 Well, thanks very much, Kim, for the invitation and opportunity to come and speak today. And it's great to follow Dan George, who's really a leader and someone we look up to in this field of renal cell cancer. I'm going to do this a little bit differently than Dan, but I think it'll be helpful to look at some of the data in the way that we look at it. And what I'll do is I'll speak over some of these slides. So don't worry so much about some of the details, just to give you a sense of sort of the information that we look at as physicians and how we ultimately translate this information to the patients. And so after drugs like Pizopinib or Votrientsinitinib or Sutent or Temserolimus, otherwise called Toracel, what happens to patients who progress on those first line therapies? And so what I'll do is I'll review some of the main studies that have been done related to second line therapy. These are acronyms for those studies. We love acronyms in medical oncology and in medicine in general. And so we'll go through the record one trial, the access trial, the intersect trial and the record three trial. We'll talk about some potential biomarkers that may be used to predict response and then we'll talk about some proposed treatment pathways. And people in this audience like Kim Rathmael, Billy Kim, Dan George have really been instrumental in bringing to the attention of the medical community the use of potential markers, whether it be blood based markers or other type of markers to be able to select patients who are most likely to respond to particular therapeutics. And so this is sort of the landscape when looking at second line metastatic RCC, which is renal cell carcinoma. These are a series of studies that have been done with different agents, which are listed in this column. And this is related to patients who have previously received what are referred to as cytokine therapies. So these are historically patients treated with Interferon and Interleukin II. And I can tell you that when I was in training back in the early 2000s, the only agent that we had were cytokine therapies. And in fact, we use a lot of Interferon in patients, which can be toxic. And unfortunately, the response rates were not nearly what the response rates are with the new targeted agents. And what we're seeing and looking at many of these therapies is that we're seeing responses with essentially all of these therapies. And this PFS refers to something called progression free survival, which is an endpoint that we use in oncology, which incorporates a number of things. It relates to the progression of the cancer, the growth of new tumors. And it also includes things like cancer-specific survival. So living or dying is related to the cancer or overall survival. And so we call it a sort of a composite endpoint. And we use that to measure the success of agents. This next table demonstrates, again, second line therapies for metastatic kidney cancer. But these are looking in patients who have previously received some of the new agents, so some of the ones that Dr. George has described, like Pizopinib or Sunitinib. And so here, Avirulimus, which is also a Finitor and Accytinib, which is in LIDA, as well as a series of other agents. Once again, after patients progressed on first line therapy, what we saw is, in fact, we were seeing responses. And we were seeing historic, as compared to historical series, improvements in survival is related to these agents being used after patients had already received some of these new very exciting drugs. And so one of the most important studies that you should know about is what's referred to as the record one trial. And so this looked at the drug Avirulimus, or the trade name is Finitor, versus placebo after progression on one of these VEGF receptor therapies. And so it took patients with clear cell disease who had progression on Seraphinim, Sunitinib, or both, who had a good performance status, which is what Dr. George was referring to, the vertical that he mentioned, and randomized them to receive Avirulimus in best supportive care versus placebo in best supportive care. And what you could see is that patients who received the placebo were able to go on to Avirulimus if they were progressed on placebo. And what was exciting about this trial is that the Independent Data Monitoring Committee actually recommended stopping the study because of a significant benefit for the Affinitor group over the placebo group. And what was seen, and again, these are these sort of fancy curves that we look at in oncology, but this is really the probability of survival, so 100% being very good, of course, and then these are the months. And this is for progression-free survival, that end point that I mentioned before. And what can be seen is that the Avirulimus curve is on top of the placebo curve, and so Avirulimus is better than placebo. And these with immediate progression-free survival are sort of the average numbers. And I always say to patients, I'm going to give you the average numbers if you want them, but I've never met a patient who's average. And so if one looks specifically at the record one study and looks at the prior therapies that they received, you can see that the majority of the patients received that drug, Sutent, which is the drug that Dr. George referred to. And so what was particularly exciting here is that we were beginning to get a glimpse into the