Thank you, Jeff. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for taking the time to joins us this morning. Today I’m with Dr. Nicholas Borys, Celsion’s Chief Medical Officer and Jeffrey Church from whom we’ve just heard our Chief Financial Officer. We’re delighted to have the opportunity to update you on our progress, which by any standard of measure, I hope you agree with the me has been substantial, not only this past quarter, but certainly over this past year. For those you who follow Celsion, you know, that we’re an oncology focused development stage company with three platforms, two of which are product candidates at clinical stage. Today’s call will focus on our two incredible important clinical trials, the OPTIMA study, our global Phase III trial of our tumor targeting dosage form of Doxorubicin, we call ThermoDox being studied in primary liver cancer, and the OVATION study, a Phase I dose-escalating trial of GEN-1, a gene-based therapeutic and newly diagnosed Phase III and IV ovarian cancer patients. So let me start by saying, we could not be more pleased with our product portfolio our progress and the investments that we have been making in GEN-1 and ThermoDox. Our neoadjuvant study in first line of ovarian cancer combining GEN-1 with standard of care therapy followed by debulking surgery is showing early, if not promising clinically meaningful tumor response that appears to be correlating very, very well with higher immune system activity in patients with stage three and four malignancies. At the same time, data supporting the OPTIMA study become stronger, if not encounter vertical with each analysis, now for over four years, no matter whether conducted by Celsion or independently scrutinized. ThermoDox in combination with radio frequency ablation standardized to a minimum of 45 minutes, a time in a role, where we now know this ablation technology is most effective in intermediate sized tumors. ThermoDox in combination with RFA has shown the potential for a period of outcome, imagine that. Single dose of ThermoDox, our elegant heat sensitive liposomal dosage form of Doxorubicin is showing over 18-month survival in a large study group that we’ve been following for over 3.5 years. As I said before, both GEN-1 and ThermoDox are all encumbered assets both are being evaluated in some of the most prestigious research hospitals in the world. Both are on studies that are professionally and rigorously managed, and both address potential billion-dollar market opportunities. I’d also say that both of these studies, there’s virtually no trial execution, CMC, or regulatory risk. Both product candidates are in development in the sweet spot of Celsion’s competency, clinical stage development is what we do and I would submit to you is what we do very well. With our world clients U.S. and international contract manufacturing partners like AMRI and Hisun are experiencing disciplined CROs [indiscernible] bio-clinical among others, some of the very best in this challenging industry. They have complete confidence in the execution of our studies. From a commercial standpoint, both trials address large unmet needs. And if we are right, if either study demonstrates a meaningful clinical benefit. We expect global regulatory approval, rapid adoption and generous gross margins. So with that as an intro, I’d like to go into a little bit more detail starting with ThermoDox. ThermoDox as you know is our most advanced investigational product. As currently, as I said in primary liver cancer, we’re also evaluating it with recurrent chest wall breast cancer. So, let me talk first about primary liver cancer study. During the third quarter, we continue to execute on our Phase III OPTIMA study in primary liver cancer, mostly called a Hepatocellular Carcinoma, we use the acronym HCC, they’re all interchangeable. The Phase III study, the goal of which is to evaluate the survival benefit of which ThermoDox in conjunction with optimized RFA standardized to a minimum of 45 minutes and to all investigators, all sites, all patients minimum 45 minutes for treating lesions 3 to 7 centimeters versus optimized RFA alone, control a 45 minutes of RFA plus minus ThermoDox. The study will enroll up to 550 patients globally and up to 75 sites in North America, Europe, China, and Asia Pacific. The hypotheses for OPTIMA is supported with highly impressive and statistically significant subgroup data from the prior HEAT study, 700 patient evaluation of ThermoDox in combination with RFA. While failing to meet it progression free survival endpoint or PFS endpoint, findings from the HEAT Study have greatly expanded our understanding of RFA and intermediate stage HCC of which I can say without question, without reservation, we now know more about RFA and early stage HCC than just about any other company on the planet. It is this understanding that’s helped us to formulate where we considered to be a higher derisk to OPTIMA Study. I’ll give you some insight into that. This past August, we know its findings from the final retrospective look at overall survival in HEAT study. The analysis showed that in the large wealth balanced subgroup of 285 patients, a group that was well tested with a multivariate analysis of presenting 41% of all the