Member Info for Bermudashorts

I guess we now know why there's been no media today.

At least the uncertaintly around funding has been removed and the new CEO will have breathing space to find his feet and have an impact, but it's disappointing that having told us that they had sufficient cash to go beyond upcoming clinical milestones they are now raising ahead of them. Once again shareholders paying the price for missed timescales.

Assume we'll get an RNS tomorrow confirming the outcome.

Konar,

Not sure it's a case of Genmab taking advantage, it's simply a reflection of the stage of development and the costs and risks involved. You mentioned Profoundbio but their portfolio included a phase 3 ready ADC with FDA fast track designation and cracking phase 2 results for a proven target. The FDA have already approved one FRα targeting ADC (Abbvie's Elahere) and Eisai, BMS and others are also developing ADCs chasing the same target. It just shows the sort of valuations these 'me too' hot targets can generate.

Scancell have just licensed the mAb and Genmab have to spend time and resources developing a product before they can even contemplate clinical trials so there's a long way to go and glycans have yet to come of age as a target. That is all reflected in the valuation.

I posted elsewhere this morning that the ADC market is becoming crowded and antibody devlopers like Genmab are going to need novel targets to stand out from that crowd. I'm sure that's partly why they are so interested in Scancell's Glymabs. They certainly have the expertise, resources and experience to successfully develop both mAbs and who knows, perhaps they'll start a glycan me too trend?

...........and this seems to be confirmed here in latest from Proactive:-

'Analysts estimate an upfront payment of around $5 million, alongside milestone payments tied to development, regulatory, and commercial achievements'

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1062113/scancell-s-latest-deal-is-only-part-of-the-story-for-this-ambitious-cancer-vaccine-specialist-1062113.html?viewSource=TwitterUK

TF

Trinity Delta suggest in their note today that it is similar to the first deal (ie. $6m)

https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/genmab-strikes-second-glymab-deal/

Matt,

From Trinity Delta in October:-

' For FY25e we include c £3.3m of milestone income, which consists of: (1) the already received $1m/£0.8m non-returnable payment from an unnamed international biotech company to evaluate a second GlyMab antibody (June 2024 Lighthouse); and (2) assumed milestone(s) of $3m/£2.5m from partner Genmab, with SC129 on track to enter the clinic in the near-term, which we believe may trigger milestone(s). '

TF

Correct, the first Genmab deal was for $6m upfront which equated to approx. £5.3m and given Lindy's comments you'd have to assume that this second deal will bring in at least a similar amount. I'm not sure whether the $1m already received would be considered part of the overall amount. The interims are due in January and that will give us a much clearer picture regarding cash and ongoing funding needs.

In the short to medium term this deal is not going to meet all of Scancell's funding requirements, but that's not the point. The significance of today's RNS is that it validates the platform and Scancell's ability to innovate and create IP that is commercially attractive. Genmab is purely an antibody company, it's all they do and they are acknowledged as leaders in the field. The fact they have now parted with hard cash to license a second mAb is a great endorsement for the GlyMab platform and Scancell themselves.

Excellent news.

VanVan,

You're correct, Scancell aren't currently running any prostate cancer trials. The reason it's mentioned in the paper is that they've found that prostate cancer tumours express the target antigens for Modi-2 and so it may be a suitable candidate for future development, along with breast colorectal and lung cancer.

Thanks TF

new peer reviewed research from scancell published yesterday in nature:-

modi-2 a vaccine stimulating cd4 responses to ****citrullinated self epitopes as therapy for solid cancers

'we demonstrate that human lung, colorectal, breast and prostate tumours express the modi-2 target antigens and propose the modi-2 vaccine has potential for translation into clinic in several cancer indications.'

https://rdcu.be/d1kcz

TF

That link is to a poster presented earlier in the year in May at the CIMT conference in Mainz. It features SC129 which has been licensed to Genmab for development as an ADC or TCB, but from memory the deal excluded cell therapies. Scancell have clearly been carrying out preclinical development of SC129 to demonstrate its utility as a CAR T and I suspect this is with a view to attracting a further licensing activity for SC129.

