We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi Desouzaa,
Might you be thinking of the double checkpoint achieving 53% ORR?
Here in the forum it was once mentioned that the ORR without SCIB1 is about 50% (I don't remember who wrote this but it is assumed to be correct here).
Please correct me if this is wrong.
My question now is whether anyone knows what the reduction in tumour volume looks like without SCIB1.
Just to be able to make a comparison from this side. If this is possible at all.
Note : Reach their 13 week scan…..
Reading back on the SCIB1 + CPI’s RNS releases.
Mid Sept. 9 out of 11 Scanned 82%
Late Nov. 11out of 13 Scanned 85%
Plus 3 patients enrolled not at 13 week scan
December to March approx 17 weeks. Possible number to have now reached their 23 week scan = the 3 from late November RNS plus a probable 2 more since then = 18 patients scanned.
Very appropriate enrolment 24 patients.
The goal is 43 patients enrolled by end of the 1st half 2024, that would mean 19 more in approx 12 weeks. Which seems to be a high number.
Conclusion : using the above as a very rough guide, if the 19 patient number referred to in the Abstract text is ‘Enrolled’ the recruitment drive is way behind schedule. If that number is ‘Scanned’ it would make much more sense.
Therefore there is a good chance that Scancell have the 13 week data on 19 patients and if so 16 responders would maintain the 85% ORR.
Nice posts. It’s looking like Sclp have v strong data already. All for the bargain basement price of 10p. When the market adjusts to correct values good luck all lth’s. Lindy is presenting this weekend and hopefully her peers will like what she has to say. It’s been a journey. ATB
Am I right that the patients in the trial were all in stage 4 and still got an 85% ORR. Is there any other treatment that has that effect ? Or even close ?
…yet, RNS Monday is more the sensible logical expectation. ATVB
Thanks Lofas, makes sense. Yes I guess 13 to begin with is small but I was just surprised that a near on 50% increase in patient numbers wasn't mentioned officially...yet.
Although every patient is the whole world, statistically it may not be significant hence within the boundaries of content which was already communicated.
Should the increase from 13 to 19 patients not have been RNS'd?
PB - nothing new?
Treatment continues both successfully and safely for these very poorly patients.
Find updates link with profiles of speakers along with Lindy Durrant
https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/session/663
And on page 44 vaccines ready for prime time planner
https://www.aacr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AACR2024_Program_Guide.pdf
Cancer Vaccines: Ready for Prime Time?
Cochairs: Ecaterina Elena Dumbrava, Houston, TX;
https://faculty.mdanderson.org/profiles/ecaterina_ileanadumbrava.html
Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Ann Arbor MI
https://www.uofmhealth.org/profile/33465/ulka-vaishampayan-mbbs
Introduction. Ecaterina Elena Dumbrava, Houston, TX
1. https://faculty.mdanderson.org/profiles/ecaterina_ileanadumbrava.html
CT021 Preliminary clinical results of a therapeutic cancer vaccine PDC*lung01 in combination with anti-PD-1 in patients (pts) with stage IV NSCLC. Willemijn Theelen, Amsterdam, Netherlands
https://www.avl.nl/en/specialists-employees/specialists/pulmonologists/willemijn-theelen/
CT022 Mutant KRAS peptide-based vaccine in patients at high risk of developing pancreatic cancer: Preliminary analysis from a phase I study . Saurav D. Haldar, Baltimore, MD
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/saurav-haldar-1192938
CT023 Prostate cancer in situ autovaccination with the intratumoral viral mimic poly-ICLC: Making a cold tumor hot. Sujit S. Nair, New York, NY
https://icahn.mssm.edu/about/departments/urology/research/prostate-cancer
CT024 A DNA plasmid melanoma cancer vaccine, SCIB1, combined with nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the open-label Phase 2 SCOPE Trial. Lindy Durrant, Oxford, United Kingdom
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/20/designing-a-vaccine-that-covers-all-cancers-is-hard-biotech-pioneer-lindy-durrant
CT134 Safety and immunologic impact of neoadjuvant/adjuvant GM-CSF-secreting allogenic pancreatic tumor cell vaccine (GVAX) combined with cyclophosphamide, pembrolizumab, and macrophage-targeting CSF1R inhibitor IMC-CS4 in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arielle Urman, Baltimore, MD
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/arielle-urman-1812281
CT025 Personalized RNA neoantigen vaccines induce long-lived CD8+ T effector cells in pancreatic cancer. Vinod P. Balachandran, New York, NY
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/vinod-balachandran-118798
CT026 Systemic responses to SYNC-T therapy: In situ personalized cancer vaccination with intratumoral infusion of multitarget immunotherapy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Charles J. Link, Wynnewood, PA
Closing remarks. Ulka N. Vaishampayan,
https://www.uofmhealth.org/profile/33465/ulka-vaishampayan-mbbs
Https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/session/663
And on page 44 vaccines ready for prime time planner
https://www.aacr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AACR2024_Program_Guide.pdf
Cancer Vaccines: Ready for Prime Time?
