Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the UroGen Pharma second quarter 2022 update conference call. It's my pleasure to hand the call over to Vincent Perrone, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone. And welcome to UroGen Pharma Second Quarter 2022 Financial Results and Business Update Conference Call. Earlier today, we issued a press release providing an overview of our recent corporate highlights and financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2022. The press release can be accessed on the investors portion of our website at investors.urogen.com. Joining me today are Liz Barrett, President and CEO; Dr. Mark Schoenberg, Chief Medical Officer; Jeff Bova, Chief Commercial Officer; and Dong Kim, Chief Financial Officer. During today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These may include statements regarding our ongoing commercialization activities relating to Jelmyto, our ongoing and planned research efforts and clinical trials, the potential benefits of Jelmyto and our product candidates, data presentations, regulatory filings, future revenue opportunities, potentially reaching cash flow breakeven by 2025, the availability of the second tranche of our term loan facility, and 2022 financial guidance, among other things. These forward-looking statements are based on current information, assumptions, and expectations that are subject to change. A description of potential risks can be found in our earnings press release and latest SEC disclosure documents, including under the risk factors heading in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, filed today. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and UroGen disclaims any obligation to update these statements. I'll now turn the call over to Liz.

Thank you, Vincent, and thank you to everyone joining us today. As summarized in this morning's press release, our progress during the second quarter of 2022 can primarily be viewed along three lines. First is the continued growth of our Jelmyto revenue. Second is the on pace enrollment of our clinical programs, and the third is further strengthening of the body of evidence underscoring the benefit of Jelmyto in a real world setting. The common thread between each of these areas is disciplined execution and determined commitment from our entire team to deliver benefit to patients and value to shareholders, which I am pleased to discuss in more detail with you today. Our overarching goal remains to fundamentally transform the treatment paradigm for patients suffering from urothelial and specialty cancers, reflecting a largely underserved patient population with a crucial need for novel therapies. Our currently approved medicine Jelmyto is a prime example of filling a need with an option for patients suffering from low-grade Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma. And I'm pleased to report that we continue to see increased adoption with net revenue of $16.6 million, a year-over-year growth of 28% and 22% growth over Q1. Jeff will describe our commercial results in more detail, including a review of overall Jelmyto outcome data recently presented at AUA. But we remain confident in our original guidance and expect growth and acceleration of Jelmyto adoption throughout the remainder of 2022. Beyond Jelmyto, our two ongoing clinical trials are actively underway and enrolling at expected rates. Most importantly, our ENVISION Phase III pivotal study of UGN-102, a novel medicine in development to treat patients with low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, remains on track for full enrollment by year end. Assuming positive data, we anticipate filing an NDA with the FDA in 2024 and a targeted priority review, which may allow for approval by the end of 2024. If approved, UGN-102 will be the first non-surgical primary therapeutic to treat these patients. Post approval, we anticipate a streamlined launch given we are able to leverage our established commercial framework with a common prescriber base and similar product features for Jelmyto. Based on market research, we believe UGN-102 addresses a large patient population of 80,000 patients in the U.S. alone and for potential combined revenue of over $1 billion for UGN-102 and Jelmyto by 2027. Concurrently, our first in-human study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of UGN-301 is ongoing and provides an opportunity to broaden our technology application with expansion into immuno-oncology and inclusion of locally delivered immunotherapies, targeting high-grade urologic cancers. Mark will provide a further update on our clinical portfolio shortly. Based on our current revenue projections and financial models, we believe we have the tools to reach cash flow breakeven by 2025. This is based on our confidence in our ability to achieve our guided full year 2022 Jelmyto product revenues in the range of $70 million to $80 million as well as access to an additional $25 million from the up to $100 million term loan facility with funds managed by Pharmakon Advisors. We recognize that the capital markets are challenging for many companies in need of capital right now. However, we do not foresee a near-term need to raise additional cash. Dong will share our updated operating expense projections, reflecting a slight decrease in our full year guidance from last quarter's projection. While there are additional studies and business development opportunities we are considering, we continue to weigh these opportunities against our goal of reaching profitability. With that, I'll turn the call over to Mark to discuss our recent clinical development updates.

