 Hello, my name is Jean-François Lass, I'm a PhD and I'm actually the CEO and the CSO of EncoreDNA. And beside me, you have Jean-Paul de Tiff, who is the CEO of EncoreDNA. Actually, EncoreDNA is a teragnostic company who is dedicated to patient care and cancer. Our goal is to provide the patient with the best treatment possibilities as we can. And to do that, we developed some specific solutions which are based on the analysis of the tumor biopsies. What makes us a bit different from the other competitor or other solution on the market is that we combine the analysis of the sequencing using the next generation sequencing on DNA as well as a bundle of additional tests made by IRCs and other technologies. And actually, we have been created five years ago. And during that time, we had the opportunity to perform or to analyze more than 3,000 patients. And in order to demonstrate the benefits of our solution to the patient, we perform an analysis of more than 1,000 patients, where actually we look at what were the benefits to either perform the sequencing alone, the some immunostechemistry alone, or the bundle of both. Because as you know, or you probably know, actually there are different companies that claim that next generation sequencing and the analysis of the DNA in standalone might find or might be some kind of holy grail for the patient. And we just recently have been accepted in Oncotarget for this publication. And the results were quite striking. What we found is that about only 30% of the patient analyzed present a mutation in their DNA that might have been useful for our treatment. On the other hand, we had about 70% of the patient having an alteration led by the immunostechemistry or the other tests that might have led to a treatment. And actually, when we gather both, we reach a treatment decision or a benefit for the patient close to 94%, which is really amazing and which really demonstrates the benefit of combining those both approach in one analysis. Then, based on those results, actually we ask in blind. So it was really based on a computer formula sent by another computer to the oncologist whether this test was useful for the patient. Did they follow our guidelines, not follow our guidelines? And what were the outcomes? And what we observe actually is that more than 60% of the oncologist actually follow our guidelines. About 35% of the oncologist didn't follow but not because they didn't believe in the solution but because actually the treatment we advise was not available or not affordable in some countries and a very few percentage of the oncologist didn't follow our guidelines. And the reason was that they had other evidences or what was written in the literature didn't convince them. And then we look at the overall survivor, meaning that okay, they decided to treat the patient and what were the outcomes for the patient. And actually what we observe is that 50% of the patient have an overall survivor of about six months which is in the range of what you can expect with heavily treated metastatic patient. But very interesting is that about 25% of the patient had an overall survivor above one year meaning that our tests were useful for those patients to live at least twice longer than what is usually observed based on the classical approach for heavily treated metastatic patient. So this is really interesting and which really demonstrate at least a first proof of concept that how this combination and how those kind of solutions and our solution might be related to a benefit for the patient. So the next step will be of course to see okay, can we increase these benefits and also can we design a new clinical trial in order to demonstrate that our solution have a clear benefit for the patients and especially associated with the immunotherapies. Because immunotherapies it's the new way to treat the patient. And what is observed in routine is that 40% of the patient don't answer the immunotherapy but they have the marker which are supposed to give them a good prediction to answer immunotherapies. That's why we developed a new way to analyze those patients and we thanks to our personalized immunogram which is a bundle of five biomarkers within our solutions. And we set up a different clinical trials called an Archie project where actually we will compare the prediction of our solution compare to the final results observed by the oncologist. And what is really important is that it will be a prospective clinical trial. So not a retrospective one anymore but really a prospective one where we will really compare the real life of what would have been the outcomes of the patient based on our prediction on it.