Veracyte, Inc. (VCYT) September 15, 2026 Conference Transcript

Okay, I think we'll kick things off here. My name is Jacob Dodd. I work with Callum Tichemarsh here on the Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team at Morgan Stanley. Thank you all for joining us here this morning. We're pleased to be joined on stage by Verisite CEO Mark Stapley and CFO Rebecca Chambers for our fireside chat. Before we jump in, just want to quickly note that for all relevant disclosures, please see morganstanley.com slash research disclosures. With that out of the way, yesterday afternoon, Verisite announced the acquisition of Convergent Genomics. Mark, to start us off here, could you tell us a bit about the deal and why it's the right asset at the right time for Verisite?

Yeah, happy to. Before I get into that, maybe I should just remind everybody about our safe harbor statement. To the extent we make forward-looking statements, you can find that in its full on our website at www.verisite.com. So, yeah, Convergent, great acquisition for us. You know, obviously, we've talked for many years about a strategy of expanding the care continuum in the indications in which we play, adding new indications, like, for example, you saw us do that with breast in the U.S., and then expanding across the geographies as well. So where Convergent fits in is perfectly into that strategy of expanding across the care continuum in an indication in which we currently have two tests already, and that is bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is a, you know, kind of large and important disease that is being studied a lot more these days. And, you know, the standard of care needs some diagnostic assistance, and that's where we come in with biomarkers, including the Euroamp that we acquired from Convergent, which, importantly, is a urine-based biomarker. So now VeriCite has urine, tissue, and blood-based testing in bladder cancer. We can serve the entire care continuum of bladder cancer from that early stage patient with, for example, TA disease, non-muscle invasive, all the way up to muscle invasive bladder cancer with true MRD. And that, you know, being able to serve the patient at multiple time points and longitudinally follow that patient with our data-driven strategy is why this makes sense for us. Now, why this time? This is the perfect time because that team over 10 years has done an incredible job studying that analyte and solving a very difficult problem of the signal-to-noise in urine-based testing. And they're very close to the point of commercial launch. We're going to launch the first test in late 2028. And they've done all the clinical work, nine publications, 40 abstracts, and so on. So a perfect time for us to come along with our channel, and this is an important one because it's channel synergy in urology as well, and drive that commercialization.

The other added benefit of the timing right now is we have seen more and more data coming out of the bladder classifier or for the bladder classifier, which is up front of this test. And our efforts on the bladder classifier in terms of commercialization will ramp up over the next couple of years, and so that will effectively, we want to own the tissue from the get-go, and that will effectively allow us to do so and then play nicely into either non-muscle or muscle-invasive pathways that Mark described.

I heard you mention a couple of Verisite products with some similarity in indication to the EuroAmp. True MRD specifically has some superficial similarities in that it's MRD with an indication of bladder cancer. What are you seeing from the clinical data or from where the market is going that makes the multi-sample approach the right way forward versus, for example, investing more in the TrueRD, TrueMRD platform alone.

Yeah, there are multiple clinical questions that you need to answer for a patient with bladder cancer. Like I said, from that early stage, and as Rebecca mentioned, you do the TURBT procedure, you've got tissue, it's looking at the subtype and what does that tell you about the prognostic outcomes for that patient to giving them BCG or other IBT treatment and is that treatment actually working, so monitoring that treatment as you're providing that treatment over the first or multiple cycles to when you finish that treatment, has that treatment actually resulted in elimination of the tumor or is there residual disease to either other treatment or surgery, cystectomy, for example, monitoring for residual disease in that state as well, which is much more of a blood-based solution. So if you think about it now, and these tests really don't overlap, you've got in the non-muscle invasive, urine is the best analyte. In muscle invasive, clearly blood is the best analyte, and then you need tissue for the subtyping, as I mentioned. Okay, makes sense.

Maybe one for you, Rebecca. I believe the press release pointed to convergence of OPEX being absorbed with no impact to Verisites 26 EBITDA guidance. How should we think about the level of investment required over the next couple of years to bring that test to market? And maybe, you know, what kind of cost or revenue synergies do you foresee with this platform, whether quantitatively or qualitatively with the rest of the business?

