Member Info for Bermudashorts

Good find Johnny, thanks for sharing.

CW, no Scancell doesn't use lentiviral vectors and nor are EsoBiotec developing combination therapies so won't be administered with standard of care. Scinv_temp is right, there is virtually no connection between Esobiotec's field of operation and Scancell's. So it's not a question of Scancell being ahead of the game - they're just playing competely different games.

The relevance for Scancell holders IMO is simply that at a time when biotech sentiment both here and in the US is so low, it's great to see some positive news, some deal activity and proof that if you get it right there are still some great success stories out there.

Re. EsoBiotec, if it. works (and early results look very promising) then their platform could transform CAR-T therapy in terms of cost, timescales and most importantly the patient experience. They've done incredibly well to get to this stage and secure the deal with AZN having raised only 22m euros. Good for them and good to see some M&A activity in the sector. Worth noting that the comment in the RNS comes from Astra's VP of Oncology Haematology R&D so assume the primary attraction for them is in blood cancers.

Regarding the finanacials, even though it's a clinical stage company the deal is fairly heavily back end loaded as it looks like over half of the total is going to be in CVRs although trigger points not detailed. Still a great return for their investors.

TF,

Your comments re. Prof. Sahin are a little harsh IMO. His opinion did lead to tangible results for Scancell. Firstly he jointly led the CRUK Grand Challenge team with Lindy Durrant to develop Modi3 and more importantly it resulted in a collaboration agreement to develop Modi1 TCRs. So he clearly was an admirer of Scancell's tech and was prepared to back that with resources (time and $$). Both of these were excellent opportunities for Scancell and the fact that Scancell couldn't capitalise on them and they didn't come off is not because Sahin didn't invent Moditope or any NIH blindspot as you describe it.

Had the collaboration produced viable TCRs then I'm sure BioNTech would have gone ahead and licensed them but we know that results showed they need to isolate TCRs from patients who respond to Modi1 in clinical trials so perhaps they'll revisit that one as and when. As far as the rest of Scancell's pipeline is concerned, BioNTech have firmly nailed their colours to the mRNA personalised vax space so it's hard to see a strategic fit there.

The other point I would make is that BioNTech and Genmab have very close links and have collaborated for many years. We'll never know whether Sahin's backing had any impact on Genmab's decision to sign two licensing deals with Scancell but it certainly won't have done any harm.

Cleanerworld,

Interesting, some valid points showing that AI can be a useful tool for researching stocks.

Having said that , I'm surprised the comments regarding Ultimovacs UV1 vax fail to include any mention of their phase II trial for UV1 as a first line therapy in combination with doublet Ipi and Nivo in advanced melanoma - exactly the same setting as the SCOPE study. Ultimovacs announced at ASCO last year that in a randomised study the UV1 combination arm didn't lead to any significant improvement in progression free survival, objective response rates or overall survival over the doublet therapy alone. Whilst the trial is ongoing, the conclusion was that:-

'UV1 did not improve on outcomes of IPI-NIVO, in terms of PFS. Longer follow-up is required for the accurate assessment of OS'

To date, the SCOPE study has produced significantly higher ORR and PFS although to be fair we don't yet have 12 month PFS figures.

By the way, I haven't looked at NeoVax but am pretty sure the 95% response rate quoted refers to the immune response ie. percentage of patients generating epitope specific T cell responses to the vax and not the percentatge showing an objective response rate (tumour shrinkage). Others may know for certain.

Thanks for that. I misunderstood your 18.37,. I thought you were saying that Burble had sent an email to Scancell and been sent the poster so I was looking for a post from him with his comments. Now I understand that you were telling Burble that you had sent the email.

Cleanerworld,

Can't see where that's come from - has he posted it somewhere? If so any chance of a link?

Burble,

I've never had any success with the contact function, not sure whether anyone else has but I suspect it's either not working or not being monitored. I wish they'd sort it out.

Anyway the email address is the name of the person (from memory with first and last name initials in capitals) followed by @scancell.co.uk.

They are.

Thanks for that Bibio. Just the sort of conference that Angle should be exhibiting at, particularly to highlight their HER2 and PD-L1 assays, both of which of course are targets for ADCs.

Scancell currently don't need to raise funds and the CLN redemption dates are at least 2 and a half years away from memory so it's hard to see why they would consider delisting at this stage.

Worth remembering that in order to delist they'd need a minimum of 75% of shareholders voting in favour of a special resolution. Redmile currently hold 28% and even if they converted all outstanding CLNs I think they'd still only be at around 38% to 39%. It's by no means a given that they'd get approval and the vote from retail investors could be critical.

For sure, they'd want to be absolutely certain they had sufficient backing beforehand as they wouldn't want to risk a very damaging defeat if put to the vote.

It was a completely different story at Redx where Redmile owned over 70% of the Company and were operating in tandem with Sofinnova who owned another 13% and that was before conversion of any CLNs. Similarly with C4X, 3 major shareholders took them much closer to that 75% figure and they clearly knew in advance they had the backing to get across the line.