Thank you, Liz. As Liz described, both our Phase III ENVISION trial with UGN-102 and our Phase I trial with UGN-301 are pressing forward full steam, on time, and on budget. ENVISION is a single-arm international multicenter study, evaluating the efficacy and safety of UGN-102 as primary chemoablative therapy in patients with recurrent low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. There are no approved primary non-surgical therapies for the approximately 80,000 patients suffering from this disease each year in the U.S. alone, and it's worth restating that the current standard of care for low-grade disease is endoscopic surgical resection, which is performed repeatedly in the majority of patients due to tumor recurrence. We expect to enroll approximately 220 patients across the 90 clinical sites who will receive 6 once-a-week intravascular installations of UGN-102. The primary endpoint will evaluate the complete response rate at three months after the first installation, and the key secondary endpoint will evaluate durability over time in patients who achieve a complete response at the three-month assessment. As previously stated, we remain confident in the design of the ENVISION trial and the clinical potential of UGN-102 for several reasons. First, ENVISION shares a similar design to our previously completed Phase IIb OPTIMA II study which enrolled patients with new and recurrent low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, and where we observed a complete response rate of 65%. In this subset of patients, duration of response at 12 months from the start of therapy estimated by Kaplan Meier analysis to be 72.5%. I'd like to take a moment to draw everyone's attention to an additional piece of information that has recently come to light in the wake of our Phase IIb OPTIMA II trial. Investigators at the University of North Carolina recently published an article in the Journal of Urology detailing the patient experience of participants in the UGN-102 Phase IIb trial on which the ENVISION study is modeled. Participants in this research program were evaluated by questionnaire and a subset by detailed interviews. Several interesting points emerged. First, patients reported few side effects following treatment with UGN-102. Second, many interviewed participants preferred chemoablative treatment to the standard of care with which all had prior experience. Third, most would recommend UGN-102 to other patients considering treatment for non-invasive bladder cancer. While preliminary, these results are encouraging and further support the contention that the non-surgical office-based approach to the management of recurrent NMIBC could be valuable to patients. I will reiterate Liz's guidance that we aim to complete new enrollment of the ENVISION trial by the end of 2022 assuming positive data, and plan for an NDA submission in 2024. While ENVISION remains our top priority for UGN-102, we also continue to advance a single-arm at-home installation feasibility study for UGN-102 described previously, which we also anticipate completing this year. Meanwhile, our Phase I trial with UGN-301 initiated in April is actively enrolling and on track for first-arm completion within 12 months. You'll recall UGN-301 is our in-licensed anti-CTLA4 antibody for intravesical administration via RTGel in development for use in combination with other immunomodulators, including UGN-201, our proprietary TLR7 agonist, and other potential chemotherapy and immunotherapies to treat high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. This study will also seek to determine a suitable dose for a subsequent Phase II trial. It's worth reiterating that this study will utilize a novel master protocol design that we believe will provide a more efficiently streamlined development program since it allows for evaluation of multiple combinations in parallel. We ultimately view UGN-301 as a cornerstone checkpoint inhibitor for a variety of potential combination therapies targeting high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. More broadly, and beyond just UGN-301, we see intravesical administration immunotherapies with our RTGel technology as an opportunity to explore a variety of novel immunomodulator drug combinations with potential to advance care across multiple clinical indications in urology and specialty cancers. And with that, I'd like to turn the call over to Jeff to provide a commercial update.