patients enrolled in HEAT study, a group that we have been following now for 3.5 years plus. Treatment with a combination of ThermoDox and optimized RFA is provided a 54% risk improvement in overall survival compared to optimized RFA alone. Now few statistical junkies, the hazard [ph] ratio for this analysis was 0.65 [indiscernible]. Let’s say it again, after over four years, a group that faced final literature was predicted to have about 30-month survival. The median overall survival in the optimized RFA ThermoDox is still not reached the median. Currently translating into two-year survival benefit over the control group, the optimized RFA a loan group, the final overall survival analysis projects greater than 80 months for ThermoDox plus optimized RFA group over 80 months. And on the China – Chinese patient cohort of 223 patients those received optimized RFA treatment for minimum 45 minutes, they showed a 53% risk improvement in overall survival when treated with ThermoDox plus optimized RFA. These findings were highlighted in late October at the Third Asian Conference on Tumor Ablation, or ACTA Conference by meeting one of our investigator and researcher, a person is associated with both our HEAT and OPTIMA studies there is Professor Won Young Tak of the Kyungpook National University Medical Center in South Korea. Now why is this all important, when we look at the Chinese separately, China represents what is perhaps the most significant market opportunity for ThermoDox globally. It is approximately 50% of the 850,000 new cases diagnosed each year originated in China. OPTIMA is down enrolling patients at 14 sites in China. So the growth rate for at least 200 patients which represents a minimum number required on the Chinese FDA to file the new drug application for that market. And in this market, I can say I hope you see the real side here, this larger future market for pharmaceuticals in the world will be the largest future markets for pharmaceuticals in the world. I can that we’re well positioned. It is important to note that some of the ThermoDox program continues to be supported by a growing body of peer reviewed research. To this point in September, we made an exceedingly important announcement. We file the National Institutes of Health the NIH conducted an independent analysis and data from the HEAT study. With last quarter’s analysis, the NIH under Dr. Bradford Wood, independently sought to retrospectively evaluate the correlation between RFA burn time or heating time as a function of tumor volume and the outcome in patients treated with ThermoDox. One of the major conclusions was both statistically significant and very straight forward and that is this. As you increase the RFA burn time in patients that are treated with ThermoDox survival improves. As you increase the RFA burn time [indiscernible] and patients treated with ThermoDox survival improves. As same is not true for patients treated with RFA alone. The NIH’s independent assessment provides additional confirmatory support consisted with our own findings indicating that the use of RFA for more than 45 minutes in patients treated with ThermoDox can have a collative impact on reductions in tumor size and overall survival indications with primary liver cancer. Now, we made this announcement only after the NIH’s internal peer review process supported these timings and this is a pure internal peer review timing and will be presented, as I said, as we said in our announcement during all sessions on Monday November 28 at the 102nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, otherwise known as the RSNA that will be held in Chicago. And there will be some detail data presented that supports the conclusions that we just mentioned. We firmly believe that this analysis not only advances our understanding of ThermoDox and its potential curative implication and combination of a standardized RFA, it also strengthens our confidence in our ongoing Phase 3 OPTIMA study, and you should know we have successfully, I think as I said earlier, optimal supported product approval filings in all major markets, including China, Southeast Asia, South Korea, the European Union, Canada and the United States. So at the risk of being redundant let me say it again, primary liver cancer or HCC represents the largest unmet need remaining in oncology and we remain committed to the continued exploration of ThermoDox’s full potential in this indication. They are strongly encouraged by the progress of the OPTIMA study and remain on track cautiously to complete the trial by the end of the first quarter 2018 if not sooner with first interim efficacy we like to follow. In addition to the OPTIMA study, we’re also advancing our development program in recurrent chest wall breast cancer; as we spoke earlier. Please recall that the impetus from the data that was presented from our Phase 2 DIGNITY Study at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last summer demonstrated the compliance combined local response rate that is a partial and complete responses of almost 62% that not only valuable patients treated with ThermoDox plus hyperthermia microwave generated heat. This is an extraordinary outcome by any standard of measure. I mean the results – particularly since