Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
krafty,
i believe that it was lindy durrant herself who first described tumours melting away. it was definitely regarding modi1 based on the results she had seen in mice in the lab and at the stage where they believed it wouldn't require checkpoint inhibitors.
modi2 is based on a different modification (carbamylation) and incorporates different peptides (****citrullinated aldolase a, immunoglobulin binding protein (bip), cytokeratin 8, vimentin). i know during one presentation lindy mentioned that she thinks modi-2 will be even better than modi-1 and of course it also uses the snapvax tech. so won't have the same manufacturing issues.
Mrbrain
lol I assume your 13.49 was aimed at me.
Perhaps have another read of the post in question and maybe do a little research before posting such nonsense. To help you understand, my post was positive and intended to highlight an aspect of the SCIB1 results that nobody had picked up on at that point in time - ie. the high toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors gives SCIB1 a significant advantage over other potential combination therapies because it doesn't add to that already high toxicity. This is a quote from my post:-
'It's important then that any additional combination drugs don't add to the already high toxicity and this is where SCIB1's benign safety profile really comes into its own'
Bantham,
You asked what sort of Institutional backing Angle has and expressed concern as to whether they would support Angle with future funding rounds. It's impossible to say for certain of course but a reminder that Angle's largest shareholder is Conifer who currently own 7.67% of the Company. They first invested in 2019 when they bought 12m shares and have since contributed to follow on funding rounds and increased their holding to just under 20m shares. They haven't sold a single share and that holding remains unchanged today.
It's worth reading up on Conifer which is run by Greg Alexander - a high profile and highly respected name in the investment community and once named by Warren Buffett as one of his 3 favourite investors. It's encouraging that Greg Alexander and Conifer continue to support Angle by holding long and if past performance is anything to go by then you'd hope they'd continue to support them if required in future funding rounds.
TF
Absolutely and worth remembering that afaik SCIB1 still has orphan drug status in the US which brings a period of market exclusivity following approval. I'm not sure whether Scancell would need to apply again to the FDA for orphan drug designation for iSCIB1+ or whether it would automatically transfer.
Konar,
Well done, will be interesting to find out.
A couple of points in response to discussions this morning:-
1) I agree with miavoce, I'm not sure that administering SCIB1 as a combination therapy has any impact whatsoever on the patent life of Yervoy or Opdivo . Whilst they are both administered as part of a combination therapy, they are still 2 completely different drugs and are administered separately. I don't remember Scancell ever claiming that they could offer CPI developers the chance to extend their patents. It would be different if they decided to reformulate them as one drug or if the CPI's were enhanced with Avidimab. This is one for Lindy to comment on.
2) Naturally the focus seems to be on BMS, but that's missing the much bigger picture. There are so many others developing checkpoint inhibitors. For example, AstraZeneca also have an approved PD-1/CTLA4 combination but there are several companies including some Chinese and they are all looking for ways to stand out from the pack. One way to achieve that is to find the combination therapy that gives them best in class efficacy/safety. . Also the traditional targets for CPIs are PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA4 but there are others which aim to block different pathways and it may be that SCIB1 will be of interest to any bio/pharma operating in the wider field.
Dave,
I think today's RNS is the first and only update issued by Scancell so far.
Study investigators have a duty to prescribe the best possible standard of care therapy for patients and I assume it was very difficult to recruit to the Keytruda/SCIB1 arm of the trial when doublet therapy had become the first line treatment of choice. Although we know that the first patient was recruited towards the end of 2021 I suspect that very, very few patients were recruited prior to the protocol changes announced in June 2022. Pure speculation of course, but it may simply be that there weren't enough evaluable Keytruda/SCIB1 patients to provide meaningful data and of course their results couldn't be included with the doublet therapy arm for data integrity reasons. Good question though and it would be interesting to ask Scancell directly for a definitive answer.