effectiveness of some of these new agents in patients who progressed on these first-line therapies. And this was really the first large randomized phase 3 trial that demonstrated a significant benefit associated with this new mTOR inhibitor. These drugs are not without toxicity. Dr. George mentioned this. And things like mouth sores and slight increase in incidence of infection. Some patients can develop some inflammation in the lungs related to the affinity or Avirulimus drug. Rarely is it significant, oftentimes what we'll see is some abnormalities on the CAT scan of the chest that really don't ultimately amount to much at all. And so we generally just follow those. Some patients can develop, although rarely, significant cough or shortness of breath associated with those symptoms. But in general, this is very manageable. And we can even treat those severe cases with things like steroids. Another drug that's been very exciting is one called ExitNib or NLIDA. And this is a series of phase 2 trials. So phase 2 trials are those trials which are designed to look at the preliminary activity or efficacy of a drug. And these phase 2 trials of ExitNib or the trade name again, NLIDA, looked in patients who had previously received, here's one trial, cytokines, another trial, some of the drugs that we just talked about, and again demonstrated very promising response rates and survivals in patients who had previously received some of these exciting therapies. And so once again, it looked like we had a winner with respect to a drug that could work after patients progressed on these first line drugs, which unfortunately don't work in the majority of patients forever, although some patients can be on them for years and years. And so this was the trial design. Again, one of the schemas that we typically look at as physicians in oncology, so patients after disease progression, randomized to ExitNib or the serathenib drug. And this was again looking at that end point of progression-free survival. And here, again, without going into all of the details, you can see that the ExitNib curve is above the serathenib curve, demonstrating a significant benefit with respect to this progression-free survival over the drug serathenib. And so based on this, much like in the record three trial, in LIDA or ExitNib was FDA approved for the treatment of patients who progressed after first line therapy. In terms of treatment-related side effects of these drugs, so they're not without side effects. I agree with Dr. George that the most substantial period of time for patients is that first cycle, and getting them through that first or second cycle of therapy is really crucial. And explaining to patients that actually the symptoms get better, again, unlike chemotherapy, where we think of things becoming more cumulative over time with respect to side effects. And so diarrhea can be a side effect. Hypertension or elevation of the blood pressure, and Dr. George has done work related to elevation and blood pressure, and its significance in monitoring patients on these therapies. Fatigue, there are rashes that can be associated. This is a rash that's associated more commonly with serathenib or nexivar, which can occur on the hands and feet and can be painful and uncomfortable for patients. And in fact, there are things to do for it. And I know Mary Dunn's going to be talking about some of the symptom management issues. The real question is, now that we have these two drugs that are FDA approved for the treatment of patients who progressed after first line therapy, which one do we use? And that's a tricky one. And so these trials are different. They were accrued, in other words, patients went on study during different times. They had different comparator arms, right? The Varylimus or record one trial at placebo, the Axis or Exydnib trial was compared to serathenib. There were differences on how many patients received two or more therapies before, typically patients that are more heavily pretreated may have a more difficult time or potentially a lower likelihood of response to therapy. Their poor risk, and Dr. George mentioned those very good risk patients where there are poor risk patients as well who have more adverse or bad features. And so those were different. And there were a series of other things that were different as well. And so it's not completely appropriate to try to compare these trials. That being said, in an ideal world, what we'd love to do is have a randomized trial, right, where we took patients and we randomized them in the second line setting after progression on first line therapy to a Varylimus or finitor versus Axis and Exydnib. Well, unfortunately, we don't have that trial. And that's a nature of the design of clinical trials, the pharmaceutical companies wanting to design their trials in particular ways. But what we do have is we do have a study where we compared an mTOR therapy, much like a Varylimus or a finitor, to serathenib, which has multiple targets, but one is that VEGF pathway. And so this was a randomized trial. It was called the Intersect Trial. And again, this is perhaps ideally what we would have liked to have seen. And what we're seeing here in the Intersect Trial is that there was really no significant difference with respect to the progression-free survival. There was a suggestion that there may be a benefit to the use of the serathenib drug over the