Member Info for AVCT

@JT

Not sure I agree that inference is correct. If your view is correct, why don't ADCs cleave all over the place and have much wider adverse side effects.

We already knew the importance of Precision attacking the Stroma, courtesy of Elliot at the AGM

@JT "Summary: ADCs are better when they release (some of) their warhead in the tumour micro environmen"

Is that summary in the article or your own summary?

My research into ADCs suggested bystander killing ( and some systemic warhead ) arose from leakage of the cytotoxix warhead released in the cancer cell

@JT how timely that investor meet Q&A published this evening - question 2:

Could you clarify whether or not the format of the planned fortnightly dosing study will be a continuation of the Phase 1a dose escalation study? Meaning: - taking patients who, largely, have exhausted their existing lines of treatment (i.e. NOT a first line treatment study)? - taking patients with the same range of cancers as in the original study - so including breast, ovarian, colorectal, etc. - in order to gain more efficacy data for those other cancers that would be useful in licensing deal negotiations (i.e. NOT limited to STS)?

The two-weekly dosing study will aim to take patients with a more defined set of cancers than was the case in the three-weekly study and these may also have different treatment histories. This is designed to help further inform the choice of indications for the Phase 2 study. If it is possible to enrol patients earlier in their treatment journey then that is a decision for the treating oncologist.

Hi JT I'll take your last as a guess.

I've just reread the zTG meeting note posted by somebody:

The first question, a multiparter included "...what does a first line treatment mean."

I didn't see a reply to that part reoprted.

I'm afraid a liitle sceptical, but note that you belive this.

".. during the "Telegram Group meeting with AS and FMcL". He clarified that these would still be late stage patients, just those that hadn't undergone too much previous chemical treatments...."

Did you/telegram have an explanation why - seems counterproductive ?

@ JT

I had taken frontline treatment to mean wnen first diagnosed - at any stage

Which would widen the patient pool somewhat ?

Hi J T happy new year

For this arm, Avacta are looking for patients that 1) are late stage (likely stage 4 and 5)...."

I wasn't aware of that aspect - was it explicit in one of the presentations/rns ?

It's a slow motion placing with benefits - everybody knows that including you bitl

Bitl

Do you really think they'd have been able to raise £60m last year just for TX - I don't

"I hope they partner/licence it. They haven’t got the cash to support another programme."

I wouldn't want or expect them to licence at this stage.

Better terms at later phases

"this drug is still 3+ years away from commercialisation"

If by commercialisation you mean approval - I would suggest more like 7 years, as this is an analogue rather than an existing drug.

"Differing opinions and debates are welcome"

Thats not true I'm afraid. TG is a paranoid echo chamber uninterested in discovering new aspects and if the powers that be (incorrectly) label you as asking for views and opinions on other aspects of interest, then Albert boots you out.

"@WAG - I think it is important to separate two types of discussions. 1) would be for ava6k, either for other indications (breast, ovarian) or for certain geographies and the 2) would be to get Precision to attach a bespoke warhead."

I agree Jive - but also think there's a 3rd type of discussion involving something not core to Avacta such as a radioligand or an old style chemo which would be a smaller interim licence to tide us over until more data and discussions to get the first major collaboration on good terms, rather than as someone pressed for cash.

Not to mention margin calls taking out those over leveraged.

Maybe the 65% patient had a history of prior treatment ?

Thanks for the clues JT

I did a few cross referenced googles and found this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848530/

Haven't read it all yet but seems to be relevant

Thanks JT

That sounds a plausible working assumption and probably where my thinking had taken me.

Mr O i think alluded to a situation where at low concentrations dox gets cleared from the heart implying no cardiotox if levels are kept low enough

Leaves the 7 extra cycles as bit of a mystery still - i wouldn't be suprised in the end to be told that they go on past 7. If they do it would be great to have it explained why

7 more cycles mentioned here was unexplained

Might have been saying that somecardiotox seen at C3 dose for this particular patient.

But then elsewhere the message is no cardiotox seen

IMO clarification in this area would have been useful but overall probably of no real signifigance

Could you describe how cardiotox occurs pls JT

MTD for me is bit of a red herring

What I'd like is a clear explanation of how the cumulative cardiotoxicity acrues with various dosing regimes.

As it seems to me that this is the overall limiting factor

FM in Q&A mentioned that C-max is a strong driver