As for the original SCIB1 trial, you're right, it was very successful, but in small patient numbers. The reason for the delays in following on with larger studies are well documented. Am happy to go into detail if you like, but IMO Scancell would have been in a completely different place had they been able to swiftly execute the planned US trial with Keith Flaherty as PI.
Finally, re your issues with consilium. I'm also registered to receive RNS alerts via email but find that it's very patchy. Sometimes I get them and sometimes I don't. Poor show that they are not answering your emails and slightly ironic that a communications specialist isn't communicating with you.
Burble,
It may simple be that the timing of the announcement was primarily driven by the fact that the target for stage 1 of the trial was 9 responders and the 9th responder was the trigger for expansion into stage 2. So even if the remaining stage 1 patients fail to respond, stage 1 has been a success and Scancell have notified the market that the trial has progressed to stage 2 (as they should).
Yesterday's rise was odd and I'm not sure that the RNS announcing the Milan conference can fully explain it - after all that RNS clearly stated that they were presenting prelinical data so there was no reason to expect a trial update at Milan.
Looking further ahead there's the World Vaccine Congress and also ESMO coming up in October. ESMO in particular attracts huge attention and is up there with ASCO/AACR. It will be interesting to see whether they are presenting, but both provide an opportunity to announce further updates with slighly more mature data if they want to.
Finally, an excellent presentation from Lindy, one of the best we've seen but I agree with your comments re. the slide detailing the BioNTech/Moderna products.
This may already have been posted, but in case it hasn't link below is to a new proactive interview with Lindy Durrant discussing today's news
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1026947/scancell-ceo-hails-exciting-high-response-rate-to-melanoma-treatment-1026947.html?viewSource=TwitterUK
Assume full details will be published in a medical journal or presented at a scientific conference in due course, but it's worth remembering that checkpoint inhibitors are associated with side effects. In clinical trials the combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab caused adverse events in 96% of patients and serious adverse events in nearly 60% of them, including some deaths - much, much higher than when either checkpoint is used alone.
It's important then that any additional combination drugs don't add to the already high toxicity and this is where SCIB1's benign safety profile really comes into its own. If efficacy results from the first 11 patients can be replicated in larger numbers without adding to toxicity then Scancell must surely be able to partner with one of the many checkpoint inhibitor developers for future trials.
Ivy ,
Yes dbDNA is different to plasmid DNA in structure. Just to clarify, both dbDNA and plasmids are simply vectors used to carry and transport genetic code. So in Scancell's case whichever vector is used is synthesised to encode for the relevant ImmunoBody peptides and because it's possible to use either, both are referenced on the ImmunoBody patent application.
That's my understanding and hopefully Burble will be along to comment at some stage. I would stress that patents have been the cause of a great deal of confusion and and misunderstanding on this bb in the past, especially so when looking at pending patent applications as claims can change during the examination process and also vary form jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So much care is needed!
Ivy, Sorry for teaching you to suck eggs. I know you are fully aware of all of the above, but some may not be.
Cleanerworld,
There is no connection between Scancell and Touchlight's patent applications other than Scancell have cited the Touchlight patent when applying for the new ImmunoBody patent. It's routine and standard practice for any relevant research or patent applications to be cited either by the applicant or the examiner in a new patent application.
The WIPO system seems to be down at the moment but below is the link to the European patent application for the application in question. If you click on the EP Citations link on the left you'll get a long list of research and patents from many sources which have been cited either by Scancell in the application or in the International Search Report.
So Scancell haven't 'used' Touchlight's patent, they've simply referenced it.
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21769694&lng=en&tab=citations
Cleanerworld,
So your accusation of disingenuous conduct is down to a comment in support of Crumbs and you've even managed to get that wrong. Crumbs has a posting history that goes way back before your appearance on this bb and he has made a real contribution with relevant research and links over many years. It's perfectly understandable that folk didn't agree with his opinions re. the macmillan link but he was entitled to have those opinions and to voice them.