Temserolimus drug with respect to survival of patients. You can see the yellow curve for serathenib over the blue for Temserolimus. I think that this really doesn't answer the question completely about which drug is better or which class of drugs is, frankly, better because we didn't really use the best drugs to be able to answer this question, but at least it provides some information related to the use of these different types of therapies in the second-line setting. And finally, one of the questions that many ask are how do we sequence these drugs? What do we do? How do we put one after the other? Unfortunately, when all of these drugs came out, there was tremendous excitement about how many drugs were coming out one after the other, but it really didn't give us a great opportunity to be able to figure out how to give them. And Dr. George mentioned the issue of combination therapies and a lot of those things are being investigated. There are toxicities and side effects that we need to think about when we give combinations and some of those haven't worked, but I think there are certainly others to explore. And this was a trial that sort of looked at that question of sequencing. And it said basically, well, our standard format is to give synidinib, or the pseudon drug, followed by the affinitor drug, based on the record one data. And it asked the question of, well, what if we were to give the avarylimus drug first and then follow it with the pseudon drug? Would the outcomes be just as good? And what this basically showed is it didn't appear to be the case that if you gave the avarylimus drug first, that it was similar to giving the synidinib drug first or the pseudon drug. In other words, pseudon followed by the affinitor drug appear to be better than affinitor followed by the pseudon drug. And this is important because it was, we begin to think about how we manage patients and how we sequence these agents. At least this begins to provide a framework for some of the data that we need to look at to be able to best answer these type of questions. And so the question of biomarkers are ways that we begin to think about who do we select for which therapy? And again, there have been a lot of work in this area. There's been some information to suggest that we can use, for example, blood pressure as a biomarker or a marker of response. So we can actually escalate the dose of the exidinib or inlidid drug based on patients' blood pressure trying to obviously work toward increasing the drug but at the same time managing the high blood pressure, which can be a significant issue for patients on this therapy. And I'm sure Mary will talk more about that. And then what we've also started to do is look at certain genes within patients to try to predict those patients who are most likely to respond to a particular drug or for that matter are more likely to experience a particular toxic side effect. That's something that we're working on a lot at UNC and I'm sure it's happening at Duke as well. And so what are the guidelines? What do we use to make these sort of decisions? So as physicians, obviously we individualize, we sit down with the patient in the room and we make a decision with the person sitting in front of us. But we also like guidelines to be able to use to make these decisions. And these are often used in the community to be able to make decisions. And some of the nuanced things that Dan was talking about that perhaps don't go on in the same way in all community settings, these can be extraordinarily helpful. And I think what's really exciting is what I started with today, which is when I was a fellow in training, we had interferon and interleukin-2 and that was it. The response rates to interferon were somewhere between about 15 to 20%. And here we have a list of the therapies that we have available for patients who progress after first line therapy with advanced kidney cancer. These are the national comprehensive cancer network guidelines, these are the guidelines that are used throughout the United States. This is another algorithm that was proposed to look at how we think about patients being treated after progression on first line therapy. And there are slight differences, but the bottom line is again, there are multiple agents that we could think about. Or we could think about targeted therapies that haven't been previously used. So if a patient may have progressed on the drug like Pozopinib or even Accydinib hadn't received synidinib in the past, one could consider using those agents. And then these are the European guidelines. So these are guidelines that are used by our colleagues overseas to make decisions about second line treatment as well. And so again, you see similar names of the drugs that we've talked about. But again, I think going back to this, it really tells an extraordinarily exciting story about what's gone on over the past 10 plus years in the management of patients with kidney cancer. And I can tell you that there is a tremendous promise for what the future is gonna bring based on our enhanced understanding. And I think you heard about this about some of the genetics of patients' tumors and beginning to better understand not only the biology of the tumor, but also understanding more about the patient sitting in front of us. And so with that, I'll end. And I think we'll hear Mary and then take some questions at the end. Thanks so much.