Thank you, Mark. As Liz noted, Jelmyto sales continue to grow at $16.6 million in Q2, representing a 22% increase from Q1 and a 28% increase from the same period last year. Our previous net product revenue guidance for Jelmyto of $70 million to $80 million for the fiscal year remains unchanged. Our launch ramp strengthened as the environment continues to normalize. Activated sites on August 1 were 893 compared to 857 on May 1, 2022, while repeat accounts on August 1 were 144 compared to 114 on May 1, 2022. Another important metric we track for Jelmyto adoption is the Nephrostomy tube administration. Based on feedback from our field force of regional business directors, our nurses, and our territory business managers, we believe Nephrostomy administration has increased from approximately 20% to approximately 40% of installations over the past three months. This positive encouraging trend confers multiple potential benefits, including offering physicians and patients multiple modes of administration, more flexibility in scheduling, and minimizing manipulation of the ureter during installation. In addition, a retrospective pooled analysis by four premier academic institutions of real-world data of 26 patients who received Jelmyto via Nephrostomy was presented at the recent American Urological Association meeting by Dr. Kyle Rose. This analysis described how 13 of 26 patients examined exhibited a complete response, while another 12 patients had a partial response. Nine patients went on to receive at least one dose of maintenance therapy. Importantly, ureteral stenosis occurred in 4 or 15% of patients. There were no severe adverse events reported and no patients had impaired renal function. While our existing and prospective business with Jelmyto continues to strengthen, we also cannot ignore the opportunity in hand with UGN-102. The U.S. market opportunity in low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer is estimated at $3 billion, and this considers the aforementioned 75% or 60,000 patients that encounter recurrence. 68% of those encounter more than two recurrences, and 23% have more than five. In addition, repeat TURBT procedures have been found to be associated with an increased mortality of 14%, independent of surgical risk. Preliminary market research shows that physicians identify 25% of these patients as ineligible or averse to surgery anyhow. With the relevant ease of administration of UGN-102 and the potential to limit or avoid TURBT, it should come as no surprise that 96% of urologists surveyed indicated they would adopt UGN-102 into their treatment protocol within two years of approval. With that, I'm happy to pass the call over to Dong to discuss our financials.

Thank you, Jeff, and thank you to everyone for joining today's call. I'm pleased to be with you today to review our financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2022. UroGen reported net product sales of Jelmyto for the second quarter of 2022 of approximately $16.6 million. It compares to $30 million in the second quarter of 2021. We continue to anticipate the full year 2022 net product revenue from Jelmyto between $70 million and $80 million. Cost of revenues for the second quarter of 2022 was approximately $1.8 million, resulting in a gross margin of 89% compared to a gross margin of 89% in the second quarter of 2021. Research and Development expenses for the second quarter ended June 30, 2022 were $12.6 million compared to $30.1 million for the same period in 2021. R&D expenses include $0.7 million and $1.0 million in non-cash share-based compensation expense for the second quarter of 2022 and 2021, respectively. The increase in R&D expense is related to the ongoing Phase III ENVISION study of UGN-102 offset by lower expenses for the Phase I study of UGN-301 as compared to pre-clinical work in the prior year. Selling General and Administrative expenses for the second quarter ended June 30, 2022 were $20.8 million compared to $22.3 million for the second quarter of 2021. SG&A expense includes $2.2 million and $5.0 million of non-cash share-based compensation expense for the second quarter of 2022 and 2021, respectively. The reduction in SG&A expense resulted primarily from a decrease in compensation expense, offset by expenses related to participation in the 2022 American Urological Association annual meeting. For the second quarter ended June 30, 2022, we reported financing expense related to prepaid forward obligations to RTW Investment of $5.8 million compared to $3.1 million for the same period in 2021. Interest expense related to the up to $100 million term loan facility, with funds managed by Pharmakon Advisors was $2.2 million for the second quarter of 2022. As the transaction closed in March of 2022, there was no such expense in the second quarter of 2021. For the second quarter ended June 30, 2022, we reported a net loss of $26.7 million or $1.18 per share. This compares to a net loss of $26.2 million or $1.17 per share in the second quarter of 2021. So net loss for the second quarter of 2022 includes $2.9 million in non-cash share-based compensation expense compared to $6.0 million in non-cash share-based compensation expense in the second quarter of 2021. We closed the quarter with $103.4 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. During the second quarter, we took additional steps to further strengthen our balance sheet in support of our commercial and clinical development activities. As Liz mentioned, we are acutely aware of the challenging capital markets environment and take comfort in our routine, diligent, and responsible management of our operating to ensure our core assets are prioritized and needs are more than met. We believe the closing of the up to $100 million term loan facility with funds managed by Pharmakon Advisors in March has positioned us to weather this challenging capital market environment. As a reminder, a second tranche of $25 million of the total $110 million term loan remains available to us. Its drawn upon before the end of the year, subject to customary bring-down conditions. As previously mentioned, we continue to anticipate full year 2022 net product revenues from Jelmyto to be in the range of $70 million to $80 million, representing a 46% to 67% increase over 2021. We anticipate our full year 2022 operating expense guidance to stand in the range of $130 million to $140 million, including non-cash share-based compensation expenses of $10 million to $16 million, subject to market conditions. We anticipate the full year 2022 non-cash financing expense related to the prepaid for the obligation to RTW Investment in the range of $22 million to $26 million, of which an estimated $9.1 million to $10.4 million was paid in cash. So in closing, with our fortified financial footing, we remain focused on commercial growth and execution in the clinic. When coupled with our adjusted full-year operating expense guidance and ongoing efforts to prudently manage our cash burn, we anticipate ending the year with approximately $100 million in cash. Based on our current revenue projections and financial models, we believe that our current financial position and the tools available to us provide a sufficient runway to achieve cash flow breakeven by 2025. Overall, our balance sheet is strong, our income statement is continuing to strengthen, and our cash flow is well in hand. With that, I'd like to turn the call back to Liz for closing remarks.