If you go back through my posting history, you'll find plenty of mistakes, wrong calls, hopes raised and hopes dashed. What you won't find are any deliberate lies, encouraging others to buy/sell/hold whilst trading sentiment, posting of links that are completely irrelevant to Scancell whilst trying to suggest otherwise. Posts that don't share your evangelical belief in Scancell are not automatically dishonest or disingenuous - they're simply voicing a different opinion and that's what these bbs should be all about.
Cleanerworld,
Good grief - disingenuous conduct. Please explain with specific examples.
Burble,
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, you may well have hit the nail on the head and the difference is that the update due is for 15 Keytruda only patients and the remaining 28 will be on doublet therapy, but then Lindy Durrant also confirmed in the RNS of 10th July that the results due in Q3 include those on doublet therapy so it's a bit of a mystery.
This is from the latest TD note:-
'Top-line data from the first stage (Cohort 1) of the SCOPE study, examining SCIB1 in combination with doublet therapy, are expected during Q423. This cohort will recruit up to 15 patients ........'
'The second stage will recruit up to a further 28 patients (for a total of up to 43 patients across both stages).................Recruitment is expected to be complete by the end of 2023 with data around three months later'
So that reads that stage 2 with 28 patients is an expansion of cohort 1?
Regarding overall patient numbers, the RNS of 10th July was very careful in its wording, ie. '73% of the required number of patients' . I'm not sure how the trial is powered but required number and planned number might be 2 different figures and as you alluded to in your post, they might refer to different patient populations. Worth noting that originally the trial was due to recruit 44 patients and so the difference between the 43 referred to by TD and the 87 on clinicaltrials.gov might be accounted for by another iSCIB1+ arm?
I guess all will become clear when the AACR-CIMT posters are published which no doubt will include a summary of the trial design.
'
Have finally had time to catch up with the latest Trinity Delta note and am trying to reference back to Scancell's RNS announements and make sense of exactly what we should be expecting in terms of patient numbers and treatment from the trial update due in Q4? I can't find a slide or presentation with details of the trial design and know that there have been some protocol amendments.
Does anyone know what the difference is between cohort 1 and stage 2 in terms of treatment, method of administration etc. or is stage 2 simply an expansion of cohort 1?
Ivy - lol touché
Crumbs - I'm sorry you've taken so much stick, you absolutely don't deserve it and rest assured many here appreciate your posts over the years.
Ahananda- congratulations, you have managed to achieve a new low on this bb with your 8.55 - no mean feat.
Sorry, meant to add thanks to Spursboy for posting as it's good to see positive and encouraging articles regarding cancer vaccines - that wasn't always the case!
Don't have time to check, but am pretty sure the patient in the Mail article was suffering from HPV positive H&N cancer and the Modi trial is in HPV negative patients. So not the same trial.
I would just like to add to AB124's post.
There have been some comments today which seem to be suggesting that Scancell have somehow contributed to this situation through lack of updates. Whilst I understand the frustration, in this instance I think this is unfair and couldn't be further from the truth. It is after all only 8 weeks since a full update was issued via RNS which is a mere blink of an eye in terms of an oncology clinical trial. It's hard to see what else Scancell could be expected to do.
They couldn't and wouldn't issue updates on a patient by patient or scan by scan basis and can't be responsible for posts on the macmillan site. Those posts were all about a cancer sufferer kindly sharing details of her cancer journey in order to help other fellow sufferers. It's important to remember that they were written from an entirely different perspective and for a different audience to this bb. They do however mean that Scancell has lost control over the dissemination of results for this patient and have had no opportunity to add any context, perspective or explanation. That can only come from experts with access to the hard data for all patients - ie. Scancell. Anything else is pure speculation.
Finally I'm sure all here wish Trish the very best of luck with her new treatment. Hopefully the tumour shrinkage she has seen with Modi-1 has put her in the best place possible to enable her to benefit from the new trial.