The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
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
Yes I get that - my point re. the share consolidation was in relation to the calculations in your earlier post
Regarding your earlier post, don't forget that Jounce are going to do a 5 for 1 share consolidation taking the no. of Jounce shares in issue down to around 10.3 m.
I have been out and about today and haven't yet had a chance to study the document on Redx's website or listen to the webcast, but to all intents and purposes this is a reverse takeover. At this particular point in time it makes sense for Redx to take this route to a NASDAQ listing. Biotech has been having a tough time and the IPO market is problematical at best, also plenty of bios are in distress, laying off staff etc. Jounce have $150m of cash but a failed pipeline and Redx have a promising pipeline but need cash. Rather than risk an IPO in a poor market, it seems sensible to RTO onto NASDAQ and secure $150m of funding to take the pipeline to natural inflection points.
A couple of points of interest. Firstly that RXC007 will be the top priority for the newly enlarged company meaning that Redx clearly see this as their most promising candidate and also good to see that the CVRs are only valid for 1 year.
Matt,
No problem - that wasn't a loaded question by the way, I was going to DM you there with a little more detail to explain rather than boring everyone here. You've had a lucky escape!
Anyway good to see you posting here and whilst we don't always agree, it's good to be able to debate these things in an amicable and civil way.
corr - my not me
Matt,
All fair comment but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My expectations were just based on me experience with other bios I've been invested in and research I've done for those investments. You'll always find examples of bigger deals, but regarding the comment you quoted from a previous poster with sales expertise:-
'if you have a great proven product you have to be smart enough to know that and sell it for it’s true worth'
That's exactly the point - it's much easier to sell a proven product but despite what you may read elsewhere, Scancell don't have one yet! In fact the licensing deal wasn't even for a product, Genmab still have to create that. It's a new product in a newly emerging field and IMO a good deal to pave the way hopefully for others.
Matt, do you post on advfn?
Matt,
You are absolutely correct that it's totally legitimate to criticise the BOD and hold them to account if you believe that performance isn't up to scratch. I don't fall into the 'Scancell can do no wrong' camp, but I think we have differing opinions on what is fair criticism and perhaps that's just down to expectations. The Genmab upfront payment is a good example - yes I was very happy with it because it was in line with my expectations and the overall size of the deal exceeded my expecations by some margin.
The fact that you think Scancell has never had a big splash sort of demonstrates my point. They have - quite a few in fact but the impact is short lived and quickly forgotten. Here are a few, but there were plenty more.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1278836/Holy-Grail-cancer-vaccine-blasts-tumours-weeks-hailed-huge-leap-fighting-disease.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boffins-in-skin-cancer-success-hmbvx87g2qp
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-cancer-vaccine-technology-patent-granted-scancell-immunobody-scib1-a7808986.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9853221/The-super-universal-vaccine-fight-coronavirus.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/exclusive-universal-vaccine-can-conquer-covid-variants-could/
etc. etc. etc.
Matt,
I agree that communication from Scancell isn't always as good as we'd like, however need to remember that there are strict protocols around the dissemination of clinical trial results and all credible bios will follow that protocol.
The point is that the update yesterday was only from the first scan from 14 patients - it's really very early days and I thought the tone of the RNS was spot on for the stage of development. Highly encouraging, but Scancell will want to see more data and that the response is durable before wasting time and effort on a bit publicity splash. You can only do so many of those and have to pick the optimum time - I don't think that time is now.
Much more interesting (to me anyway) was the immunogenicity data which was light on detail. I wonder whether Scancell are hoping to present the data at one of the major conferences (must be unpublished data)? AACR and ASCO are not too far away and it would be fantastic to see a Moditope abstract accepted for presentation. At this stage, that would really be reaching the people they need to rather than a quickly forgotten splash in the Daily Mail - IMO of course.
A cracking RNS that probably will fall completely under the radar of most.
The pharma industry spend a fortune on post-hoc analysis of clinical trial data and I wonder how many good drugs fail clinical trials and end up on the shelf because they didn't know what to look for? The potential for the PatientSeek platform both to help with design and recruitment for clinical trials and post-hoc analysis will be very attractive commercially.
This is better
https://twitter.com/Bermudashorts2/status/1505624618886914050
Wild,
No problem.
My take from the report was that there are some drugs in mid and late stage trials that are showing real promise and could make it to approval. Hopefully then patients will have real treatment options without having to resort to clinical trials.
So glad your Dad is at home and comfortable and wishing him all the very best.
Wild,
Not sure whether you've already come across this, but evaluate have produced a report on IPF:-
Spotlight – still plenty of hopefuls in lung fibrosis
https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/analysis/spotlight/spotlight-still-plenty-hopefuls-lung-fibrosis
You can download the report from the link (am pretty sure it's free). Hope it's of some help.
Wigwammer,
Of course TD will have taken into account the backing of Redmile etc. and many other factors too, some of which are laid out in the report. Please stop twisting my posts - I have been crystal clear, I don't know what an accurate probablilty of success is for Modi1, but I'm happy to accept that TD probaby know better than me and don't see any problem with the figure they've used. You feel they've got it wrong - if you feel that strongly, you can always ring them and point out where they've gone wrong.
For me, the investment case here is definitely not that Modi1 will hit the market in 2029 and achieve $3.5 billion in peak sales and so the probability of success used by TD is really not that relevant. IMO the investment case is the potential for the current trial to generate positive results which will trigger interest in the company with a corresponding increase in SP and ultimately hopefully a licensing deal. So you see it's perfectly possible to be a positive, long term holder and have no issue with TD's valuation.
By the way, testing of human blood samples in the lab is a standard part of preclincial development, for any new to the sector, it is not the same thing at all as testing in humans.
wigwammer,
I'm sorry, I know I said I wouldn't post again on this subject, but your 7.10 misrepresents the points I was making. I wasn't for one second using RG's words to suggest all products going into the clinic have the same chance of success - if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place!
Has it crossed your mind that without those excellent preclinical results, a company who has no track record of taking products beyond early stage trials, who doesn't yet have the funds to run later stage trials and who is testing a completely novel treatment might have been given a lower than average chance of success? There is no precise and accurate figure that TD can use - positioning Modi1 where they have seems fair enough to me.
Finally, even though I have already explained to you, you have again taken my comment about the underlying message being from Scancell out of context and twisted it. That comment was made in response to criticism about the usefulness of the report and I was simply explaining that it was in fact Scancell presenting their investment case and so the underlying message comes from Scancell.