market expansion story here too where ultimately we feel we have the right technology to bring men off the sidelines and not just cannibalize the 17 resective procedures that are done in a hospital, but really beginning to expand the market. So we’re early in that journey where we definitely still see the older cohorts increasing utilization on a quarterly basis. And that same store sales that you referenced is still a meaningful driver to our growth, but at the same time, new accounts obviously contribute significantly to our growth. We’re anticipating installing over 200 robots here in 2025.

And while those accounts do take three to four quarters to ramp up, they do contribute meaningfully to incremental procedures.

Rich, Analyst: I guess on on the on the early adopter cohort, do they peak out at, I don’t know, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of that average 17% per month? I appreciate that there’s a market expansion element, but you’ve also said that you don’t know how much of its market expansion versus maybe just shifting where these are getting done and certain hospitals gaining share. So let’s just assume 17 per month is an average. Where are you seeing your older users kind of peak out when they peak out?

Kevin: Yeah. It’s it’s highly variable is the honest answer. Mean, we have numerous accounts that do well north of 17 per month where we’ve cannibalized their full receptive business and now they’re doing more procedures. But in general, I look at that number more as a comfort factor as to where we need to be, right? And the fact is, while we haven’t guided past 2025, we’re obviously aware of where expectations are in 2026 and 2027.

And if my memory serves me correctly, I think expectations in 2027 are for right around eight to eight and a half procedures a month. So even in twenty four months down the road, it’s not as if we have to be a 100% market share in any given account. And we already, again, have multiple proof points of us doing more than that. We we have a long way to go here. It’s early.

I’d also suggest with Hydros, the new robotic platform, that our expectation would be that system allows for greater utilization than the previous system given a lot of the features there with Hydros as well. So we have a long way to go. We’re happy with the success we’ve had. But as a management team, we’re not sitting around worrying about where our future growth is going come from.

Rich, Analyst: The reason why I asked that question and you kind of started to just get at it, but while we’re really barely at mid teens U. S. Penetration into the existing perspective 10, let alone the expanding one. I think some investors are worried about is, hey, this is 15% or mid teens percentage on its way to maybe two thirds or 70%. But what if we think that’s the case, but we’re really gonna hit the wall at 25 or 30% penetration that we just don’t know about.

So that’s why I kind of asked that. I guess what can you tell investors, you know, that gives you confidence that we’re not gonna hit a wall like that?

Matt: I think, you know, the variable that we talk about internally is placements, right? So, I think if investors believe that we’ll continue to be able to sell capital, we’re going to get the procedures. So, as Kevin mentioned, we’re roughly, you know, call it 50% penetrated within existing accounts today, doing seven to eight procedures a month with the opportunity being somewhere in that teens range. Our pipeline is significant. I think that Hydros lends itself well to being that next platform to reach the mid market to broader market, broader adoption.

So, selling capital is always going to be a component of our business and if we continue to sell capital, we’re going to get those procedures and by getting those procedures, the penetration rate will increase.

Rich, Analyst: Got it. And part of that’s just if they’re buying the system, they’re going use it? Yep. And

Matt: I’ll add, I mean, think one of the variables that’s different between hydros and maybe some of the earlier cohorts with aqua beam is that with aqua beam, we were only really launching with one or two surgeons. Now we’re launching with sometimes two, three and four surgeons, just given the awareness of the procedure and marching more towards that 20% market share in the hospital market.

Rich, Analyst: And you made a comment, hydros is in some way unlocking some sort of utilization, incremental utilization. How and is that a procedure time item? Is that an

Kevin: efficiency more efficiency as opposed to procedure time. What we mean by that is, first, it starts with the hospital support staff. So with our previous generation system, I’d suggest that was a little more complex and set up for the staff and many hospitals had to rely on the same OR staff to complete cases. We believe with hydros, we’ve mitigated that need to where now you’re not relying on kind of a single point of failure within a given hospital. And I think a lot of us have heard from other companies about shortages in hospital staffing over the last two to three years.

