Member Info for Bermudashorts

The 25 week scan is the timepoint for measurement of best response. As Lindy Durrant confirmed at the AGM, once a patient has shown a partial response at the first or second scan, they will always be classed as a responder and contribute to the overall ORR for the study. When they come to the 25 week scan, even if they have then progressed, they will still be a responder, it simply means that the % of tumour shrinkage will be the best result from a previous scan. So yes, the 25 week scan is important as it's the timepoint for the measurement of best result from baseline but anyone who has previously demonstrated a response remains a responder regardless of the outcome of the 25 week scan.

Sci-inv

No, let's not pretend - just post the link. I don't remember ever commenting on this one so want to hear exactly what your issue is.

For the record, I'm not at all close to anyone at Scancell, least of all Lindy Durrant. However, over the years there have been a few times when I've had a question or needed clarification on something and like many others here have emailed to check facts. I have always found her very responsive as I'm sure you have. If believing her replies makes me a fool then guilty as charged.

Scinv_temp

Your 18.49 - I have no idea what you're talking about, do you have a link to what was actually said?

Your 18.51 - no, absolutely not and what might that be?

Not whispered but stated by LD at the AGM:-

LD -'It's 12 weeks to the first one (scan). The trial is basically structured so that the best response is at 25 weeks, so strictly speaking we should wait for 25 weeks for the final data so we might get better! They get scanned at 12, 19 and 25 weeks'

Question from floor - 'and if at 12 weeks they're 30%?'

LD - ' That's good, I mean it might still get better as some of these responses are still going down but they'll still be a responder.'

As I said, if you disagree and think LD has it wrong then please do take it up with her.

Sci-inv

your 9.43 summarises the situation here very well. As investors we have a choice, we either believe what we are told by Lindy Durrant:-

'Lindy is an internationally recognised immunologist in the field of tumour therapy and co-founder of Scancell. She has worked for over 25 years in translational research, developing products for clinical trials including monoclonal antibodies and cancer vaccines. She has a personal Chair in Cancer Immunotherapy in the Department of Clinical Oncology at the University of Nottingham.'

Or we can believe an anonymous poster on a stock bulletin board who believes Lindy Durrant is a liar. As for myself, I've lost count of the number of times I've stated that I'm no expert in the field and unlike you, nor have I ever claimed to be. Good try though.

By the way, that anonymity does not offer the protection you might think when publicly accusing a CSO/CEO of a company of deliberately misleading shareholders.

Scinv-temp

No, Lindy Durrant confirmed to me that they were banked. If you believe she's wrong and you know better then take it up with her. Your original post claiming that if a responder subeqently progressed at any point until the end of the trial then they would be classed as a non-responder and ORR accordingly reduced is plainly wrong.

Scinv -temp

Yes thanks - have you?

'Scinv_temp

Posted in: SCLP

Posts: 1,268

Price: 9.65

No Opinion

RE: Morning9 Jun 2024 13:34

One note that some here don't seem to take into account. It isn't just the 13 week scans that matrer. All subsequent scans matter. ORR is estimated at every scan and it's not like if we only had those 13 patients (for example) until the end of the trial the ORR would be 85% pepretually. At a subsequent scan, a patient that was previously a responder could have progressed, so the ORR would be lower at that later timepoint. '

I haven't had time yet to listen to the AGM recordings, but just wanted to say a quick thank you to Botski, Miavoce, ee, Burble, jb7070, CW, bobbust for the feedback and in particular Botski and Miavoce for the recordings. Hope I haven't missed anyone.

I'm not sure whether the first Genmab milestone would be payable on clearance of the IND by the FDA or first patient recruited to the phase I trial, but assuming Genmab do go ahead and take SC129 into the clinic, this is what Trinity Delta had to say just a few days ago re. the likely size of the payment:-

'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'

So looks like it will be £2.5m and since TD research is paid for by Scancell you have to assume it's likely to be there or thereabouts. It's not at all unusual for products to be licensed and then after evaluation taken no further and they either sit on a shelf or are handed back. If Genmab do decide to continue to develop SC129. the value to Scancell today isn't so much in the milestone generated but the simple fact that it validates the mAb and the platform which should make for a much easier sell for the rest of the mAbs.

https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/scope-readouts-in-sight-scib1-data-in-q424/

Jb - thanks for that and your earlier post re. Phil L'Huillier - I wondered whether he'd be there.

botski - thanks, interesting re. SC134. Look forward to the recording when you have time.

Ee,

Apart from the NASDAQ comments, were there any other discussions re. funding?

Lofas - were you there then?

Sounds like they've had some postive results from the Modi1+ single checkpoint inhibitor head and neck cancer cohort - ' showing some clinical responses '.

Would still like to know more regarding recruitment to the Modi1 study. Seems we are going to be updated with renal cell double CPI cohort but we really don't know about the others. ie. How many have been recruited to each cohort for each cancer type and how many remain on treatment. Perhaps this was covered in the presentation or in Q&As afterwards.

Chester,

Could just be that they've screened and recruited 40 but only dosed 36 so far ie. 4 patients are awaiting their first dose. Perhaps more likely though, slide 10 from the AGM presentation is exactly the same as slide 11 from the end of year results presentation. So maybe they've just copied across the slide without updating it.

Chelsea

I'm sure you're right (it wasn't a serious suggestion).

More claims that BMS are the only ones developing an anti fucosyl GM1 mAb. Perhaps Scancell should let them know about SC134.

'Perhaps one factor driving Bristol’s enthusiasm is BMS-986012’s uniqueness: OncologyPipeline reveals no other fucosyl-GM1-directed projects in development.'

https://www.oncologypipeline.com/apexonco/wing-and-prayer-bristol-takes-gm1-pivotal

Calculus appear to have notified Scancell promptly - Date on which issuer (Scancell) notified - 30/08/2024. So assume it's just an oversight and as you point out on advfn probably picked up when tidying up loose ends for AGM.

Date on which the threshold was crossed 28/08/2024

Date on which issuer notified 30/08/2024

Why has RNS only been issued today?

Johnny - let's hope you're right. I'm sure Lindy would very much like to present new clinical updates at her final AGM as CEO.

The video below (about1.35 in) is a good introduction into how Scancell's new CEO likes to operate. Time will tell, but he looks like a good catch and Scancell have done well to attract him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpIci6JMtbo