Biotech valuations in general are poor, both here and in the US, M&A activity and the IPO market has been dire and the vast majority of those listing on NASDAQ over last 2 or 3 years are currently trading way below their IPO valuations. Timelines here are clearly defined and IMO we are seeing typical bio drift exacerbated by poor sentiment in the biotech sector as a whole. These things tend to by cyclical and decent biotechs will bide their time. Others (and I'm sure we can all think of examples) may struggle.

Thanks for your insights Burble.

The abstracts were published over the weekend (see link below) and as expected it seems that Scancell's poster will be very much focused on specific T Cell responses to SCIB1 all helping to build the evidence that SCIB1 has contributed to the clinical benefit experienced to date by SCOPE study patients. Interesting to note that they've isolated SCIB1 specific CD8 TCRs from 3 patients:-

'we have successfully shown that six isolated CD8 TCRs react specifically to the TRP-2 or gp100 epitopes incorporated into SCIB1.................Bulk TCR repertoire sequencing revealed that, in two out of three patients, the isolated SCIB1 specific TCRs were undetectable in peripheral CD8 T cells collected from pre-vaccination samples. The same TCRs were detectable in the post-vaccination CD8 TCR repertoire.'

'Conclusions: SCIB1 in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab consistently induced functional CD4 and CD8 T cell responses, with demonstratable vaccine induced expansion of SCIB1 specific TCR clonotypes'

https://aacrjournals.org/cancerimmunolres/article/13/2_Supplement/B119/751531/Abstract-B119-A-DNA-plasmid-melanoma-cancer?searchresult=1

Chelsea,

Truly sorry to read Rats' post and hope you are getting the care you need and deserve. As you can tell from the many posts today, the whole board is thinking of you. Adding my very best wishes to all the others heading your way.

Burble - posts crossed

BOJO,

I'm sure they don't 'need' to present data at this conference but it seems like a reasonable thing to do. This isn't the main AACR Annual Meeting mentioned in an earlier post, it's a brand new AACR conference and abstracts had to be submitted back in November 2024. I assume the poster will detail T cell responses from the 25 patients included in the RNS SCOPE update last November.

OK it's not a keynote speech at ASCO but it seems like a good opportunity for one of Scancell's younger scientists to attend and present at an AACR conference - good to take the opportunity to highlight Scancell's work and good for his career development.

'B119 A DNA plasmid melanoma cancer vaccine, SCIB1, combined with nivolumab + ipilimumab

induces functional CD4 and CD8 T cell responses in patients with advanced unresectable

melanoma. Joseph Chadwick. Scancell Ltd, Oxford United Kingdom. '

https://www.aacr.org/meeting/aacr-io-discovery-and-innovation-in-cancer-immunology-revolutionizing-treatment-through-immunotherapy/

CW

The extra 4th cohort will receive iSCIB1+ via intradermal injection which is different from subcutaneous so whilst it's good to see the PD-1's moving away from administration via IV infusion, it's hard to see that being a factor in Scancell's decision to run an extra cohort.

None of the figures on marketscreener are correct so think we have to be a bit careful. We know Hygea (Seneca since 2018) sold some between June and Sep 2024 so their holdings are definitely wrong as are both Vulpes' and Redmile's. The fact that Sally Adams is listed at all suggests they're picking up data from about a year ago at best. It would be really odd for them to report accurate figures for Calculus but outdated information for all the rest. It could be that they're just reporting on one of the Calculus funds holding SCLP?

Worth noting that the FT show Axa holding just over 19m shares (1.84%). I don't recall seeing any mention of Axa before, perhaps they were one of the new funds brought on board in the last raise.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=SCLP:LSE

It's years since I've reported a post so definitely not the one resposible for removal of yours.

Re. Your 10.16, if you listen to the whole of the answer to the question in the video, they go into about as much detail as is is appropriate for the setting IMO - a Q&A session at the end of the AGM. It's absolutely clear that they need to see the results from the SCOPE study for both vaccines and both PharmaJet devices and then make a decision.

You've stated that SCIB1's patent has expired (false), didn't mention that a new patent had been filed even though you knew it had, that the new patent will be useless, that iSCIB1+ cohort 4 is last chance saloon, that the FDA would accept an equivalence safety study for a generic SCIB1 and that Scancell should take what you believe to be an off patent SCIB1 forwards to take advantage of 7 years market exclusivity in the US whilst anyone could copy it in the rest of the world.

I've said that we have no idea how iSCIB1+ is performing, that Scancell believe their IP is fully protected and that it makes no commercial sense whatsoever to me to take an off patent drug forward in the US to take advantage of ODD.........but you're the expert and I'm just being malevolent.

Sci

Thanks for your 9.29 - well most of it anyway:)

Good to hear again that they will take the best product forward. They clearly believe all options are open which suggests confidence in the IP postition. Time will tell whether you're right.