 Yeah, thank you. One thing that's important to mention, I think for both Fred and I, we're fortunate to be in a unique environment where there's a high level of collaboration amongst urologists, radiologists, anesthesia, oncology, so we're fortunate to have that level of patient management available. And so on, I also need to give Fred Lee thanks because he basically taught me how to do this and taught everyone how to do it for that matter. I'm going to jump right into the outcomes following cryoablation because that's probably most important, and from that we'll take our comparisons. The long-term outcome exists in surgical literature. This has been done since the late 1990s in the operating room. Outcomes have ranged from 90 to 100 percent based on two long-term studies, five to eight years. The percutaneous experience is a little more limited with shorter published follow-up at this point, but outcomes still range in that 90 percent range. This is a heterogeneous patient population. The AUA algorithm is such that patients who have comorbid disease or prior renal cell carcinoma are being treated with this ablative technique. What's important is to look at the sporadic renal cell carcinoma, the de novo tumors. When we look at that population, our recurrence-free survival is rather remarkable. At three years, we're at about 97 percent based on a study out of our institution. As you can see, overall survival isn't quite so great, but again, these are older patients with comorbid disease, so we don't expect their survival to be equivalent with a younger, healthier population. As Fred alluded to, it's quite important to recognize that if you take an appropriate patient population, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation are going to be equivalent in efficacy in treating small renal masses. What do I mean by that? It's breakfast time. We've got Eggs Benedict, chocolate chip pancakes. We've got Guy Fieri. He's got decades cooking experience, product endorsements, and I bet he's got a heck of a microwave, and he can make a really nice Eggs Benedict. I've got Aunt Jemima, a nice sous chef, and we'll make you chocolate chip pancakes. What do I mean by this? It's important to appropriately apply the skill set and the tools that you have available in treating these tumors if you want to optimize your outcomes. We're fortunate that we have both radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation at our institution. We tend to treat exaphytic tumors with radiofrequency ablation and central tumors with cryoablation. There's a little overlap here, but that's kind of what we do. When we go back and look at our outcomes in treating a large number of patients, we find that our recurrence-free survival rates are rather close between the two modalities. If we look at overall recurrence-free survival, outcomes are identical between RF and cryo, although the follow-up is a little longer with RF. Actually, when we look at the renal cell carcinoma-specific rates, we actually get better outcomes with RF, and our outcomes are a little less with cryo, which is probably related to not appreciating the need for two cryoprobes for every tumor that Dr. Lee alluded to. But anyway, this being said, with appropriate selection, you can achieve equivalent outcomes. There are some possible advantages of cryoablation. One is that it's very predictable. There's a long history of irregular ablations in skipped areas with radiofrequency ablation. We can watch what's happening with cryoablation. I'll show you some examples. We can treat large tumors with cryoablation. This is kind of pushing the limit of what's considered acceptable within current guidelines. We can treat central tumors perhaps a little safer and a little more effectively compared to the heat-based techniques. While ablation can be used to treat metastases throughout the body, there might be some advantage of cryoablation, both with respect to pain and local control rates. We know cryoablation is very predictable. This is an ice ball in a little beaker of saline, and this is that same ice ball in the kidney. It's very equivalent. We know that's what we're going to get when we put it in the body. That allows us to shape ice and exactly morph the kill zone to the tumor that we're looking at. Similarly, we can watch that ice ball as it grows in the target lesion. Early on, we knew that that edge of ice is zero degrees. There's some debate on what a lethal temperature is. The closest study we have for kidney cancer is kidney cancer cells in a dish. That temperature was minus 24 degrees. We shoot for the minus 20, minus 40 isotherm. Importantly, we can see zero. We know we extend the ice beyond that. This was a small tumor in the right kidney. We put a couple probes in here, and I hope you can appreciate the ice growing beyond the tumor here. We give contrast after the 10-minute freeze, and you see a well-demarcated ablation defect, which has encompassed the tumor. What does that give you? A high level of confidence in what you have done to treat the patient at that moment. This allows single-session treatments. We don't do second treatments or stage treatments. This is all done one sitting. There are some known limitations of radiofrequency ablation in treating tumors over 3 centimeters. Success drops below 80%. This has unfortunately kind of been incorporated into AUA guidelines when giving overall recommendations. Microwave ablation is going to be better for these larger tumors, although there will probably always be some limitations in not being able to monitor the ablation. When we look at big tumors, one of the advantages we have, let's see if I can play this here. I apologize, this played earlier. It's a really cool video. We'll give it another minute, otherwise I'll just go ahead. What we can do is we can take the synergy of multiple cryoprobes going into the tumor. There's a coalescence of ice that allows us to generate massive ice balls inside the body. We can generate ice balls of 10, 11 centimeters. I'll show you in a minute. Our early outcomes show that tumors over 3 centimeters, we can get local control rates of 97%. For T1B tumors, we're going to show next month in Chicago that we can achieve 96% local recurrence-free survival rates at mean three years of follow-up. We can do this pretty effectively. We can treat these tumors that are over 7 centimeters. These are all done under general anesthesia. These are sick patients who cannot all be managed through urology, can't have surgery. The complication rate is actually quite high, as you can imagine being the comorbid disease, but these can be treated effectively. No deaths, no dialysis. We can treat central tumors with cryoablation. You can put those needles right in the middle of the kidney without concern of significant urine leak. We can generate lethal ice in the center of the kidney to overcome that warm blood flow that's moving by there at 37 degrees. We can treat these central tumors with RF and presumably microwave. There is some concern about significant urophilial injury and urine leaks, as well as overcoming those thermal sink effects and generating effective ablation. Moving on to ablation of metastases, which I know a lot of people here are interested in. You can apply this same ablative technology to treatment of tumors anywhere in the body. The group out of Wayne State published their experience in treating 72 metastases throughout the body. Based on short-term follow-up, they found 97 percent local control of these tumors. This is a very effective viable option compared to radiation. This predictability allows you to tailor that ice ball morphology to the tumor. For example, rib metastasis here, where maybe skin injury would be an issue with a radiation treatment. We can come at this with probes from either direction and generate a very nice round ball of ice to encompass that tumor with, again, that very high level of confidence that that tumor has been effectively destroyed. Similarly, we can ablate these adrenal neoplasms. We published our outcome in 12 patients with cryoablation with short-term local control of 92 percent. We're going to show our control rates with both RF and more recently cryoablation in 25 patients. Again, that's 92 percent at 21 months of follow-up. This was a tumor in the left adrenal gland. Two probes were placed into the tumor. Again, you can watch the ice grow and encompass that tumor. At 26 months, there has been no recurrence. This is an effective option. We can also palliate pain. A multi-center study led by a colleague of mine, Matt Colstrom, showed significant decreases in pain related to oseous metastatic disease, both in the worst pain and mean average pain. This was immediate and durable over months of follow-up. This was a metastasis to the acetabulum. Probes are placed into the tumor. The ice grows, encompasses that neoplasm in the acetabulum. We know that's been effectively destroyed. There's a lot of bleeding, especially with big tumors. Blood doesn't want to clot at cold temperatures, and then there's the cost that Dr. Lee alluded to with these probes. When we look at our volumes over time, we can see that cryo is largely supplanted RF. We saw our volume of blood, and we saw our volume of blood, and we saw our volume of blood, and we saw our volume of blood, and we saw our volume of blood, and we saw our volume of blood, and it was largely supplanted RF. We saw our volumes drop in 2011. What was that due to? It was that pause button when we aggressively started pursuing surveillance. Thank you.