Cochairs: Ecaterina Elena Dumbrava, Houston, TX; Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Ann Arbor, MI Introduction. Ecaterina Elena Dumbrava, Houston, TX
CT021 Preliminary clinical results of a therapeutic cancer vaccine PDC*lung01 in combination with anti-PD-1 in patients (pts) with stage IV NSCLC. Willemijn Theelen, Amsterdam, Netherlands
CT022 Mutant KRAS peptide-based vaccine in patients at high risk of developing pancreatic cancer: Preliminary analysis from a phase I study . Saurav D. Haldar, Baltimore, MD
CT023 Prostate cancer in situ autovaccination with the intratumoral viral mimic poly-ICLC: Making a cold tumor hot. Sujit S. Nair, New York, NY
CT024 A DNA plasmid melanoma cancer vaccine, SCIB1, combined with nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the open-label Phase 2 SCOPE Trial. Lindy Durrant, Oxford, United Kingdom
CT134 Safety and immunologic impact of neoadjuvant/adjuvant GM-CSF-secreting allogenic pancreatic tumor cell vaccine (GVAX) combined with cyclophosphamide, pembrolizumab, and macrophage-targeting CSF1R inhibitor IMC-CS4 in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Arielle Urman, Baltimore, MD
CT025 Personalized RNA neoantigen vaccines induce long-lived CD8+ T effector cells in pancreatic cancer. Vinod P. Balachandran, New York, NY
CT026 Systemic responses to SYNC-T therapy: In situ personalized cancer vaccination with intratumoral infusion of multitarget immunotherapy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Charles J. Link, Wynnewood, PA
Closing remarks. Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Ann Arbor, MI
Yes - but we know nothing new about them.
I think it was 13 patients back in Jan as opposed to 19!
Didn't we learn that in the last update on 17th January?
Thanks DeAar for posting the link 👍
Rat, yes, it reads very very well.... 85% ORR and no serious side affects !! Excellent !! I'm sure Lindy can say an awfull lot more "off the record" at the conference 😉
I'm not a scientist, but I think I'd be pretty chuffed to stand up at AACR and present that sort of stuff. What do you reckon crackin?
Results 19 patients received the combination of SCIB1 with nivolumab and ipilimumab. At study entry, all patients were stage IV. 13 patients had reached the first imaging timepoint at 13 weeks, and the objective response rate is 85%. 9/9 responses were confirmed in a subsequent scan. Patients showed a 40-95% reduction in tumor volume between 13 and 25 weeks. Most of the SCIB1-related adverse events were Grade 1/2. Only 1 patient reported a Grade 3 rash. No enhancement of immune-mediated adverse events was observed when SCIB1 was added to nivolumab with ipilimumab.
Conclusions SCIB1 in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab as first line treatment for unresectable melanoma improved the ORR to 85% without an increase in clinically meaningful adverse events. These results if confirmed in a larger patient cohort provide confidence in initiating a randomized registration program in unresectable melanoma patients with the novel DNA plasmid technology
Https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/11402
The abstract text is out - https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/11402
She'll definitely be coming round the mountain when she comes.
Yee-Haw
They'll either update on presentation or at some point after,. I'm really not bothered if that takes minutes, days or weeks as things stand. It looks promising and it will come when it comes.
Interestingly, any data produced by the study after the submission of the abstract, is also under embargo until the start of the session in which the paper is presented. So Scancell couldn't update us on the Scope trial, even if they wanted to, without risking having the abstract pulled.