Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
GIVEMESUNSHINE,
Not sure whether this is just an issue with internet communication or there is some misunderstanding regarding patient recruitment to various cohorts. If a patient is recruited into cohort 1, 2 or 3, they will forever belong to that cohort, no matter how the trial progresses. So cohort 1 patients will always be cohort 1 and won't migrate to cohort 2. Similarly, cohort 2 patients will always be cohort 2 and won't migrate to the expansion arm of the trial.
I wonder if you're referring to the possibility of cohort 1 patients being switched from Modi-1v to Modi-1 ? I'm not 100% certain, but believe that would be subject to MHRA approval and it'll be interesting to see whether Scancell have already applied for that or not.
The Redx pharma Redmile CLNs which were due to be redeemed this summer had a one year extension clause - not sure whether that option was also incorporated into the Redmile/Scancell agreement.
WW
Last post on the subject. Please read back, I challenged your suggestion that TD should have reflected the DTH results in their valuation. We completely disagree on that point and that's fine. Judging from your responses, you clearly think that I am one of the posters mentioned by rats who have belittled the DTH results. I'm sorry you feel that.
Regarding TD, your comment that TD have given Moditope an 87.5% chance of failure is not correct, moreover it could potentially deter anyone new to Scancell and if that's what you believe then no wonder you're so wound up. The probability of success figure used in TD's valuation is simply the probability of Modi1 meeting all of the assumptions in their valuation -ie. a marketing launch date of 2029 and $3.5 b in peak sales etc. They are not saying at all that it has an 87.5% chance of failure, but that it has an 87.5% chance of failing to meet their assumptions and there's a huge difference between the two. Given that we only have results from 14 patients after just 2 doses and nobody yet knows the optimum setting for Modi1 or even which cancers then how can they possibly be more confident at this very early stage of the sales figures or launch date?
WW -
As I say, that has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion, but thanks for the advice.
rats - If you read my post you'll see that I did indeed ask the other seven posters who had recommended your post. Please understand that my post isn't intended to provoke an argument, I genuinely want to understand why others believe that anyone posting here has belittled the DTH results. Of course I may have missed something, but the most negative post I've seen is agreeing that it's highly encouraging - hardly belittling.
WW - I have no idea why you keep bringing up the TD note yet again, it has nothing to do with the points we're discussing.
Ivy,
Would be good if the accusation that the DTH response has been talked down as a sideshow by some contributors could be explained either by rats or the 7 posters who recommended his post. If you feel some have talked it down, let's discuss the posts and why you feel they are talking down the DTH responses. You never know, you might find that the posts in question have been misinterpreted or were unclear.
rats,
Who are you referring to - who is talking it down?
The SCIB1 trial record has been updated today - Royal Free London added as a study centre but not yet recruiting and Plymouth now open for recruitment.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=scancell&draw=2&rank=3
TF - Sorry, I'm not with you, the article posted back in January was in the BMJ. I expect it appeared online ahead of print.
Matt - yes of course the BMJ is not aimed at investors. I sense your frustration and honestly, I do get it, but as you've alluded to in your last post, the sort of reaction and coverage you're talking about for Moditope will only come with more mature clinical trial results or the announcement of a deal. In terms of potential for the next news, I think/hope another glycan mAb deal.
TF
Not that it matters, but the article was posted and discussed on this board back on 6th January which was also the date of the tweet I linked to in my post yesterday. Probably a lesson to be learned somewhere in all this - perhaps that articles are quickly forgotten and the impact short lived and you can just redistribute every few months and it still has a positive impact!
Crumbs - yes some nice coverage there for Scancell. A link directly to the article in my tweet below
https://twitter.com/Bermudashorts2/status/1611414279923589120
Matt - I think they serve a purpose and have often been a useful reference point
Matt -
Sorry I have no idea of the cost or whether Scancell commission each individual report or whether there's some form of contractual agreement to produce X number of reports a year or cover certain events.
Ivy,
I don't understand the criticism aimed at Trinity Delta and I guess it all goes back to expectations. Scancell have commissioned TD to present their investment case and I think they do a pretty good job of explaining complex science, providing an overview of the finances (although this is rarely discussed) and where Scancell's products sit in the wider field. Of course the valuation for any early stage biotech is not going to be precise - but the trend is worth keeping an eye on.
It's never going to be on a par with analysis coming from a top life sciences specialist, but it's not trying to be anything other than what it is - a useful document and good reference point and sadly necessary due to lack of any coverage from independent analysts.
Of course - it's highly encouraging. BUT you mentioned TD reflecting the significance in the valuation model and my post related purely to that comment. What is the significance to the valuation? I'm struggling to see how without knowing exactly how DTH translates to clinical benefit and in what percentage of patients and how Scancell's responses stack up against that benchmark, they could possibly adjust the valuation.
WW - how do they estimate the significance in the valuation model? Are there any trials/studies which demonstrate the percentage of oncology patients with DTH that go on to demonstrate an objective response from a cancer vaccine? If yes, then how does Modi1 compare with those studies - so far 100% of Modi1 patients with DTH and 50% of patients assessed have shown an OR? It's clinical efficacy and safety that will shift possibilities of success, encouraging signs are great but they need to translate into clinical benefit.
GIVMESUNSHINE
Sorry, I don't quite understand your 13.47.
RNS of 16th August confirmed there were 3 patients in cohort 1
RNS of 31st October confirmed there were 3 patients in cohort 2
RNS of 21st February detailed responses of the first 14 patients to be evaluated.
So 6 of the 14 patients were from cohorts 1 and 2 and the other 8 must either be from cohort 3 (combination arm) or the expansion phase of the monotherapy arms. It's highly unlikely that Scancell would need to recruit 8 patients to cohort 3. In addition, the majority dosed so far are ovarian cancer patients and of course there is no combination arm for ovarian cancer - it's monotherapy only. All this suggests that the first 6 of the 14 patients were cohorts 1 and 2 and the majority of the rest were from the expansion phase of the monotherapy trial.
.............or the fact that the Modi1 has cleared 2 safety hurdles in the clinic and the trial now has a confirmed partial response and several patients with stable disease.
Max,
It would be unreasonable (IMO) to expect Scancell to explain in detail their clinical trial design, protocol and endpoints and even more so to explain why they haven't selected certain endpoints - where do they stop? An outline explaining the aims and design of the trial should be sufficient for the average investor. We have to trust that Scancell have optimised the trial design and chosen the most appropriate endpoints to achieve the goals they have clearly set out.
Max, what are the unknowns needing clarification? There may be some on here or advfn who can help explain, otherwise an email to Scancell is always an option if it's important.
There were just 3 patients each in the first 2 cohorts, so out of the 14 patients evaluated to date, 6 were from the cohorts 1 and 2. The rest will either be from the monotherapy expansion arms or the combination cohort 3 safety group. I don't know, but suspect the bulk (if not all) of them were monotherapy expansion patients.
ShearClass - exactly, which is why I referenced your earlier post when you were calculating the likely shares in issue