Member Info for BuenaVista

All that's as may be but the fact is that traders do use charts and RSI in lieu of understanding the underlying investment and it's probably wise for oneself to understand what forces are moving the share price — and we know that Avacta has been, and very largely continues to be, a plaything of the traders.

I was wrong earlier. Enhertu has patent protection until around 2033 (main patent) to 2035/6.

Now, with the last (15 minute delayed quote) share price at 80.38 (a buy), the 14 day RSI is 70.14 and 7 day RSI is 82.29. Traders will surely be soon starting to think about taking a profit if this rise continues.

RSI has been steadily moving towards overbought territory. Currently 68.58 (on the 14 day measure) and although it can go a lot higher, up towards 100 with frenzied buying (which we don't have at the moment), 70 is usually taken as the start of the trigger to sell. On the 7 day measure the RSI is 80.26.

I'll not be trading any until the share price is a lot higher and unless the RSI is crazily high. I think that with the possibility of news at any time now being out, even a bit, in order to try to make a few quid/reduce my average by fractions of a penny or to gain a few extra shares is too big a risk at the moment.

ToucanOfDoom will be all over this.

Drugs get compared all the time. I took it to be a clarion blast as a wake up call to all ADC developers and to AZ/Daiichi in particular as owners of a soon to be out of patent key income generator.

This is a Phase 1a study, so that means safety and tolerability first and foremost. It also starts with a low, intentionally sub-lethal dose level (just in case – no one, not Avacta, nor the clinicians, nor the trial site management, nor the FDA want to take any risks with patients' lives).

So if the purpose is to gather safety and tolerability data rather than show efficacy it is as well to spread the net wide. As they are focussed on indications they want to take forward in Phase 1b they could be increasing the number of indications now (if indeed the expanded indications relates to Phase 1a and not 1b) in order to gather efficacy data, of which there will be some, during this phase.

"Ironic given Avactas link up with tempus haha"

What Temps seem to do is number crunching and pretty displays. There is more behind it than that of course such as what data are collected and how the data are linked and the company may offer other capabilities but what AVACTA seem to be using it for is fast data analysis that can be done in seconds rather than man months.

AI does have its uses as an encyclopedia (definitions and explanations of well characterised entities) but is very dodgy when it comes to interpretations and poorly defined or covered entities. It is also not necessarily comprehensive, failing to cover patents for competitive intelligence for instance.

Unless you are looking for hard facts, use AI with caution and compare what it returns to what you already know and understand about the topic. Do not go into a topic asking for an interpretation of something you know nothing about and expect to be taken seriously when you then post it on a forum.

To Gemini: How did the in vivo AVA6000 work with mice translate to data in humans?

+11

Preclinical in vivo studies of AVA6000 in mice successfully translated to human Phase 1 clinical trials by demonstrating that the pre|CISION™ platform selectively releases the chemotherapy agent doxorubicin within the tumor microenvironment (TME), leading to reduced systemic toxicity and encouraging antitumor activity. Key findings from mice—such as high FAP-mediated cleavage, minimal systemic toxicity, and strong efficacy in FAP-positive tumor models—were mirrored in human patients, showing improved safety and efficacy compared to traditional doxorubicin.

[Continues with details]

Whatever your prompt was, the AI response lacks context as it does not take into account all that has gone on before with AVA6000, and even AVA3996.

The usual generic guff about 'The "Preclinical" Gap' and 'Safety Uncertainty', as reproduced below, are where context is missing as cleavable dipeptide link PLUS known oncolytic PLUS trial continuing EQUALS this works as expected.

- - - - -

The "Preclinical" Gap: Almost all the "robust activity" and "favorable kinetics" mentioned are based on animal/PDX models. Success in mice frequently fails to translate to the same efficacy or safety in humans.

Safety Uncertainty: While the goal is "minimizing systemic toxicity," the actual safety profile in humans will not be known until the Phase 1 data is released (expected late H2 2026).