The conclusions say it all really with the usual caveat of 'in mice'-

CONCLUSIONS

• Sialyl-di-Lewisa , expressed on many cancer cell types, is a good target for CAR T cell therapy

• 129 CAR T cells are activated by Sialyl-di-Lewisa expressing cancer cell lines

• 129 CAR T cells are associated with a strong anti-tumour effect in vivo in NSG mice

• 129 CAR T cells persist and retain function 50+ days following infusion

Anti-Sialyl-di-Lewisa CAR T cells can induce a strong anti-tumour response

OT but wonderful press release from bridgebio yesterday:-

'Attruby™ approved by FDA to Reduce Cardiovascular Death and Cardiovascular-related Hospitalization in ATTR-CM Patients'

then

'To honor the courage of our U.S. clinical trial participants, BridgeBio will provide these patients Attruby free for life'

Great to see a company recognise the contribution of clinical trial patients in this way - good for them.

'

I know it's frustrating and this won't be popular but this update absolutely wasn't the one to choose for a big PR drive. It was simply a trial update and the message was that these results are looking really promising but we're not there yet. Small bios only get so many chances for a big splash and they have to choose their timing carefully - better to wait until they are there IMO

Rats,

Consolidations can be associated with companies in financial trouble and Valirx is a good example of that. You can't issue shares at below the nominal value and their share price was dangerously close and might even have dipped below the nominal value. This left them unable to raise funds and they had no choice, they were forced to consolidate thereby raising the SP above nominal value and allowing them to continue with another round of funding. If companies have carried out multiple consolidations as Valirx have then that's clearly a concern.

Scancell obviously don't fall into that category so won't be forced down that road but equally I can see a case for consolidation. When handled correctly and if the underlying fundamentals are good it's not necessarily a bad thing but will only take place as part of a bigger funding event. IMO only of course.

Johnny

The British Business Bank used to own shares in Scancell and may well still hold them. The Aspire Fund was set up to support female entrepreneurs by making equity investments into their businesses. It was owned and funded by the UK Gov. via the old Capital for Enterprise Dept. which later became part of the British Business Bank . They invested in Scancell back in 2010 and held 4.6m shares (after the share split). Their holding has been listed on the share register under various names over the years including The Secretary of State for Business and Innovation, names of the individual trustees of the bank, Capital for Enterprise etc. I haven't checked for a long while whether they're still holding but if anyone ever looks at the share register and notices a holding of 4.6m belonging to a government connected body then this is what they arre.

CW - thanks, that's the one

Ee

There is a photo somewhere of a breakfast reception at 10 Downing Street with Boris Johnson and BioNTech which was discussed at the time here - it was an odd thing to happen, why would BioNTech be attending breakfast meeting at Downing Street? Some months later the UK's collaboration with BioNTech was announced and that meeting suddenly made much more sense. Your post reminded me of this photo - the 'inner circle' in the line up was very interesting. Wish I could find it but from memory there was Paul Nurse, head of Francis Crick Institute and Robin Shattock from Imperial. I don't remember whether Patrick Vallance was there or not, but members of the life sciences 'establishement' clearly were backing this deal.

Another really useful and informative post Burble - thanks.

Have to admit that I still find the UK's decision to back mRNA cancer vaccines so heavily utterly baffling. It wouldn't be so bad if was a similar situation to the Covid vax and they selected a basket of different vaccines - but to seemingly go all in with tax payers cash on such early stage and still unproven tech with all the drawbacks you have highlighted is hard to understand - particularly as they're not even being developed by UK companies.

Meant to add goodbye and good luck to you too (genuinely)

Scinv-temp

Just a couple of points in response to your earlier post.

FWIW I think you're probably right about Orphan Drug Designation but haven't checked. Worth noting that SCIB1 qualified for ODD only in the US and not Europe as it met FDA criteria on patient nos. but not the EMA's.

Your point about patents though isn't quite right. We know that iSCIB1+ is covered by a new patent application but I think that you've missed the fact that Scancell have also filed a new application for SCIB1 in combination with double checkpoints. So all options open - they can go with whichever produces the best results without any concerns re. IP.