all of these patients in the study will factor until two or three rounds of chemo then they felt surgery in many cases they certainly felt radiation. So building on the DIGNITY Study, we have been talking about our plans for the European focus study recalling the EU DIGNITY trial or EU DIGNITY Study. Having just returned from [indiscernible] kickoff meeting among our investigators, I can tell you audience there is a great feel of anticipation, very anxious to beginning enroll patients into this trial. And anticipate enrollment to begin this year if – it may slip into the first quarter of 2017 depending upon regulatory, a final regulatory approvals in various countries. We’re looking forward to provide you with updates and our progress, but I just want to remind you of quickly. The study is designed to evaluate that complete impartial responses after six cycles of ThermoDox plus hyperthermia in combination with standard radiation treatment and another end point, secondary endpoint in this study is local regional tumor control. Before we go onto your channel one GEN-1, I’d like to remind everybody that we are exploring ThermoDox’s potential outside of our primary trials. We have a number of pre-clinical programs that we’re supporting in various indications that a number of very prestigious institutions. One of the important clinical programs was announced early in October. And we issued a press release indicating our support for Phase 1 study evaluating ThermoDox in combination with High Intensity Focused Ultrasound or HIFU or focus ultrasound, plus all of those acronyms and terms are interchangeable with this acoustic energy non-invasive acoustic heating energy that’s used to original design from OVATION now used as a hyperthermia device to activate ThermoDox in a study. That’s being carried out as multi-disciplinary collaboration with Celsion and the research groups of Dr. AeRang Kim, at the Children’s National Medical Center and Dr. Brad Wood and Dr. Rosandra Kaplan at the National Institutes of Health. So we’re enrolling patients, children, and young adults, patients who have relapsed or refractory solid tumors. It’s quite an honor for us. We couldn’t been more pleased to be a part of this program that’s been driven by collaborators who is confidence in ThermoDox is extraordinary. Many of these physicians well, which is all the physicians I have spoke there, have been closed to our programs and our data for several years, I can only imagine the respect that they must have for ThermoDox to even consider as an experimental treatment option for children with cancer. No doubt in my mind, but having spent time with our investigators in Europe recently investigators in Asia, this group with physicians in bevacizumab it’s very clear to me that the medical community cancelled [ph] it. And I’m confident that Wall Street will eventually ask. So with that let me turn our attention on to GEN-1 our immuno-oncology candidate developed on our TheraPlas technology platform. GEN-1, as we call is a gene-mediated immunotherapeutic which results – recruits virtually all of the mechanisms of the immune system to fight cancer. But GEN-1 is well known it’s well characterized, effective agent. I mean the active agent in GEN-1 is well known and well characterized. The active agent is a DNA plasmid that’s coded for cytokine Interlukin-12 or IL-12 is the plasmid for IL-12 is incorporated into our proprietary TheraPlas platform a non-viral nanoparticle delivery factor. And this system is administered locally into a body cavity; it could be into the peritoneum as we are using with ovarian cancer onto the bladder potentially or even the cavity created by the surgical removal of a tumor mass. These nanoparticles invade local regional cells, taking over the metabolic machinery of the cells turning each into a local factory to produce sustained amounts of therapeutically active IL-12. So now we’ve got these cells when we administered locally we got these cells producing IL-12 with sustain and therapeutic quantities, now the question is, as I mentioned before. So how does IL-12 reflect immune systems. Let me talk about that a little bit. From a layman’s point of view, I think, I can communicate this activity quite well. So IL-12 is an inflammatory protein or cytokines is considered by many to be a master switch of the immune system and recognized as one of the most powerful immune therapy in oncology, it functions, as I said on multiple levels. First, it takes the brakes off the immune system, it does regulate something called T-reg cells. T-reg cells has the ability to marginally to inhibit the activities in the immune system. So it takes – it inhibits the production of T-reg cells taking the breaks off the immune system. Second, it up regulates the production of interferon. Interferon, in this case, is an anti vascular growth protein. It inhibits the productions of blood vessels that support the growth of tumors. In certain report powers up and make consumer specific some immune activity, putting this of immune system into overdrive. I mean it sounds really terrific. Does it? The problem however is, it is utility in the clinic in-patients has been limited by serious toxicity associated with this pharmacokinetics. It’s got a