That never did impact us directly, but hydros definitely helps in that type of environment to not rely on the same staff. I think from an administration standpoint and the top down, hydros also could be a more profitable procedure. You now have a single loaded scope. You don’t have to send out the scope for reprocessing and sterilization. That helps somewhat as well where now it’s not only just bottoms up, but also the top down with administration seeing the benefits there of Hydros.

Rich, Analyst: Got it. And do you have an anecdotal kind of evidence of more procedure per account in hydros accounts versus non hydros accounts?

Kevin: It’s early, right? I mean, we just launched hydros in Q3. I mean, were pretty transparent in saying we didn’t launch the majority of those accounts in the fourth quarter given what was going on with saline. So we’re really only a full quarter into seeing what a good hydros launch can look like. But anecdotally, yes, definitely.

I mean, we are definitely hearing from customers daily that all of the features that we just went through, set up, economic return, and that’s not even getting to some of the clinical benefits around AI, which we’re now seeing 95% of Hydro’s customers use the FirstAssist AI feature, which is also helping. And over time, we do think that hydros lends itself to higher utilization.

Rich, Analyst: You’ve talked about moving into and the definitions here might be a little off, but middle adopters, if you will, or volume BPH accounts. That doesn’t mean low volume, but lower volume than quote high volume BPH accounts. I guess, can you talk about what if anything that means for utilization per account? Are these group of middle of the road volume accounts, are they on similar trajectories to what your higher volume accounts used to be?

Kevin: Yeah. Let me level set the audience and the folks on the web here and get into some details when we talk about the market and how we see it. So there’s 2,700 hospitals in The US that do BPH surgery. Of those 2,700, there’s eight sixty that we view as high volume. And we define high volume as any account that does over 100 BPH procedures in any given year.

To be clear, our strategy is still focused on the eight sixty high volume hospitals. Of our installed base today, roughly 65% to 70% are in those high volume hospitals. And that continues to be our focus. That’s the low hanging fruit. And our goal is to penetrate 90 plus percent of those over time.

And that’s the focus of the sales team. However, what’s kind of happening since we’ve commercialized is we’re seeing hospitals that typically did not do a lot of BPH resective procedures be very interested in the technology. And what’s driving that is the fact is those hospitals, they’re large hospitals. They just typically didn’t do a lot of BPH surgery. They still see numerous BPH patients and historically they were just referring those patients out because they didn’t want to deal with alternatives available because frankly they’re not very good on the resective side.

And I would suggest that the medium volume hospitals, their trajectory looks a lot like a high volume hospital. Low volume hospitals, which do less procedures obviously than a medium volume hospital, they’re less than 10% of our total installed base. So they’re still not terribly meaningful. And perhaps over time, those lower hospitals could be somewhat of a drag on overall utilization, but they’re not the majority of hospitals out there anyhow. And we feel good that the utilization of medium volume hospitals is not going to be on any different trajectory than a high volume hospital.

Thus, we don’t expect this to be overall dilutive to our utilization here as we move forward.

Rich, Analyst: Think switching gears to the capital side for a minute. You saw more IDNs and the proportion of your placements coming from IDNs has increased. And I know you’ve been talking about that for a couple of years and working towards that. Can you tell us, you know, what does it mean now that you’re there and you have more conversations at the corporate level? Should we expect bulk orders?

Are these bulk orders? How should we think about an increasing percentage of IDM placements?

Kevin: Yeah. Look, the reality is if you’re going become the standard of care in the surgical BPH receptive space, you’re going to need to have the support of the IDN networks. The largest 17 IDNs in The US account for roughly 25% to 30% of all BPH surgeries. So you’re incapable of becoming the standard of care if you don’t have the support of IDNs. And what we’ve seen over time has been extremely positive.

And when you look at other surgical robotic companies, think they’d also suggest that having partnerships with IDNs is a key element to growth and success. So we view this as an extremely important part of our sales strategy. We’re in a good standing with a lot of the large IDNs. The bulk orders that you reference, where we would like to get this company to down the road is where when we know at the beginning of every year how many robots these large IDNs are going to purchase. We’re not there yet.

