Thanks, Mark. We wanted to provide a brief overview to help the Street understand the broader clinical and economic significance of the recently published fifth consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. These guidelines represent an important shift in perioperative care, moving from reactive management of PONV toward a far more proactive patient-centered prevention strategy. From a medical affairs perspective, guideline updates are highly important because they often serve as the foundation for durable institutional change. Historically, adoption occurs over time through provider education, EMR order sets, anesthesia workflows, perioperative pathways and treatment algorithms. Once integrated into institutional protocols, these practices tend to become highly durable standards of care. Importantly, the updated guidelines substantially elevated the role of NK1 antagonist within multimodal prophylaxis strategies. Aprepitant-based therapies, including APONVIE, received an A1 evidence rating for prevention of PONV in adults, reflecting the highest level of evidence supporting efficacy and safety. APONVIE is specifically named within the guidelines as the first and only FDA-approved IV push NK1 antagonist for the prevention of PONV in adults. We believe this distinction is clinically meaningful because it combines efficacy, workflow efficiency and ease of perioperative implementation in a way that supports both providers and patients. Another key evolution within the guidelines is the broader recommendation for multimodal prophylaxis. While patient and procedure-specific risk stratification remains central, the updated guidance recognizes that the benefit of prophylaxis often outweighs the risk of undertreatment. As a result, many institutions are expected to adopt a more liberal prophylaxis strategy across broader patient populations. The guidelines specifically recommend that patients with greater than two risk factors, representing roughly half of the surgical population received 3 to 4 prophylactic interventions. These medium and high-risk patients often require highly effective antiemetic strategies without adding recovery-limiting adverse effects. We believe APONVIE is uniquely positioned in this setting. Its efficacy profile, combined with a differentiated safety profile that does not overlap with many commonly used antiemetics supports use in patients where prevention matters most. Importantly, APONVIE provides antiemetic protection without contributing to sedation or negatively impacting postoperative recovery pathways, which is increasingly important in enhanced recovery protocols and ambulatory surgery. One of the most significant additions to the Fifth Edition guidelines was the expanded focus on post-discharge nausea and vomiting, or PDNV. The guidelines emphasize that PONV is not simply an acute PACU complication. For many patients, symptoms occur after discharge when clinical support resources are less available. The guidelines cite data showing approximately 37% of patients may experience PDNV with implications for dehydration, wound complications, unplanned health care utilization and potential readmissions. As outpatient surgery volumes continue to expand and same-day discharge becomes increasingly common, these downstream complications become even more relevant in value-based care models. Importantly, the guidelines now recommend that patients at risk for PDNV receive prophylactic long-acting antiemetics prior to discharge. We believe APONVIE aligns well with this recommendation given its 48-hour duration of action and ability to provide extended receptor coverage during the vulnerable post-discharge period. The guidelines also reinforce several important differentiators associated with APONVIE and MK1 antagonist therapy more broadly. APONVIE is administered as a simple 30-second IV push with rapid onset and greater than or equal to 97% receptor occupancy within 5 minutes, integrating efficiently into standard anesthesia workflows. This becomes particularly relevant for providers who may not have had adequate preoperative time or oral administration or who are caring for patients with limitations to oral therapies, including those with gastroparesis, GLP-1 utilization, diabetes-related GI dysfunction or altered gastric emptying. The strength of evidence supporting aprepitant-based therapy was also highlighted throughout the guidelines multiple randomized trials demonstrated aprepitant to be comparable or superior to ondansetron for prevention of PONV. Meta-analysis showed significant reductions in PONV risk when used alone or within multimodal regimens. And a large Cochrane systemic review evaluating nearly 100,000 patients ranked aprepitant as the single most effective antiemetic. Importantly, the updated guidelines frame PONV prevention not simply as a patient comfort initiative, but as a meaningful clinical quality and operational issue. Poorly controlled PONV contributes to extended PACU stays, rescue medication use, delayed discharge, dehydration, wound stress, aspiration concerns and readmissions. In many high-risk procedures, including abdominal bariatric, ENT, ophthalmology and other belt-up surgeries, preventing vomiting is viewed as critically important to protecting surgical outcomes and patient safety. Appropriate prophylaxis also supports perioperative operational efficiency by reducing nursing burden, minimizing recovery delays, improving throughput and enhancing both patient and staff satisfaction. The guidelines additionally highlighted the pharmacoeconomic value of effective prophylaxis strategies. One metric discussed was number needed to treat or NNT. For aprepitant combined with dexamethasone, the reported NNT was 3.8, meaning approximately four patients treated prevents one additional case of PONV. Compared with many commonly used antiemetics, this represents a highly favorable value proposition. From a health system perspective, this becomes clinically and economically meaningful very quickly. A single episode of PONV has been estimated to cost approximately $1,000 when considering rescue therapy, nursing utilization, prolonged PACU time and delayed discharge. When viewed in that context, preventing complications with an intervention costing approximately $60 per dose becomes highly rational and understandable for providers and institutions alike, particularly as value-based care models increasingly focus on patient satisfaction, throughput, readmissions, recovery quality and total episode of care costs. Ultimately, we believe the fifth consensus guidelines reinforce several important macro trends shaping the perioperative landscape, including greater use of multimodal prophylaxis, increasing recognition of post-discharge nausea vomiting, continued migration toward outpatient surgery, demand for workflow efficiency and the growing need for safe, effective nonsedating long-acting therapies that support enhanced recovery pathways, which we believe APONVIE is uniquely positioned to address. I will now turn the call back to Mark to discuss our oncology supportive care franchise.