very short half way. Historically, the administered IL-12 short half way replenish frequent and very high doses and very high doses. In high doses frequently IL-12 can be seriously toxic as we said. GEN-1 on the other hand, as I described it, has specifically designed to overcome this limitation by promoting endogenous production of IL-12 in a controlled and localized manner, which is different from viral vectors, the beauty of our delivery system is that, it allows for repeated administration without interference from neutralizing antibodies, repeat administration and allows for long-term maintenance therapy, if indicated. So far we’ve seen some impressive results. Most of it generated – early results generated in cooperation with the GOG, Gynecologic Oncology Group. In December of 2014, the last GOG study was completed in platinum resistant ovarian cancer patients, we announced those results earlier this year. It demonstrated that this is a translational data by the way. It demonstrated that internally administered GEN-1 appears to live up to this promise of turning on the multiple mechanisms of the immune system, cytology, histology and analytical results from a 17-patient trial confirmed the production of immunologically distinct IL-12 protein and is a localized by any tumor in its facility lasting up to a week left to a single treatment. Additionally, dose dependent increases on interferon that we spoke about earlier and TNF or tumor necrosis factor cytokine indicate that IL-12 produced by GEN-1 to transact their cells as immunologically active. Importantly, the absence of overlapping toxicities, this study GEN-1 was combined with Doxil. So the absence of overlapping toxicities allows for combination therapy with chemotherapeutics. You know, that initial target indication continues to be ovarian cancer further exists a need for new treatment options, if not an urgent need for new treatment options. One quarter, a million new patients are diagnosed every year with [indiscernible] survival of less than 45%. And because of patient somatic in its early stages, patients are often diagnosed at difficult to manage stages three and four. Our first trial on this indication, as we mentioned is the OVATION Study or OVATION initiated in quarter four last year in all patients approximately 15 are expected to be enrolled by the end of this year. OVATION is a Phase I dose-escalation trial in newly diagnosed patients stage three and four. These patients present with a great deal of disease. In prior to debulking surgery are treated with multiple courses of platinum and taxane, the goal of which is to improve the surgical outcome by shrinking the – almost the disease tissue drying up the surrounding area. So to this regimen; taxane and platinum, we are adding every recycles of GEN-1 and that’s followed by debulking surgery. The trial is designed to enroll three to six patients per cohort, increasing the dose 30% with each dose-escalation scores to evaluate safety and efficacy as well as to find an optimum dose for an upcoming registrational program evaluating GEN-1 in combination with Avastin and Doxil, in fact, when resistant acquired on refractory patients. OVATION’s PI, the study that’s currently being conducted. OVATION’s PIs are currently treating up to six patients in the fourth cohort. This could be the final cohort we sooner will be – could be depending upon our review of translational data, assuming our new DLPs were first to study of the current dose study supported with translational data. In the mean time, we reported very, I’d say, very, very encouraging results from the nine patients in the first three groups. We issued a press release this morning. And from that press release, I would like to remind you this from the radiology reports in the first nine patients dose, one patient demonstrated a complete response by patients demonstrated that partial response and three patients demonstrated stable disease as measured by RECIST criteria. This translates into every patient 100% of patients had showed disease control, 66% overall was – 56 overall response rate. Now from the surgical reports. Eight patients had successful resections of their tumors, with four patients having an R0 resection, which indicates a microscopically margin-negative resection in which no gross or microscopic tumor remains in the tumor bed, and three patients with a R1 resection, indicating microscopic residual tumor. One patient had an R2, indicating macroscopic residual tumor and one patient in the second cohort, however, was ineligible for debulking surgery due to a medical complication unrelated to the study or the study drug. From the pathology reports of the eight surgically treated and evaluable patients, one patient demonstrated a pathological complete response. Three patients demonstrated a micro pathological response. four patients demonstrated a macroPR. These data compare favorably to historical data, which indicate that pCRs or pathologically confirmed complete responses are typically seen in less than 7% of patients. pCRs have been associated with a median overall survival of 72 months, which is more than three times longer – three years, I’m sorry, three years longer than those who do not experience a cPR. In