...Or just those two indications have been added to Phase 1a.

All will no doubt become clear in due course – updated ClinicalTrials record, CC explainer, or Science Day.

From today's RNS:

"Based on favorable preclinical activity and biomarker readouts from the strategic collaboration with Tempus, two indications have been added to the trial: colorectal cancer (CRC) and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC)"

The Pipeline page https://avacta.com/pipeline/which was updated fairly recently and currently says :

"Expansion cohorts are planned in additional FAP+ cancers including hormone-receptor positive breast cancer (HR-BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC)."

So I guess they have either subsequently added another Phase 1b indication to what was in today's RNS (which talks about what is related to the poster prepared some time ago) or they have removed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

RNS's on the London Stock Exchange site include hyperlinks – a link to the FOCUS-01 study, NCT07454642, in this case. RNS's on LSE do not.

This analysis ignores pre|CISION history.

"AVA6103 the Preclinical Poster No 5846 regarding Exatecan will be highlighted by Prof Banerji tomorrow in San Diego along with the Dual Payload Poster No 5656"

Prof Banerji will be presenting the ICR poster, "7173: Mechanistic studies of fibroblast activation protein activated prodrug AVA6000 in pancreatic and liposarcoma models", on Wednesday.

The presenters for the two Avacta posters tomorrow are:

AVA6103: Curtis Rink (Preclinical Program Lead) - "5846: AVA6103 is a FAP-enabled pre|CISION®peptide-drug conjugate delivering sustained release of exatecan in the tumor microenvironment with potent antitumor activity"

AVA6207: Victoria Juskaite (*) - "5656: Characterization and translational development of novel pre|CISION® technology compounds delivering complementary dual payloads to the tumor microenvironment following FAP cleavage"

* I'm guessing that Victoria Juskaite is the program lead for AVA6207 as she is the first-named presenter/author and I think it is the convention to have the main person listed first. She is also the name in the Author field for the 'Avacta meets Novartis: Pre|CISION single and dual warheads' slide deck that has been used and updated and reused and modified and reused, etc. recently.

To plan an additional three Phase 1b cohorts they will need to have been fairly confident of having the funding one way or another, either cash inhouse to do it or a partner to fund one or more of the cohorts for these new indications. Alternatively, maybe they are just wanting to cover most of the main likely successful indications during this trial's Phase 1b whilst it's running rather than having to set up and do another Phase 1b in the future. In any case, their expansionist ambitions are good news.

Interesting!

The bar is low for faridox as well: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/86/7_Supplement/7173/780950

"The GI50 of AVA6000 in two pancreatic cancer cell lines ASPC-1 and Mia-Paca-2 in the co-culture system with PSCs was 58±21.4nM, (Stdev,n=3) and 66.5±16.3nM (Stdev, n=3)."

The GI50 for elraglusib (9-ING-41) is an order of magnitude higher than for AVA6000 (10^-7M vs 10^-8M) albeit for bladder cancer cell lines rather than pancreatic cell lines: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6934761/

"We tested 9-ING-41 in T24, HT1376 and RT4 bladder cancer cell lines. 9-ING-41 treatment resulted in a decreased growth of bladder cancer cells at 0.25–1 μM concentrations in a dose-dependent manner with GI50 range of 0.4–0.5 μM (Fig. 1A)."

GI50 (Growth Inhibition 50%) is the concentration of a compound, such as a drug, required to inhibit the growth of cells by 50% in in vitro studies. It is a critical metric in cancer research and pharmacology used to evaluate the potency of compounds that stop tumor cell proliferation, often used for cytostatic agents. The lower the concentration, the higher the potency.

I won't believe it's on until I see the backpacks.

If anyone hasn't twigged yet, the only thing wyndbum ABSOLUTELY LOVES is being the centre of attention.

Just use the filter or ignore or report falsehoods. Responding serves no purpose other than to encourage more tedious essays.