Yeah, so on a revenue basis, obviously, Mark cited the channel synergies, which are important, as are the back-office operational synergies, whether that be the customer service billing or laboratory. So we'll be moving the laboratory into our San Francisco facility, and so there will be nice synergies there. Obviously, incredibly qualitative because this isn't a synergy play. This is a revenue growth play, and this is absolutely something that we're investing in for the long-term potential for the benefit of patients and shareholders. So we're excited about that piece. And when it comes down to the guidance statement, obviously we're in the late stages of diligence when we did the earnings call, so we effectively were able to take into account the investment. The investment is, call it 20-ish people, and so it's not a material investment. They've already done their clinical utility study. That needs to be effectively submitted for publication and for the tech assessment process. So, you know, I would say this is an incredibly reasonable investment in addition to, obviously, the M&A purchase price to allow us to really go after an incredibly large market here. You know, we're calling it roughly around $400 million for the non-muscle invasive portion of disease that EuroAmp could potentially address. And, you know, there's a ton of optionality that's even larger than that, and we'll get into it, I'm sure, across hematuria, prostate, kidney, UTUC, and other various diseases. So we're pretty excited about this one, I'm not going to lie. And, you know, I think the return on the investment will prove out to be quite attractive.

Helpful color. You know, maybe stepping back, I think it's fair to say 2026 has been notable for Verisite in terms of clinical data and new product introductions overall. Hopefully we'll have a chance to get into more of the specifics as we go here, of course. But at a high level, what is underway at Verisite that you're most excited about right now?

I mean, 2026 has been an incredible year for us, and it really caps off at this point five years of transforming the company from a single product company to a real portfolio of cancer tests in now four indications with the addition of convergence, so obviously prostate, thyroid, breast, and bladder cancer. Two product launches so far this year, Breast and TrueMRD, and an acquisition now. It's very clear that we're expanding our strategy and playing it out the way we talked about five years ago when we really sat down and thought about what could the future of Verisite be. And we're not done. We're continuing to develop new tests, new indications, always looking at M&A. And, you know, with the financial profile that we have as a company that we've also created in that five years, we've got the wherewithal to do what we need to do to continue to grow and scale the business. So, you know, and the whole thing is, as I always say, I think investors are used to hearing me say this, fueling by incredible evidence development, which is really what drives our business, researching around the increasing the understanding of these different disease states. and we always believe in that. The more you understand the disease state, the more you figure out, let the science lead you and figure out where diagnostics has a role to play, and then we're there ready, poised to launch the test for that particular indication, get into guidelines, and drive adoption.

Q2 was a solid print overall for Verisite. Maybe there were some nuances or puts and takes on deciphered volumes. Could you maybe walk us through, again, what went well and what, if anything, differed from your expectations in the quarter and how have things been trending in the business, more importantly, now a couple of months into Q3 maybe?

Yeah, Q2 was very strong for us with about 20% growth in Decipher and 17, 18 in Affirma. And just those businesses from a revenue growth standpoint are doing great and even from a volume growth standpoint are doing great. Everything that came out of the business in the quarter fell strong with the one exception where we took a small 1,000-test reduction in our expectations for the year in decipher low-risk disease. So high-risk and intermediate are continuing to grow approximately 20% in volume. And then low-risk, we took our expectations down to single-digit growth for that. Previously, we'd been seeing double-digit growth, as in the last couple of years, low-risk expanded nicely. the NCCN guidelines adjusted back in the late part of 2025 and I think we're now starting to see the effects of that on some physicians deciding not to expand low risk as much as they were before or as much as they are intermediate and high to be very clear we are still seeing growth in low risk as I said single digit and we're seeing new physicians adopting low risk as well so the growth is driven by new physician adoption here which is an encouraging sign. As I said before, you need evidence to drive these tests, and we see some important evidence coming out in 2027 and 2028 that was started decades ago or so in active surveillance, and that's the kind of evidence that's going to be needed to drive guideline inclusion for low risk and reverse that last guideline update.

Maybe continuing on the decipher front, I think around a third of U.S. prostate cancer patients today are currently being reached. Could you remind us of Verisite's market share today and in terms of decomposing the remaining opportunity, how much growth from here comes from incremental utilization from existing physicians versus new, versus maybe layering on new decision points that the test can address?