addition, microPRs are seen in approximately 30% of patients, and are associated with a median overall survival of 38 months. So between microPRs and the pCR that we witnessed from our study 50% of patients are experiencing this level of tumor controlled – tumor eradication of control. From the laboratory reports, seven patients who completed treatment follow-up experienced a dramatic greater than 90% drop in their cancer antigen 125 protein levels as of their most recent study visit. The CA-125 is used to monitor certain cancers during and after treatment. CA-125 is present in greater concentrations in ovarian cancer cells than in other cells. A 50% reduction in CA-125 is considered meaningful. We also reported initial translational data from the first two cohorts of the OVATION study this morning. Tumor and blood samples collected before the start of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and after the completion of GEN-1 treatment at debulking surgery are being analyzed for immune cell populations. Top line data demonstrates intriguing immunological changes in the tumor that are consistent with the activation of the immune system. Specifically, in tumor tissue, there was an increase in cytotoxic CD8+ T-cell density in three out of four evaluable patients. There was a decrease in immunosuppressive FoxP3 T-cells, that’s a T-reg cells that I spoke of earlier in two out of those four patients. And the ratio – this is an important ratio, ratio of CD8/FoxP3+ cells increased in all four evaluable patients, down regulating the in addition of the immune system, up regulating the activation of the immunologically active T-cells. We also reported a high tumor infiltrating CD8 T-cell density, low FoxP3 T-cell density or high CD8/FoxP3 ratio demonstrating a potential shift in tumor environment to favoring immune system stimulation following chemotherapy. Now for the remaining two patients the post-treatment tumor tissue was not available. So we did not report on them. One of the patients, there has been complete pathological response, so there was no tumor tissue to present – to provide post-treatment comparison. The other patient, as I mentioned earlier, was not eligible for debulking surgery. Additional immune analysis of biological tissue including cytokine ELISA from the first two patient cohorts and a complete analysis of the two higher dose cohorts is in progress. As as you can expect the clinical findings from the fourth cohort moving now as soon as they are available along with the comprehensive translational results from all four cohorts at the end of the study. Our continued strong business suggest to us in expanding throughout the – at the current therapeutic dose may be the appropriate strategy to accelerate development we’ll see and we have more data to review particularly translational data before you make a decision with regards to expanding the current trial. But in the mean time, however, our current clinical strategy combines GEN-1 with Avastin and Doxil in platinum-resistant patients – a platinum-refractory patients, as I mentioned. Now preclinical data showing extraordinary tumor inhibition was presented at the AACR showing that the three drug combination demonstrated statistically significant greater than 98% reduction in tumor burden as compared to control and a statistically significant greater than 92% reduction in tumor burden as compared to the combination of Avastin and Doxil alone enduring interest in preclinical results, supportive of our plans to move forward with a trial in this population of platinum-resistant refractory patients. Assuming we have a dose from the OVATION Study, we remain on track to file an IND submission for this Phase I/II clinical trial by the end of this year. In support of our strategy to develop GEN-1 as a global therapy, I mentioned this last time, I thought it would be more speaking to again. We announced an agreement past four, five months ago with Hisun pharmaceutical company for the production and the global supply of GEN-1. The agreement provides for technology transfer, clinical and commercial supply that prices to Celsion that will allow us to enter virtually every world in the market with an expectation of significant gross margins. Move to high synergized, I’ve said earlier, was very, very carefully considered from our past work with them, we now Hisum to be a company was state-of-the-art manufacturing some of the best personalization in my career and with excellent – in excellent quality reputation. In return for a deal with neoadjuvant to Celsion and to our shareholders, we’ve committed a certain percentage, a percentage certain, let me say that way, of our commercial volume once GEN-1 is approved. So in summary, GEN-1 is one of the most exciting areas of therapeutic development in our generation and of convinced. Our early results treating Phase III and IV ovarian cancer patients is quite a remarkable. As the data shows, our future trails are the possibility of combining GEN-1 with one of the most successful oncologics Avastin, a $6 billion drug, and we’re positioning GEN-1’s cost structure to support global markets. So with those comments, I’d like to now turn the call over to Jeff Church who will review our financial results. Jeff?
