Paul Kim: David, Brandon and I have been commenting on Pharma Services and the nature of that business being lumpy, as Brandon mentioned. The other thing is the sales cycle is longer in terms of duration. But if you kind of take a step back and look at the overall performance of Pharma Services, we did approximately $10 million in 2022. And in 2023, even with the lumpiness were anticipated within our guidance to do approximately $21 million, $22 million. So we’re anticipated to have over 100% increase in that business. We anticipated the Pharma Services revenues to be lower in Q3 and Q4, anticipating when the work will be serviced and recognizable in terms of revenues. But as Brandon indicated, we are really excited about this business and our funnel is full.
David Westenberg: Got it. Great. I’ll just ask one more and let Andrew have some more questions. So just — I know you’re going to begin Phase II, I think, early next year. So I know you’re not giving 2024 guidance, but I would be — I would love to hear about maybe anticipated spend on maybe some of these — some of that or that project specifically, if there is a major increase in R&D spend associated with that as a step-up. Thank you.
Ming Hsieh: Yes, David. I think that our — the budget projection still solid. We are still around $15 million annually burn rate. So for the Phase II study, it’s going to be the Phase II study at the second line of therapy for the head and neck cancer patients. So it is a combining — combinational therapy, which is suggested by the experts in this field. We feel very good about our position and the market potential. But in terms of R&D spending, the $50 million that we allocated is not only for the clinical trials, but all the new drug development efforts combined together. So we still expect about a $50 million annual burn rate.
David Westenberg: Thank you so much.
Operator: Thank you. Next question today is coming from Andrew Cooper from Raymond James. Your line is now live.
Andrew Cooper: Sorry. I had myself muted. Thank you for the questions. I guess just want to maybe first ask a little bit about the guidance, just the sequential revenue, the core being sort of flattish, maybe down a touch as sort of what you’re pointing to. So maybe just a sense for how much of that might be seasonality in your minds versus maybe something that is moving a little bit more materially from quarter-to-quarter.
Brandon Perthuis: Thanks for the question, Andrew. No, there certainly is some seasonality in it, especially as it relates to our Anatomic Pathology division. That’s something we are planning on. In addition, it still goes back to some of our Pharma Services and needing to get those projects through the door, get them signed out so we can book those revenues. So that’s another thing we’re planning on in Q4, just seeing some additional lumpiness in the Pharma Services business. But the Precision Diagnostics still has tremendous momentum. Beacon volumes are doing incredibly well. Our oncology business is doing well. So we expect to see that continued momentum into the fourth quarter. But again, taking a bit of a conservative approach as it relates to some of the seasonality around AP and some of the Pharma Services.
Andrew Cooper: Okay, helpful. And a couple of those are areas I wanted to hit on as well. So maybe starting with AP. If I have my numbers right for Precision Diagnostics and Pharma Services for this quarter, I think AP was a little bit lower than we were looking for and I think lower than you were sort of looking for at least at the start of the year when you originally guided for that segment. So sort of what’s going on there? Can you give us a little bit of an update in AP and how we should be thinking about that business, given it is a pretty hefty chunk of the overall, but not the one that we’ve talked about much today?