That’s where we see this relationship going, but that takes time. Again, other comparable robotic companies, you’re looking at anywhere ten plus years to really have these relationships start to bear fruit. I’d suggest we’re going be much earlier than that, but it’s going to be more a post 2025 type of incremental tailwind to the business.

Rich, Analyst: I guess, what would you say to someone who said, oh, there’s more IDN related purchasing, therefore, they’re getting to the same place we thought they would be with bulk purchase orders. Do you respond to that?

Kevin: Yeah. Think those relationships allow us to have a much more predictable capital sales funnel and process. I think any investor or any med tech executive who deals with capital equipment, the predictability of when these sales occur is always a pain point, right, across the board. And by having these relationships, think you remove that. And you have a much more predictable sales funnel, which allows you to resource appropriately and allows you to not surprise folks.

I think we’ve been pretty good as a public company on that journey and IDNs, if anything, should just continue to help foster that predictability.

Rich, Analyst: Is your conversion of your pipeline improving now that you’re having more coming from IDNs?

Kevin: We’ve always been pretty good about converting our pipeline, but the predictability around when those deals are gonna close definitely has improved with our IDN relationships for sure.

Rich, Analyst: And what about ASPs? How do we think of ASPs with these increasing as a percentage

Kevin: of Insignificant. I mean, pricing for IDNs, just like pricing for our end user hospital customers, it’s variable. I would not suggest that large IDNs have a lower price than the corporate average. There are some that are higher, are some that are lower, but it’s a little bit all over the map.

Rich, Analyst: You mentioned, I think, an earlier remark pricing has been surprisingly positive or maybe not surprisingly, but positive. You used those words. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Kevin: Yeah. I mean, when we went public in 2021, I think the average selling price of our robot was around $300,000. We’re now in this 430,000 to 440,000 range. And, I view that as, again, a testament to the technology, but also I think it helps answer the question about the capital environment impacting our business. Because if the capital environment were to impact our business, I don’t think you’d be able to expand ASPs in such a meaningful manner.

And internally, I think we feel there’s more room to go up than down there longer term, particularly with Hydros now being the platform we’re going to continue to innovate on. I think over time, we could add value adds to the customer that can garner a higher price. But if we landed in the $4.30 to $4.40 in perpetuity, I think we feel pretty good about running a highly profitable company at that point.

Rich, Analyst: And just on the capital environment, 1Q is always a tricky one for all capital companies and it didn’t feel like anything kind of fell off a cliff with a lot of noise in the background. I’m just curious, you know, now that we’re a few months past Liberation Day, you know, just just from the learning about it and the the new world that we’re kind of living in. What are you seeing? What how do you feel about kind of the capital environment and the outlook?

Kevin: We don’t sense any really material shift in overall sentiment. We’ve been pretty consistent in saying that we think the environment’s relatively stable. I think we’re very fortunate as a company with how we’re positioned within a hospital, one with pricing, right? I mean, our capital, while 4 and $30,000 to $440,000 it’s not 2,000,000 to $3,000,000 It could typically be approved and funded at the local level. So most hospitals aren’t dependent on third party financing.

They’re not dependent on board approvals, and therefore we can get through that process. But I think more important than that is what we actually offer to these hospitals. And when I think of a slowing capital environment, in my experience, that tends to impact replacement markets in a much more meaningful manner than the greenfield markets we’re in. And what I mean by that is if you had a robot that’s eight to ten years old in tough economic times, when I talk to hospital CFOs, they’re willing to hold onto that equipment for two, three more years. Whereas with aquablation and with the hydro system, they view this as a benefit to the hospital.

It allows them to retain patients. It allows them to retain surgeons. It allows them to treat more patients than they otherwise would have treated without launching a program. And when you operate in that environment, that’s much different than replacing a ten year old piece of capital. So I think we’ve been fortunate where even if the economy were to worsen, we’d be okay and kind of doing what we say we’re going do here in 2025.