Thank you, Dong. I would simply like to close by expressing my pride in all that we have accomplished and continue to execute on from the entire UroGen team. We are in close contact with stakeholders that utilize and receive Jelmyto, as well as those participating in our clinical trials, and are thrilled with the feedback we continuously receive for advancing these innovative and novel treatments. Our progress would not be possible without them, and I want to extend our sincere thanks for their participation. We recognize a challenging environment and want to thank and reiterate our commitment to our shareholders who recognize the long-term vision and strategy and remain bullish on our ability to build a meaningful long-term sustainable growth business. I'll now turn the call over to the operator for the Q&A session.

Our first question comes from Chris Howerton from Jeffries.

I have two questions. First, I recently hosted a call with a physician from a large institution in Boston, and I would like your thoughts on two potential growth drivers for Jelmyto that were discussed. It appears that larger institutions may take around 12 months to fully integrate the process. How do you foresee the impact of these institutions, potentially with multiple patients for Jelmyto, in the upcoming quarters? Secondly, you've already touched on the nephrostomy administration, which is great. While there is an advantage in ease of administration, the physician mentioned it wasn't their preferred method. How do you view the acceptance of this administration route going forward? Will it be inconsistent, or will it require education to boost adoption? My second question is about the expected timelines for the data readout for one or two. Should we anticipate a one-year endpoint, and is that the timeframe we should consider?

Hi there, Chris. It's Liz. First of all, I want to thank you for hosting that call. It was very informative for us. And if anyone on the line didn't get to hear it, I would recommend listening to it if there’s a playback available. It was great. I'll turn it over to Jeff to address the first two questions regarding the time and Nephrostomy tube, and then Mark can handle the timing question.

