Member Info for BuenaVista

Say what you see

🍷🍷🍷

Thanks Thompi

I've got to say I was concerned that the AVA6103 trial with such a toxic agent as exatecan would start at a very low dose and take a long, long time if the step increases were to mimic those in the AVA6000 trial (seven dose levels! - three steps of 40 from 80 to 200, and then three 25% increases to 385) so very pleased to hear about all the benefits of the BOIN design.

What is the current best progression free survival rate for TNBC?

https://www.google.com/search?q=What+is+the+current+best+progression+free+survival+rate+for+TNBC%253F

I may be missing something here but trastuzumab deruxtecan (brand name Enhertu) and pertuzumab are both used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer. So what has that got to do with TNBC which is an aggressive, fast-growing type of breast cancer that tests negative for three key receptors: estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER2?

Christina Coughlin became the CEO of Avacta on 1 May 2024.

There is no need to dwell on anything or anyone before that date.

CC has set out the company's objectives and timelines and has stuck to them, as much as is possible taking outside decision-making and events into account. This adherence to the company's aims and plans comes about because she is a pharma executive with ample of experience of drug development and the way the FDA works.

As Runner-Runner wrote...

It's simple.

1. DO NOT ENGAGE

2. DO NOT ASK IT A QUESTION

3. DO NOT ANSWER ITS QUESTIONS

4. DO NOT MOAN ABOUT ITS POSTS

5. DO NOT ARGUE WITH IT

6. If you must do something. Mock it with reference only to its stupidity and nothing else.

------------------------------------------------------

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem

Just a reminder that Thornogson/NDN/Eggy isn't invested and just posts specious talking points to provoke argument and waste people's time and energy.

Best ignored.

Friday afternoon, 3pm.

Next question?

AI so probably not complete (or accurate):

Originator: Daiichi Sankyo Company.

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Suppliers: Zhejiang Jingsheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hebei Jianmin Starch Glucose Co., Ltd., Cornileus Pharmaceuticals, and Sichuan Elixir Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd..

Research/Specialty Suppliers: Sigma-Aldrich (Merck), Simson Pharma Limited, and Manus Aktteva Biopharma LLP.

There is an alternative Aldebaran... Filter them. Weigh it up.

@Aldebaran,

Yes, AVA3996 was an analogue of Velcade (bortezomib), which is a standard, FDA-approved, and highly effective treatment for multiple myeloma.

Further to my comment on McNulty's Xcretion, some research shows that about 90% of cancers are indeed solid cancers and 10% are blood cancers. FAP is present in certain blood cancers, specifically within the tumor microenvironment of multiple myeloma, which accounts for ~10-15% of blood cancers. That puts the percentage of all cancers that could be treated with pre|CISION drugs at 82-82.5% if 90% of solid tumours express FAP. Definitely not to be sniffed at.

Doxorubicin is frequently used as a component of bridging therapy for multiple myeloma to control disease progression while CAR-T cells are being manufactured so AVA6000 (and why not other pre|CISION drugs?) could have a use there. In that podcast interview CC said: "Because FAP is expressed in every solid tumour, and by solid tumour I exclude what we would refer to as liquid or hematologic, so leukemias and lymphomas won't have any place with this platform, but every other cancer from brain cancer, head and neck cancers, salivary gland, breast cancer, pancreatic, if there's an organ with a cancer we can address it..."

Multiple myeloma is a distinct type of blood cancer that specifically affects plasma cells in the bone marrow, making it different from both leukemia (which typically starts in the blood/marrow) and lymphoma (which affects the lymphatic system) so it's unclear whether CC is excluding multiple myeloma as a pre|CISION-treatable cancer (by saying "liquid or hematologic [cancers]", which includes multiple myeloma) or not (by only mentioning leukemias and lymphomas).

Note though that CC said "Because FAP is expressed in every solid tumour" - "in EVERY solid tumour" - so I'm confused as to why Avacta have previously been saying FAP was expressed in 90% of solid tumours. Perhaps what was really meant previously was 'over-expressed in 90% of solid tumours', whilst CC was talking about FAP being expressed in all solid tumours but with very low, normal background expression in 10% of them. Who knows? But if pre|CISION can affect low FAP tumours, maybe it doesn't matter.

"So BV you have no idea why you invested in Avacta, no idea what its worth or could be worth, some warren buffet you are."

Your questions are profoundly uninteresting to all here and so not worthy of any answers.

"So have you any idea ? Do you think its worth anything? What was your reason for investing in avacta ? Are you hoping for a return on your outlay ?"

Behave!

"But yet you critique other ?"

So what? Do you unquestioningly accept things as true that clearly aren't true? Why do you not question unsubstantiated facts? Have you no capacity for critical thinking?

There is no one here who can come up with a valuation fro Avacta's goods, by themselves or with AI. It is a pointless exercise. Avacta and its goods will be worth what they are worth to companies and people that have the money and the responsibility for spending that money.

"BV go ahead and put a valuation on AVA 6103 if the P1 results are good. Very easy to knock others."

I'm not an investment analyst. Why do you think my 'valuation' would be of any interest?

I disagree. False or misleading 'information' needs to be exposed and those posting it, knowingly or unknowingly, identified.

"1. Market Dominance (90% vs 30%): If Revolution Medicines is worth $22B for a drug that targets 30% of tumors, then a platform that targets 90% of tumors with proven safety should theoretically be worth 3x as much ($66B)."

This is a logical fallacy. It assumes that all tumour cancers have the same market value, which is untrue. Not all cancers are equal. There are a few common, so highly lucrative, cancers and then a multitude of rare cancers that don't, individually or combined, have all that much market value.

I stopped reading NFTs (AI-generated?) post at that point.

I take issue with this assertion:

"Avacta’s pre|CISION platform could generate drugs that could target as much as 85% of all human cancers. 90% of all solid tumours which comprise 90% of all cancer cases; and at least 15% of all blood cancer cases, which comprise the remaining 10% of all cancer cases."

I've never heard CC (nor Alan) talk about pre|CISION being used for blood cancers, only epithelial (tissue) cancers and, in fact, CC dismissed blood cancers in that recent excellent podcast interview, so I'd like to see MM's supporting justification for the 'at least 15% of the 10% blood cancers' statement.

Also, he has not qualified the solid: blood cancer type ratio and has, in any case, overstated his total addressable cancers as 85% when his figures should lead to 82.5% (90% of 90% plus 15% of 10%).

Assuming his 90:10 cancer type is valid, pre|CISION could address 81% of all cancers, which isn't bad.