Yeah, and you hit on a really important point there, and I think this is worth really punctuating for everybody. The Decipher today, at least coming into this year, was about a third penetrated in the market. We see the potential to penetrate these markets up to even as far as 80%, maybe even more. And so, you know, we have a lot of opportunity to grow in Decipher, and it's going to come from penetrating more intermediate, which is the most penetrated today and represents the largest share of our market. High is really, high in RP is really doing nicely, driven by some evidence around metastatic and high-risk disease. and then as we just talked about, you know, low as well, which is roughly 20%. And so, you know, that's where the growth is going to come from. It's going to come from both new physician ads. We're consistently seeing new physicians coming into the fold, you know, increasing the frequency of ordering from existing physicians. Sometimes they order, then they don't for a couple quarters. It's getting them back. And then it's increasing the order rate per physician. Again, each one of those is going to come from evidence development and ultimately guideline inclusion, and you're going to need guideline inclusion in metastatic and low-risk in order to drive that 80% I talked about previously.

Speaking of evidence, we saw at ASCO this year, of course, the Enzymet trial readout, Level 1B evidence for metastatic patients who may benefit from triplet therapy. How important was that data for expanding Decipher's reach specifically? And maybe if you could just dive a little deeper on what specifically we should be on the lookout for from the evidence pipeline into 2027.

Yeah, I mean, starting with the patient perspective, it's very important in that it helps predict whether patients will benefit from chemotherapy in addition to doublet therapy. And that sort of evidence is really important for so many reasons I'm happy to get into but probably don't need to. and then where it's also important as you mentioned it's level 1b evidence it's the kind of evidence that's needed to drive guideline inclusion for metastatic which is something we don't know when that's going to come but it's something that we hope will come and then we think that will drive increased adoption but it's exactly like studies like Enzimet and of course Stampede as well that we need for that as we think about nearer term we've got Astro coming up and we expect some decent publications at Astro including important ones in intermediate risk, the NRG, RTO, GA0815 in particular. And then, as I mentioned, we've probably got at least three, if not more, shots on goal in the next couple of years in active surveillance. So lots more evidence to come in the future for Decipher because we've been driving that research with the Decipher test and the grid, and so our strategy is working.

I believe we saw record orders per physician on Decipher in Q2. Could you maybe speak to how your most engaged physicians are using Decipher today in their practice, and what is the path for distributing those best practices across the broader physician base?

The most engaged physicians are the ones who are ordering Decipher for every patient, including low risk up to metastatic. You know, a remarkable number of our patients, back to the low risk point, a remarkable number of our patients, actually more physicians, actually more than half, are ordering low risk anyway. And then, you know, you've got a decent number of physicians who are ordering the test in every indication. And then you've got those who order it more occasionally, right? And so the way to drive that is we have this very skilled, knowledgeable, effective sales team that are out talking to the physicians, making sure that those KOLs are also out there, making sure that we're doing the right studies as well to drive – our medical team is making sure we're doing the right studies to drive guideline inclusion. And it's ultimately that that will get, you know, what we believe should happen, which is Decipher should be ordered for every patient, ultimately over time, right, with guideline inclusion. And that's roughly 330,000 patients a year in the U.S. alone. And then, of course, you add international to that.

We had an uptick in discussions after Q2 around AI and digital pathology, potentially competing more with molecular testing. Could you speak to where you see these modalities as complementary versus competitive today? And what's an example of how you see an optimal clinical workflow looking longer term as both technologies continue to improve?

Yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of work done on this over the last few years. And we're letting, as we always do, the science lead us and guide us. And the science has demonstrated that these two tests are measuring different elements of biology, from the molecular is actually measuring, in our case, the expression to the digital pathology AI that is measuring or looking at the phenotype of the underlying biology in a microscopic slide. And those are measuring different things. The science has demonstrated that, and therefore they are complementary. I think what's really important is that if they're discordant, then the physician's going to rely on the gold standard and the test that's covered in guidelines and has the most evidence, and that's decipher. And so that's what we've consistently seen. So I think there's a place for digital pathology. We're enabling the research around it, having scanned hundreds of thousands of patient slides, making that data available through GRID, including the entire transcriptome. So we'll let the researchers do the work and figure out where that test should fit into the workflow, and then that will guide us accordingly. And as I said before, we'll be poised and ready to do whatever it is we need to do to launch a product.

Before we move on to discuss some of your other products, maybe one for you, Rebecca. CMS is, of course, contemplating CLFS rate reductions of up to 15% in 2027 for some tests for the first time since 2020. Based on the private payer data that you would have submitted earlier this year, Could you speak to what the error bounds might be in terms of effect, if any, on rate reductions for Decipher or Affirma in the next three years? And maybe as part of that, could you speak to your level of overall Medicare versus commercial exposure?