Hey, Chris. Appreciate the interview as well. I thought he actually did it in less than 12 months. They were one of the ones that were able to do it in 6 months. It's a range; it depends on the account, it depends on the speed at which the champion can get it on formulary, get it through pharmacy as well, because it does have to be mixed at these accounts. So those are probably two good numbers in your hospital accounts where there is more bureaucracy and there's more of a formal process. It can take anywhere from 4 to 12 months. As we saw with the number of accounts activated, we've still got accounts to activate as we get closer to peak, and we're going to continue to grow that. But I think I'm comfortable saying the faster ones can move 4 to 12 months, or 4 months, and usually, sometimes it can take longer than that. As for Nephrostomy, I think it's going to continue to grow as we generate more data. I was pleasantly surprised with the data that we have out there, which is good, but it's not a significant number of patients. I think it's going to continue to go up as we get a greater number of patients and we're able to go out there with more data. Having said that, to answer your question, I do think it's going to ultimately be physician preference. We have physicians that would prefer to deliver it retrograde, and they still may, but we've also heard from a lot of physicians that they preferred to deliver it retrograde a year and a half ago, and they're delivering it now through Nephrostomy tube.

Can I ask for a quick clarification from Jeff on the estimated number of physicians who have tried to use the Nephrostomy tube at this point?

I think the range would be too great. I can certainly look into that. But now I can't even estimate because it really has just been this last quarter. So I don't have that level.

I want to comment on that. As Jeff mentioned, not all physicians will switch to the Nephrostomy tube. Some are quite comfortable with the current methods and will continue using them. Additionally, we have spoken to some patients who also prefer not to use a Nephrostomy tube. Having both options available and gathering more data on the Nephrostomy tube has been very beneficial. I believe this will remain the case, but I don't think we will reach a point where everyone makes the switch. Mark, if you have a different perspective, feel free to share before addressing the question about clinical timing.

I think that's exactly correct. And the great thing here is there are two modes of administration, and physicians will and patients will avail themselves of whatever they're most comfortable with. So it provides a lot of meaningful flexibility in the real world, which is terrific. And it's exactly how we take care of patients. So it makes a lot of sense. And as we've said, patients and physicians will make their own decisions, but it does provide a nice option if a Nephrostomy tube is available. With respect to timing on ENVISION, let me just remind you, we're going to enroll that this year. Everybody needs 12 months of follow-up. That's what we'll spend '23 doing. It's getting all that 12 months of follow-up. So the data will be in '24 for our submission to the FDA. However, as you all recall, we also are accumulating data from the Atlas trial, and those data will be available in '23. We expect to share some of those data then.

Our next question comes from Raghuram Selvaraju from H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.

Just a couple. I was wondering whether you have a real degree of visibility at this point regarding where steady-state sort of utilization rate penetration would be for the Nephrostomy tube base delivery of Jelmyto. My understanding is right now it's running at around 40%. But do you think ultimately it's going to wind up being the vast majority of the situations in which Jelmyto is administered? And then secondly, I was wondering if you could comment on, in the context of your full year revenue guidance, what you expect to be the principal accelerators of revenue growth in the second half of this year.

I think it depends on the larger retrospective data that will come hopefully soon. And it depends on what that reads out. To answer your question, I'll give you a big range. I think it's going to be the majority, but it's probably going to be between 50% and 70%, I believe will be Nephrostomy tube, depending a lot around that data. I would have never expected it to be this high this early with really very little data. And the fact that it's been going up every quarter, it doubled from Q1 to Q2, I can see this being as high as 70% to 75% of the installation. And as far as guidance, I do think it's going to be the retrospective data. The timing of that, that can help accelerate our end of year Q3, Q4 growth. We continue to implement more and more patient marketing, so patient awareness. We believe this is a big driver that can help us towards the end of this year and into next year. So patients are aware. They're asking, they're discussing with their physicians. This can help as well. So those would be the two things in mind.

I want to emphasize that we are observing an uptick in our patient enrollment forms and overall patient demand. When you analyze this trend and project it forward, it’s important to note that there is volatility week to week, so patient enrollment forms alone don’t tell the full story. We are also witnessing increased stocking and bulk purchases, especially by institutions. Furthermore, as Chris mentioned earlier, new institutions are starting to come on board, and we have received approvals from several larger institutions across the country. As we continue to see these institutions join us and an increase in nephrostomy tube usage, particularly in community practices where they can avoid fluoroscopy, these factors should contribute to an inflection point as we move into the latter part of Q3 and into Q4.

