Derek Maetzold: You mean additional studies with the NCI and the SEER program or general?
Sung Ji Nam: Specifically with NCIR, but if there are other studies that could be also compelling.
Derek Maetzold: Okay, yeah, so our collaboration is ongoing. I think the NCI group of the SEER program kind of update the tumor registry files maybe once a year. They remerge up the next year’s data. And so one of the expectations that we do have from this ongoing collaboration is to see multiple publications. And as the patient numbers and the matching grows and we have longer term outcomes, we’ll be able to look at things like, I mean, for example, subgroups. Even though the first paper was able to go and look at groups of patients by staging up and down. How does this test perform form in terms of the Medicare patient population? For example, do you end up seeing a significant improvement in overall survival or melanoma civic survival in the Medicare age population who gets to use our test clinically versus those there are.
Are analyses or manuscripts like that that I think we will continue to see rolling out an ongoing basis, hopefully the next couple of years. To be honest, we do have other studies that are ongoing and some that we’re planning still. One of our core tenets, as you know, is that I don’t think one has ever done proving time and time again the value of our test for patient care. One of the studies that was recently published here I can’t remember was this first quarter last fall was our decide study, an early look at that data set, which looks at a prospective patients who are using our test initially to decide on going forward with a sentiment of the biopsy procedure or not. And then what happens on outcomes with those exact same patients. So we published an early analysis.
I would call that probably analysis one, maybe six months ago or so, and you can bet there’d be further data coming out now. I think as we see those outcomes improvements, all that data NCI that’s still in paper decide, other protocols we haven’t discussed publicly should hopefully keep raising the bar that our tests make a difference in patient outcomes.
Sung Ji Nam: Great. Thank you. And then just a quick follow up on the inflammatory skin disease pipeline. Just kind of curious what the latest update is and what the next milestones might be. Thank you.
Derek Maetzold: Inflammatory skin disease? We hadn’t planned on discussing elements of that here. I think back in the end of the first quarter, we discussed that that we have, but that we are very pleased with our enrollment so far. We have 57 committed sites, who are investigator sites, I think all within the US. That could be wrong about one or two overseas and enrolled just over 750 patients to date. And we are chewing through the initial discovery and development data now and expect to update the street here in the second half of this year. It’s not going to be obviously today, but we are working through the analysis of that data and hopefully we can go and have a public discussion about that shortly, so prior to the end of 2023.
Operator: I guess, we now have Thomas Flatten of Lake Street Capital Markets. Please go ahead when you’re ready, Thomas.
Thomas Flatten: Hey, thanks. Good afternoon. Congrats on the quarter. Frank, I was wondering if you could maybe walk through some of the thinking on the guide. At $180 million, that would be a second half slightly lower than the first half? So I’m curious if you could comment on some of the conservatism there or apparent conservative.
Frank Stokes: Yeah, no change there, Thomas. As we said back in June, we’re not assuming SEC revenue and our guidance and forward looks here. So that continues to be the case.