Yeah, happy to do so. So by test, Decipher effectively is two-thirds Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and then one-third commercial, and then Affirma is the inverse. And so it's relatively easy to remember that way. But when it comes down to PAMA, every year we've looked at the distribution of our payment received by test. And effectively, if we were to have to submit to PAMA, what that would be. Obviously, we did just submit to PAMA or to CMS for PAMA in the last couple of weeks. And when it comes down to it, all of our calculations are that we do not expect a material change in rates for either test. A reminder, Affirm is 3,600, Decipher is 3,800, and to date, the data, we've been pretty proactive in managing our payer contracts accordingly and making sure anything we contract is at a relatively reasonable rate for Medicare. And so both for the prostate test and the affirma test, we have a, you know, we don't expect a meaningful change. The one place we do expect a change just because the testing volume has been quite low is on the bladder test because we haven't necessarily gone through the same process. And so, you know, that might be reflected, but the volume at this point in time is so low. And as we move forward, we'll work on that contracting as volume increases. And so that problem will, or that situation will effectively resolve itself over time as we apply the same practices and standards that we have on the prostate and the firma test to the bladder test. And I'm talking deciphered bladder, and we're going to have to start clarifying.

Sure. You know, since the Medicare rates are determined ultimately by commercial to some extent, you know, are there any large commercial contracts coming up for renewal that could change your expectations in this respect or more of the status quo you'd expect?

Yeah, I would say it's less about contracts coming up for renewal and it's more about us trying to get new payers under the covered lives umbrella, if you will. And so I don't foresee anything there really impacting us in terms of contracts coming up for renewal. And, you know, with Decipher, we're only at 215 million covered lives. And so there's plenty of room to go to gain price over a multi-year period. we are seeing price this year augment volume growth, and so we would expect to see that continuously over the next three to five years, albeit in any given year we're not, you know, able to call that magnitude. But, you know, I think overall price is a good news story for Verisite and for the Decipher prostate test.

Okay, makes sense. Maybe one more on Affirma here. You know, it's a more mature product in some ways, but continues to grow nicely, double digits. It's how should investors think about the market forces underpinning that growth, and what's your level of confidence or visibility in the trajectory from here?

Yeah, we're very proud of Affirma and the Affirma team as well, and that product has just proven to be an absolute superstar over time. I mean, we're now more than a decade in, and it's continuing to grow. There are some nuances this year. Rebecca can talk about the financial effect, but one of the things that we did was we launched our new universal transcriptome app, assay on the latest sequencing technology. And from a patient perspective, that's just been fantastic because what it's enabled us to do is to make sure more and more patients are getting a result that previously we wouldn't have been able to call a result. And so that's actually helped bolster the growth rate this year. We lap that next year. And Rebecca, as I said, can cover what the effect of that is on the numbers. But even in spite of that, the volume is growing nicely. And it's really fueled by the fact that, you know, it's a market-leading test. We've continued to drive even more and more research and evidence. We launched Grid a couple years ago now, and the new research is coming out all the time using that data. So it's just the same, you know, story that we've done that I think has created a nice resurgence in a firm over the last few years.

And the comp that Mark mentioned, given the benefit of the new transcriptome, is about 300 basis points of benefit to this year in top-line growth. And then the other one to take into account is on ASP. We've had a goodness on the ASP front this year as we resolved some of the challenges with LBM last year. And so those are two different comps to take into consideration for 27. I think about the Affirma growth algorithm in any given year exit comp as really incidence growth of kind of low single digits. a couple hundred basis points of share growth is kind of the base, and then anything we can incrementally penetrate in three and four, albeit that's incredibly penetrated at this point in time, and then over a longer-term duration as grid signatures move from the RUO report into the clinical report, we hopefully will be able to penetrate more in the five and six category as utility improves.

