Thanks, Rosty. As a reminder, we estimate that in the US, there are approximately 3,500 on-label pediatric oncology patients. The majority of these are treated in the specialist pediatric centers and receive an average of 12 vials per patient. Conversely, there are more than 25,000 15 to 39 year old cancer patients, many of which receive cisplatin. And as Rosty said, the NCCN has recommended PEDMARK for this defined patient population with a 2A rating. Taking testicular cancer as an example, there are approximately 3,800 patients and the majority of these are likely to receive high doses cisplatin putting them at a very high risk of hearing loss. The average testicular cancer patient due to our weight based dosing requires many more vials of PEDMARK than the younger pediatric patients. Testicular cancer has very high cure rates, 90% and beyond. But in such cases, hearing loss is lifelong and devastating, the unmet medical need for preventative treatment is clear. There is a very strong health economic argument that justifies spending on preventive treatment. These patients are exclusively treated in the community hospitals and infusion centers. AYA patients with cirvical ovarian and head and neck cancers are also likely to be treated with cisplatin. And again, if prescribed will require a significant number of vials of PEDMARK. Since November, our sales force has primarily focused their activities on the community treated population. We have been very encouraged by the community's response to PEDMARK. Most of them, whilst being acutely aware of the hearing loss called by cisplatin, were not aware of the availability of a preventative treatment. Incorporating PEDMARK into the treatment schedule requires some adjustment to current practice. For example, infusion clinics may have to stay open for an extra hour or so in order to accommodate the need to administer PEDMARK six hours after the end of cisplatin infusion. All of this takes some time to put in place. And consequently, we focused our efforts during the last few months on disease awareness and treatment awareness, and then subsequently working with the centers on the logistics of administration. We’re essentially just a couple of months into what is in effect a new launch for PEDMARK, but we're encouraged by the reception we received, patients have already been treated and reimbursed by payers. As we look forward to the conference season and in particular to ASCO, we intend to appropriately educate all oncologists and create awareness of PEDMARK. We've had to deal with one barrier to uptake and I'm pleased to say that from April 1st, this has been resolved. Prior to April 1, 2024, our J-Code did not differentiate between PEDMARK and other formulations of STS. As a consequence, there has been some confusion and impact to the adoption of PEDMARK. We informed CMS and in January 2024, CMS issued a new J-Code for the whole product and amended our J-Code to specify PEDMARK. Importantly, CMS has also stated that the two formulations are not interchangeable. To repeat, this important change will become effective on April 1, 2024 and we do expect a significant acceleration in uptake as a result. As Rosty mentioned, on January 8th, the FDA issued an e-mail reminder that PEDMARK cannot be substituted with other formulations of STS due to significant safety concerns. As this e-mail was not sent to individual doctors, individual pharmacists or hospitals, but rather to organizations, for example, ASCO and the American Hospital Pharmacists Association, our sales force has been working to create further awareness of this notice to pediatric hospitals. As a result, a significant number of hospitals have scheduled new formulary committee meetings to discuss the FDA notice and some have already seized compounding. Again, this doesn't happen overnight with many meetings taking place on a monthly or bimonthly frequency. I'm also pleased to report that the American Hospital Pharmacist Association Drug Information Resource, AHFS has recently been amended to clearly differentiate between the various formulations of STS and clearly states they are not substitutable. So in closing, I'm very pleased with the progress we are making and I'd like to thank the commercial and medical affairs teams for the tremendous effort they've made over the last few months, and I look forward to seeing the acceleration in revenue. With that, I'll turn the call over to Robert to go over the financials for the quarter and full year results. Robert?