Our next question comes from the line of Boris Peaker from Cowen, your line is open.

My first question is if we look a little further on Jelmyto projections, just based on your internal market estimates, what percentage of the target market has Jelmyto already penetrated?

We haven't provided a specific percentage, but it's between 10% and 20%, and we still have a considerable distance to cover. It really depends on various factors. One of the main challenges we face is locating patients, as their availability isn't consistent. Each month brings different patients with varying levels of engagement, making it difficult to determine an exact penetration rate at any given time. It's important to evaluate this over an extended period. Considering the total market is valued at $700 million, if you look at the $70 million for this year, you can see that the penetration is certainly above 10%, since that figure would represent the full year's projection. As we move into the latter half of the year, we are approaching a range of 15% to 20%.

Of these patients that are available in general, do you have a sense of the breakdown between large medical facilities which may take a long time to onboard versus the more community settings?

It remains split approximately 50-50. For community doctors who are hesitant to participate, we have established a strong referral program to connect those patients with physicians who are willing to provide care. There are also some smaller groups that either don't treat UTUC or prefer to avoid the buy-and-bill financial responsibilities. We facilitate connections with local physicians who are administering the treatment. We will continue to do this, as it is essential for success, considering many urologists may not want to treat these patients. Our goal is to direct those patients to urologists who will offer Jelmyto as a treatment option. Thus, the ratio stands at 50-50, addressing your question.

Our next question comes from the line of Matt Kaplan from Ladenburg.

Just wanted to dig in just a little bit more on Nephrostomy tube application. I guess maybe a question for Mark. If the future data looks comparable to Retrograde perfusion, what would be the reason why doctors or patients would prefer the Retrograde perfusion? Is there some economic advantage or incentive to doctors to use the Retrograde versus the Nephrostomy tube?

From a medical standpoint, the preliminary data suggests that nephrostomy may involve less ureteral manipulation. In the OLYMPUS trial, there were concerns about transient narrowing of the ureter in patients, which appears to be less problematic with nephrostomy. However, the method of delivering the gel into the renal pelvis of the ureter largely depends on the preference and comfort of the physician. From the patient's viewpoint, a key advantage of nephrostomy administration is its rapid execution in an office setting, while retrograde administration is more complex and requires additional instruments. But I'll let Jeff address the economic aspects. So when a community doctor has to handle a Part B drug, the institution or doctor that purchases the drug receives reimbursement. If the community doctor is at their surgery center, that center buys the drug and gets reimbursed. The same goes for hospitals; they purchase the drug and receive reimbursement. The benefit here is that the drug can be delivered in the clinic, where the office can buy the drug just like other drugs such as Provenge and Xofigo that are administered in the clinic. This shifts the economics for doctors who previously went to surgery centers or hospitals. They now have the opportunity to purchase the product and receive reimbursement for their group or clinic.

And then a question on 102 in the ENVISION study. What's the rate-limiting step to the filing of the NDA at this point? And I guess what I'm getting at is where are you on manufacturing and where is that process?

We are on schedule, and that's not the limiting factor. Everything is going well with manufacturing and our CMC. The real limiting factor is the 12 months of follow-up required. We need at least 12 months of follow-up and will continue following the patients beyond that. Unfortunately, I can't speed up the 12-month timeline. As of now, we're on track for our enrollment through July, and it's looking good for August as well. We're satisfied with our enrollment progress and expect to complete it by the end of the year, after which we'll need to follow the patients for 12 months. So, we anticipate that would be by the end of 2023. Then we'll move to database locking and cleaning, which takes time, as we want to ensure the quality of the data is maintained. It's all about the data and the timing of the follow-up. We will keep communication open with the FDA as we approach this timeline to explore our submission options. We will share any updates as soon as we can, but that is the only limiting factor for us.