Rich, Analyst: Got it. You you have a CPT code change coming up. You’re going from cat three to cat one. I know this is something that’s come up in a number of investor conversations. I think you’ve commented on in a public forum in the last few weeks.

Can you just remind us what your running assumption is with respect to how this will impact the physician fee payment for all resective procedures and then yours specifically on a relative basis to other resective procedures?

Kevin: Yeah, so let me start with saying I can’t go into too much detail. We are under NDA with CMS and AMA, excuse me. And given that backdrop, we still view this risk to our business as quite low in terms of the physician fee. And why I say that is we do believe that as part of this meeting, all resective modalities are being reviewed. Given we’re going to exit this year at about 20% of the resective market, historical precedents would suggest that when a company gets our size, they will take a hard look at the whole category.

And what’s important for Procept is really the relative value a surgeon gets paid compared to the other resective modalities as opposed to the absolute dollar amount itself. I mean, expectation is that physician payment will go down. We think it’s going to go down in a reasonable manner. But we also do not believe this will impact adoption at all. In fact, internally, it’s a nonevent in terms of how we’re going to forecast the business in 2026.

The much more important piece of our procedure from a reimbursement standpoint is the facility payment that the hospital gets paid. And we are solidly in APC level six. We view it as very minimal risk that would ever change. That’s reviewed, by way, the normal course every year. So nothing new here in 2025.

And when you look at the price of our procedure, which dictates the facility fee, the price of our procedure, if anything, has been increasing over the last twelve to twenty four months, which would support a higher reimbursement level, not a lower reimbursement level on the facility fee. But our running assumption is that we see a decrease slightly to the physician payment. That’s going to be in line with other resective procedures. And our expectation is that we maintain our APC level six, which is the facility payment, and it’s going to be business as usual. And what supports that, by the way, and I think this is an important point, is when you look across the spectrum in The US as to what physicians are paid, it’s highly variable today.

While we get mapped to a TURP, and a typical surgeon will get anywhere from 700 to $800 for their hour of time, we see in some territories that could be as low as $600 In some territories it could be as high as $900 As a company, we don’t see any difference in utilization amongst the surgeon who gets paid $600 or $900 And this is a it’s important to remember this is a hospital based procedure. The surgeon is using aqua ablation for a variety of other benefits that aren’t driven by economics.

Rich, Analyst: But you’re not necessarily anticipating relative, you know, a bigger amount of decrease in reimbursement for aquablation relative to other resective procedures?

Kevin: That’s our expectation, correct.

Rich, Analyst: That won’t happen.

Kevin: That will not happen. Okay.

Rich, Analyst: Got it. And is there any potential that you could get upgraded on the APC level? Or is that even in the cards? Is that something maybe not in the cards this year but next year?

Kevin: It’s reviewed every year and it’s reviewed on hospital charges. I will say when we review our charges, we are closer to APC level seven than we are to APC level five. So we’re at the upper end of APC level six. But our base case is that we maintain our APC level six. If we were to get additional facility reimbursement, I think that obviously would be an extreme positive for the company.

It would allow us to take a look at our handpiece pricing and it would allow us to look at our capital pricing now with a higher APC level. But I just want to be crystal clear, we are not assuming that the company is going to move to APC level seven as part of this, but we’re closer to APC level seven than five. Got it. I want

Rich, Analyst: to hit on margin and then maybe, you know, not give it its due course, but touch on prostate cancer.

Kevin: Right.

Rich, Analyst: All right. On margin, Kevin, it feels like you fully loaded your OpEx guidance and maybe didn’t go as you left some room as you said, beaten raise potential if all goes as planned on the top line. Does that mean that as and if you outperform on the top line that we should see drop through to the bottom line? Or how are you thinking about reinvestment if the top line materializes better than what we’re all thinking in guidance?