Great. I want to make sure we have some time to talk about some of your new products as well, so maybe switching gears to ProCigna. you know now several months into launch of the ldt version how has the feedback been and what have you learned about what it takes to ramp prosigna in into system-wide use at the target institutions especially with competitive incumbents in the space yeah so in case anybody missed the exciting news that asco the optimus study read out and demonstrated this is such an important the headline that, you know, two-thirds of patients don't actually need chemo, and what's important about that headline is the patients included in that study included premenopausal,

and it also included those with high nodal involvement above three nodes, and so to be able to tell, you know, that many patients that you don't actually need chemo is such an important clinical outcome, and we've got some real-life examples of patients who were days away from having their chemotherapy, you know, sessions commenced, and they were able to get the ProCigna test, and in many cases were told, you actually don't need to go on chemo, and were able to cancel that and continue with their, you know, their lives. And so that's just so heartening from a patient perspective, and it's wonderful to see. You know, ProCigna, with that data, by the way, we launched our ProCigna test a week after that data came out. That data was very well received. It was the most talked about diagnostic test or study publication at ASCO. So it's great to have that launched. The feedback so far has been fantastic. We've spoken to well over 100 institutions, and we're hearing feedback from, I'm going to start adopting this in my premenopausal and my high-risk patients, to I want to adopt ProSignal broadly across the board. And, you know, I think, you know, I won't get into the competitive dynamics there, but the evidence always speaks for itself, and Optima is just such a great pivotal study. The next steps is get that published, peer-reviewed, get the reimbursement result for Medicare. We're already largely covered on commercial side. And then, you know, EMR integrations and other things like that to drive the test. We've actually recently doubled our expectations around our salesforce growth, because of the excitement that we've seen around it.

You just alluded to the Medicare unlock that could be coming. Could you provide any updates on your conversations with Moldex to date? And I think you mentioned that assuming favorable coverage, pricing is most likely to fall somewhere between the IVDs, $2,500, and a firm at $3,600. Of course, it's hard to get in Medicare's head, but what might be the rationale for landing closer to one end versus the other there?

Yeah, I'm happy to take that. Effectively, our conversations with Medicare have been positive in nature. We've gone through numerous rounds at this point in time and recently submitted again, and so we're now down to kind of the long tail of small questions that they have, and hopefully by the end of the year or shortly thereafter we'll have Medicare coverage. We do expect that $2,500 price point at the time of getting the tech assessment. Obviously, we think it should be paid more, but effectively, you know, I think the baseline assumption should be that $2,500. We have a path to the $3,600, and we're relatively confident in that path. That path will include going through the crosswalk on the CLFS next year. And the reason why Affirm is a reasonable code is because it's effectively the exact same workflow. And so we are hopeful that the 2,500 will be just through December 31st, 2027, and we'll get to move to the 3,600 as of Jan 1-28. So I would say, you know, the publication conversations, because that's obviously critical for guidelines. I know we haven't gotten to guidelines yet, but the publication conversations are going positively. The reimbursement conversations are going positively, and, you know, the customer conversations are going positively. It's going to take quarters, you know, to get all of this to converge and really augment growth in a meaningful way, at least volume growth. Revenue is going to be a different conversation. Just given RevRec and all that fun estimation, that's hard to do in early stages of a launch. But we're excited about this product. We're excited about the impact it's having on breast cancer patients' lives. And, you know, we feel optimistic that we'll be able to make some real inroads into this market and augment our growth accordingly.

Helpful. In terms of true MRD, obviously MRD is a quite competitive space. Could you speak to what gives true MRD a right to win in that category? And maybe as part of that, how does the whole genome sequencing approach that you've selected play into that in terms of incremental value to physicians and patients?

Yeah, so our first launch of TrueMRD was in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and as you can see from our previous conversation about convergent, it really does fill out the cancer care continuum in bladder cancer, and that's a significant market. You know, the whole genome approach is really important. If you think about now how we're able to longitudinally follow a patient, including having a whole genome in their MRD test when it's muscle invasive, you can imagine the research that can be done to look at how that tumor is evolving over time. So we think it's really important to help fuel further understanding of disease at a molecular level, and that will lead to better diagnostics, and it will lead to more biopharma engagement as well, because there's a lot of work in bladder. Our MRD test is a platform. It's a whole genome-based platform, but you do need to go indication by indication. And so, you know, our expectation over time is that we will continue to launch MRD tests on a whole genome basis because that's what we believe is differentiated and important, using our true MRD assay in multiple indications to come. And you can imagine those indications being ones where, you know, we participate. As you've seen us now do with bladder, having the diagnostic test, the tissue-based test, the blood-based test, other analytes, it is such an important part of our strategy. So you can imagine us to round off these indications with MRD over time where it makes sense.

You alluded to just now the pharma relationships or the potential there at least. How big of a factor was that pharma potential in terms of your choice to go with WGS? And what's an example of what a relationship like that could look like, at least in theory?

