Thank you, Richard and good morning, everyone. As Richard mentioned on slide 9, we have a very promising late-stage pipeline with selinexor in three Phase 3 studies, all of which incorporates selinexor doses at 40 or 60 milligrams once weekly. Let's now turn our attention to myelofibrosis on Slide 11. Ruxolitinib remains the standard of care for the majority of JAKi-naive patients. However, there is an opportunity to improve benefit, given that the efficacy with ruxolitinib is limited with only about 35% of patients achieving an SVR35 and less than half of all patients achieving meaningful symptom improvement. XPO1 inhibition is a fundamental mechanism in myelofibrosis, given that it targets both JAK and non-JAK pathways underscoring selinexor’s additive if not potentially synergistic activity when dosed in combination. We are evaluating the potential for selinexor in combination with ruxolitinib to provide benefit across all of the hallmarks of the disease including spleen reduction, symptom improvement, disease modification and stabilization, if not improvement of the cytopenias. As you can see on slide 12, we presented updated data last year from our trial evaluating selinexor 60 milligrams of ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor naive patients, which showed an SVR35 at 79% at week 24 in the intent-to-treat population. Importantly amongst the evaluable patients, 100% achieved an SVR35 at any time. On slide 13, both TSS50 and absolute TSS showed very meaningful improvements at week 24. 58% of the intent-to-treat and 78% of the efficacy evaluable achieved the TSS50 response. For absolute TSS, an average 18.5 point improvement was observed in the efficacy evaluable population at the same time points, compare this to historical ruxolitinib data, where TSS50 was observed in 42% to 46% of ruxolitinib treated patients and the average TSS improvement was 11 to 14 points. Moreover on slide 14, we see that all symptom domains are substantially improved with the selinexor combination with all domains achieving an approximately 50% or greater improvement compared to baseline. The absolute TSS, TSS50 and individual domain improvements are corroborated by cytokine data, which showed that the pro-inflammatory cytokine which lead to myelofibrosis symptom development show rapid, deep and sustained reductions relative to baseline. Taken together data demonstrate that the novel combination of selinexor plus ruxolitinib has the potential to maximize symptom improvement relative to ruxolitinib alone. In the ongoing Phase 3 study. Shown on slide 15 we funded the durability data from the selinexor/ruxolitinib combinations very important for patients as of the most recent data cut off none of the week 24 SVR35 responders dose that selinexor 60 milligrams had observed radiographic progression and none of the week 24 TSS50 responders had observed symptom progression. While I acknowledge the apparent limitations in cross-trial comparisons contrast these data to ruxolitinib alone in which only approximately 70% of responses were ongoing at 78 weeks. As we move to slide 16 when we look at SVR35 and TSS50 together we see that 50% of patients experienced both of these responses at week 24% and 75% experienced both SVR35 and TSS50 response at any time. On slide 17 we see that in addition to the cytokine data we also observed signs of disease modification with the stabilization in the hemoglobin levels of patients on selinexor 60 milligrams in combination with ruxolitinib. This trend is unique with the selinexor combination given that with ruxolitinib alone in hemoglobin levels drop after treatment initiation and tend to stay low. On slide 18, prominent myelofibrosis leaders in the field are impressed with the profile this unique selinexor combination may provide to JAK naive myelofibrosis patients. In fact one of the most prominent opinion leaders and the principal investigator of the selinexor plus ruxolitinib Phase 3 study Dr. John Mascarenhas noted that the combination is tolerable and that the spleen and symptom data observed to-date from the Phase 1 study may significantly improve these outcomes in first-line myelofibrosis. As the body of data grow and positively evolve, we maintain a high level of confidence in the ongoing Phase 3 study shown on slide 19, which is evaluating the combination of selinexor 60 milligrams with ruxolitinib versus ruxolitinib alone in 360 JAK naive myelofibrosis patients. We are on track to report top-line results in the second half of 2025. Turning now to endometrial cancer. As seen on slide 21 there is a paradigm shift underway for the treatment of women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer the most common form of gynecologic cancer in the United States with increasing use of molecular classification. TP53 wild-type represents a potentially unique but fundamental biomarker in endometrial cancer. Today for DMMR patients who represent approximately 20% of advanced recurrent endometrial cancer, the new FDA approved standard is just sarilumab in combination with chemotherapy followed by the sarilumab maintenance. For PMMR which represent the remaining 80% of patients checkpoint inhibitors are not approved as such the primary treatment option is chemotherapy followed by watch-and-wait. Patients whose tumors are both PMMR and P53 wild-type represent 40% to 55% of all advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer patients. As you can see on slide 22 long-term follow-up from the TP53 wild-type subgroup from the SIENDO trial which evaluated selinexor as a maintenance therapy and thus after completion of approximately six months of chemotherapy should the median PFS for selinexor 27.4 months and 5.2 months for placebo corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.41. These robust subgroup data demonstrate the potential to provide substantial benefit to a unique and sizable population defined by P53 status which directly ties to selinexor as a mechanism of action given that XPO1 inhibition retains P53 within the nucleus thus enhancing cell kill. As shown on slide 23 the benefit observed with selinexor in the PMMR subpopulation is even more impressive with a hazard ratio of 0.32 and a median PFS that was not reached as of our most recent data cutoff. Preliminary overall survival is encouraging with the hazard ratio of 0.76 observed in all patients with TP53 wild-type and hazard ratio of 0.57 in the subgroup of patients that are P53 wild-type and PMR. These efficacy data coupled with a generally manageable side effect profile suggests that oral selinexor is uniquely positioned as an optimal maintenance therapy or convenience, tolerability and meaningful efficacy are the hallmarks of the maintenance option. In fact, some of our patients are now reaching their fourth year on therapy. I'm excited to present additional follow-up data later this year. On slide 24, you can see the design of our EC-042 pivotal Phase 3 study, which will enroll approximately 220 women whose tumors or TP53 wild type. We look forward to presenting top line results in the first half of 2025. Turning now to multiple myeloma. As seen on slide 26, we are expanding our multiple myeloma franchise with the ongoing Phase 3 trial that is evaluating selinexor at the low dose of 40 milligrams in combination with the well-established backbone therapy of pomalidomide and dexamethasone post anti-CD38 antibodies, which will drive earlier use. We are enrolling patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma who have received an anti-CD38 antibody as their most recent therapy. As we are seeing positively evolving data with longer median PFS observed with selinexor 40 milligrams in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone, a beneficial outcome for these patients, top line data are now expected in the first half of 2025. In summary, we have near-term late-stage opportunities supported by compelling data in our rapidly advancing pipeline that will potentially benefit multiple cancer patient populations of high unmet need building on our approved indications. With that, I will now hand it over to Sohanya to review our commercial highlights.