Our next question comes from the line of Leland Gershell from Oppenheimer.

Just a couple for me also on the nephrostomy tube anterograde installation. Clearly, it seems to be catalyzing interest amongst physicians despite the limited data. In our discussion with urologists, it seems like they're finding the time-saving of patients coming in for their repeat weekly installations with the tube to be simply much better than the much longer time involved in terms of having to prep patients and other aspects related to the retrograde, which may potentially make up for or outweigh any economic financial benefits to those same physicians. I'm wondering if Jeff can kind of comment around that dynamic? And also with the doubling of the installation rate on the anterograde, I just want to drill into that a bit more. Is this coming from docs who are becoming more comfortable and therefore, treating more of their own patients? Is it driving an expansion and broadening of urologists perhaps to those in groups who may have been either slower or more reluctant to adopt Jelmyto? How should we think about kind of the landscape of urologist adoption across the different types of urologists out there, community versus referral center and so forth with anterograde becoming a viable option?

The first question I often receive is that doctors appreciate not having to schedule all their time or surgery center time. This change gives them more freedom in their treatment approaches and allows patients to be in a more comfortable environment. There's convenience for both parties. However, the most common feedback I've received relates to scheduling, which can be difficult due to the staffing challenges we're currently experiencing in hospitals and surgery centers. This scheduling issue seems to be the primary concern I've heard about.

As far as the doubling, I think it's probably a combination of a lot of things. I think now you see physicians that enjoyed the ease of this in their clinic and start to see and start to realize that this is an option they may expand to greater parts of our indication. Perhaps they were using it in some areas, and now they're using it in the full indication because they're able to do this in a more convenient manner. I would say that's probably more of the dominant than versus like new physicians that weren't as interested in Jelmyto. And now they're very interested in nephrostomy tube. But I think there are some that have shown interest now that we have shown data from this level of administration. But it's really primarily around the ease of convenience. Even though we did overcome all the challenges around the training, the mixing, the setting things up, sometimes it's not really what we can do. It's the institution; it's the scheduling; it's when can I get into ORs, the days I'm in OR. This provides a much greater convenience for everyone.

Our next question comes from the line of Paul Choi from Goldman Sachs.

This is Charlie on for Paul. Just a quick one from us. I was curious about the operation expense guidance reduction for the year at this point. I'm just wondering, is there any particular business strategy or philosophy behind where those cost cuts were made? And just anything that you're looking to prioritize or anything? Any color there would be great.

What it came down to is that some of our expenses were lower than we anticipated, particularly in relation to clinical studies and other areas. I'll let Dong elaborate on that. We also wanted to conduct a study on patients who are unwilling or unable to undergo surgery. While the FDA has not approved this, we believe that a study demonstrating our ability to include these patients could expand our target population. However, we decided to postpone that study until next year. We want to complete our current ENVISION study for UGN-102 before moving forward with anything else. The other aspects are mainly related to the margin. Dong, would you like to add anything?

We have covered everything in the presentation. We want to maintain our focus on Jelmyto and prioritize the 301 project. We're reevaluating some potential opportunities, but essentially, we have addressed all our points.

Let me make one more comment. I want to emphasize that we haven't reduced anything that would aid in the adoption of Jelmyto. We are committed to ensuring that we focus on areas, especially those mentioned by Jeff earlier, related to patient activation. We strongly believe that encouraging physician urgency is a vital strategy for us moving forward. Therefore, we are not cutting back on any of our commercial spending; we are just being very careful with everything we do.

And I'm not showing any further questions in the queue at this moment.

Okay. Great. Well, as I mentioned before, we're very proud of the progress that we continue to make toward realizing our vision for those patients suffering from urothelial cancers. We appreciate your continued support and look forward to keeping you all informed as key events come to fruition. So thanks, everyone. Operator, you may now disconnect.

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.