It's a good question. It wasn't a primary factor, quite frankly. You know, the key driver for us going to whole genome, as we've been whole transcriptome as well, is to drive the research to better understand the disease, to drive better diagnostics and adoption of diagnostics. And so that is the primary goal. You're right. There is a secondary benefit in that whole genome data will be, I think, very important for biopharma researchers as well, thinking about, you know, what the next lines of therapies are and should be. And so we do expect some interest there. That isn't a big revenue driver in our spreadsheet. If it comes and when it comes, it's upside. And I actually think in bladder cancer and breast cancer, those are probably two of the most important opportunities and two that we are clearly now participating in more strongly.

Could you speak a bit more to the trajectory for expansions outside of MIBC for TrueMRD? And with respect to that, what is the bar for performance in MIBC or the bar for early uptake that you'll use to set the appropriate level for continued investment in the platform?

Well, you've got, I mean, in any MRD test, you've got to demonstrate superior performance to the standard of care, and that's what we were able to do with our true MRD. And so, you know, that is the bar for performance, and to the extent we have the clinical data and the publications to be able to demonstrate that to drive reimbursement and adoption in other indications, for example, breast cancer, we will do that. You know, we're also working in lung cancer, and we've already had data published from, you know, our C2I team that we acquired on that, and then multiple other cancers as well. You know, as you think about it, we prioritize based on filling out that care continuum, our existing channels, and then we let the, you know, the way the clinical studies go drive our roadmap. You know, some will read out faster than others. Not always will they read out positively, and then you have to pivot. You know, so you have to take all that into account. So it's a constant dynamic assessment of what's the right products to develop and to launch at the appropriate time.

Maybe sticking with the theme of reinvestment, Rebecca, we've seen impressive 30%-ish EBITDA margins for several quarters in a row now. Is this reflective of the right level of reinvestment for Verisite going forward?

Yeah, we've been pretty forthcoming that we think the right level of profitability for a business like ours is 25% adjusted EBITDA. We've outperformed that year to date, but we manage it more on an annual basis. And so our guide for this year is actually around 26%, so slightly outperforming, primarily driven by the better-than-expected UA transcriptome benefit as well as prior period collections. But we have a lot of areas to invest, and all that investment obviously has a high ROI and is augmenting revenue growth to the benefit of shareholders and patients. So that's effectively what we are trying to continuously balance. The beauty of the 30% is it demonstrated what our business can do. Um, if we were to just let it flow, if you will. Uh, but when it comes down to it, we have a lot of different portfolio options to invest in and, and we're here to have to build a durable, you know, revenue growth business that's attractive to investors with profitability and cashflow accordingly. So, um, you know, I think her 30% is too high if I'm being honest about it. Um, and you know, we're hiring and we'll get to that over 26%, um, for the full year. And we're pretty the conversion spend into that as well. So I think you're seeing the power of the business, if you will, but at the same time not necessarily starving for growth given all the growth opportunities that we have in the future. So I think it's a nice balance. Our philosophy is effectively to invest to augment revenue growth and the profitability that follows.

And, Mark, with Verisite's offering spanning more and more of the cancer care continuum from diagnosis to risk stratification, treatment selection, et cetera, How do these different businesses reinforce one another and make for a stronger overall Verisite, whether from a commercial or clinical standpoint? Well, I think they reinforce the power of our platform.

You know, our data-driven approach, our approach to enabling research and better understanding of disease through that approach. And then, of course, with Grid. And then the success and capability of our team driving the market-leading tests in ultimately over time, hopefully every indication. You know, we now, we're getting close to serving our one millionth customer. And actually, if I think about how many customers or patients we serve a year, you know, between Decipher, as I mentioned, is roughly 330,000, 225,000 breast cancer patients. With now our bladder portfolio, we can serve roughly 250,000 tests. That's multiple tests per patient. and then a firmer around, you know, 180,000, something like that, that's close to a potential market of a million tests a year. And to the extent we can continue to penetrate that, you know, I think that will just drive even more research and more understanding of disease and more adoption.

And that's even before we go OUS, right, which is obviously a growth factor that we haven't necessarily spent a lot of time on today, which is completely fine because it's longer term in nature. but I think, you know, just to augment Mark's point, I mean, we have nothing but opportunity ahead of us.

Great. I think we'll end it there. But Mark, Rebecca, thank you very much.

Thank you for joining us.