Kevin: Yeah. So first comment I want to make is we’re at a point in our commercialization where we will always invest in the business if we think it’s going to continue to drive top line growth, right? And profitability is paramount, don’t get me wrong, but at the same time, with $300 plus million of cash on the balance sheet and showing a very clear pathway, particularly with gross margin expansion, we will not miss opportunities to invest in the business to continue to grow growth when we’re so early in our trajectory. With that said, we feel really good about where we’re sitting here in 2025. We guided to an OpEx number of around $300,000,000 and we’ve said we think that could support much higher revenue levels than our current guidance out there.

And just philosophically, this is something we changed in 2024 where we wanted to give the Street a fully baked OpEx number at leaving potential for revenue upside such that any overachievement has the potential to drop through to the bottom line. If I go back a few years in ’23, we were constantly beating the top line, but we were constantly guiding up OpEx and I’ll use the term investor fatigue a little bit, was the feedback we received and we didn’t want to repeat that mistake in 2024 and that’s just philosophically how we’re going to move forward. Kind of give you guys a fully baked OpEx number with a lot of room for upside on the top line.

Rich, Analyst: Okay. That’s helpful. And anything on the cadence of how that will flow this year that we should be?

Kevin: No, I think if you just look at consensus, it’s modeled appropriately. Mean, there’s nothing to point out there.

Rich, Analyst: And then on prostate cancer, look, you guys spent a lot of time at your AUA Analyst Day going over this. I guess, you know, three minutes is not enough time here. So what would you highlight as the main two or three themes or points that you would want investors to take away from that AUA meeting?

Kevin: Yeah. So there’s a few. I mean, the first thing we just wanted to put out there, and this was never really a concern with oncologists, but I think if you do calls with just a run of the mill urologist or even other investor calls, this belief that we had the potential to spread cancer. We wanted to make sure that we addressed that in two minutes. I can’t get into too much of the detail here, but we feel very good that aquablation does not spread cancer.

We’ve had a contraindication removed to treat patients that have known prostate cancer from the FDA. We have early data from our one and two patients that would suggest this is not the case. And that’s never been a concern of ours but it seemed to be a concern out there in the market that we wanted to address. So that was goal one. Goal two is with BPH, you basically are treating a patient in the transitional zone and just creating a tunnel.

With prostate cancer, you have to have a much more aggressive form of treatment. Most of prostate cancer lives in the peripheral zone. That resides below the transition zone. It’s somewhat a different modality to get to and we wanted to show folks that we have the ability to treat. We wouldn’t have embarked on this journey if it frankly didn’t work.

And we wanted to kind of give people some real time proof points as to how we’re going to treat a patient. So that was goal two. Goal three was really just to talk about the endpoints and the timelines around our study. The fact that we do have a six month endpoint, we have breakthrough device designation with the FDA, and we feel good about our ability to be one of the only companies out there that can get an actual claim to treat prostate cancer given our FDA supported study. And there’s a lot of companies that have done randomized studies, but I think we’re one of the few, if not the only, to do one that’s supported and approved by the FDA with a pathway to get our own claim.

And then lastly, just want to put some timelines around what this looks like. I think there was a lot of confusion out there. What we wanted to suggest is that in a normal environment, this would be a twenty four month enrollment. That would put commercialization sometime in early twenty twenty eight is how we’re thinking about it. But at the same time, we think we could influence this in the six month time period, have the majority of patients enrolled by the end of this year, with a goal to have everybody fully enrolled in eighteen months versus twenty four.

And we just wanted to put that out there as well.

Rich, Analyst: So earliest would be late twenty seven, but think early twenty eight is your base case.

Kevin: Yeah, think early twenty eight is the right way to look at it. With a claim, by the way. There’s other pathways we could go down in the interim period, but to get a claim to treat prostate cancer, we’d be looking at early twenty eight.

Rich, Analyst: Okay. Well, I think we’re out of time here, but that was very comprehensive. Thanks, Kevin. Thanks, Matt.

Kevin: Appreciate Thanks for having us. Thanks, everybody.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.