Member Info for Bermudashorts

So you're saying for the SCOPE study, patients must demonstrate a continued partial/complete response for 2 years in order to count as having demonstrated an objective response?

So just for clarity - if we take the stage 1 patients as an example. Scancell have announced 11 responders which gives an ORR of 85%. These 11 patients have already met the RECIST 1.1 criteria ie. a 30% reduction in target lesions for a partial response and 100% for complete response. Assuming Scancell recruit no further patients and at the next scan 2 of the responders have progressed, are you saying the ORR reduces to 70% (9/13) ?

Scinv_temp

From your 13.34:-

'At a subsequent scan, a patient that was previously a responder could have progressed, so the ORR would be lower at that later timepoint'

Surely once a patient has demonstrated an objective response they will forever be classed as a responder. Even if they progress at subsequent scans they have met the criteria for an objective response and it's the duration of response and progression free survival results that are affected, but not ORR. So ORR can only go down if newly recruited patients don't respond to treatment.

CW

Just to add some context re. Lindy's connection to this company. The founder and CEO of MymAb is Prof. Chua Jia Xin who studied under Lindy at Nottingham and completed her PhD working on anti-glycan mAbs (subsequently licensed by Scancell I believe). She then went on to work for Scancell for 2 years before setting up MymAb in Malaysia.

Good to see the successful career progression of ex-students/employees and that Lindy continues to offer support.

Chelsea,

Am truly sorry to hear of your ongoing suffering and wishing you all the very best.

Morning all,

Quick post before getting out and enjoying the sunshine.

Firstly just wanted to say thanks to Violindog for the insight into how thing operate on the ground from within the NHS - interesting and am sure appreciated by all.

Secondly, there have been quite a few posts regarding patients's choices and whether or not they follow their oncologist's recommendations when it comes to joining a clinical trial. I haven't time to read back over all of them but just for clarity, there is no competition for patients between the personalised vaccines and the SCOPE trial when it comes to recruitment. The trials are being carried out in different settings and recruiting from different patient populations.

I believe Scancell were due to open extra trial centres in April which willl hopefully help speed up recruitment. Also worth noting the recent open day held by Scancell for the SCOPE study investigators which will help to keep investigators engaged.

Ruck - just for clarity, stage 2 of the SCOPE trial is due to recruit up to 27 patients, the figure of 43 is for the whole trial (stages 1 and 2 combined)

Burble - spot on as always. Regarding the glycan mAbs, it has always been the strategy for Scancell to keep SC134 in house for now and to run a phase 1 trial as a TCB. Last year when they carried out their pipeline review they decided to focus purely on Modi1 and SCIB1 and both SC134 and Modi2 were put on hold until funds are available to develop further. However there are still other glycan mAbs (SC2811, SC88 and SC27) which are available for licensing. Previously Lindy has said that potential partners were fighting over exclusivity - what happened to those discussions?

Konar and ray are both excellent posters and I respect their opinion.

This is what I actually posted this morning and I'm wondering why it triggered such a reaction from you?

'Having said that, I'm not suggesting for one second that they'll be presenting full results for the SCOPE study, it's too early but they may present updated data from more patients.'

Good grief - on one board I'm slated for being risk adverse and negative and here I'm pumping SCLP. The reality of course is like most here, I simply post as I see it at any given point in time.

Burble - thanks for the kind words, much appreciated and ditto.

'Scancell will be presenting a poster highlighting data from its open-label Phase 2 SCOPE trial, investigating its cancer vaccine, SCIB1, in combination with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in advanced melanoma. Exceptional results from the first 13 patients receiving SCIB1 have already been demonstrated, with an objective response rate of 85%.'

Scinv-_temp

The biggest oncology conference on the planet - hard to think of a better place to do it!

Having said that, I'm not suggesting for one second that they'll be presenting full results for the SCOPE study, it's too early but they may present updated data from more patients.

ASCO abstracts have been published today including this from Scancell - to be presented by study investigator Dr Heather Shaw.

A DNA plasmid melanoma cancer vaccine, SCIB1, combined with nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the open-label phase 2 SCOPE trial.

Think the submission deadline for the abstract was February but will be interesting to see whether the poster has any updated results.

Click on title for full abstract

https://meetings.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/search?query=*&q=durrant&sortBy=Relevancy&filters=%7B%22meetingTypeName%22:%5B%7B%22key%22:%22ASCO%20Annual%20Meeting%22%7D%5D,%22meetingYear%22:%5B%7B%22key%22:2024%7D%5D,%22mediaType%22:%5B%7B%22key%22:%22Abstracts%22%7D%5D%7D&intcmp=cc_ascoorg_am_view-abstracts_site_meeting-carousel_all__glob_042424_052324_carousel_viewtitles_aware_text_view-abstracts

Corr:-

'a joint Scancell/Vaccitech (now Barinthus Biotherapeutics) poster which was presented'

Ray,

That's my understanding too. Link below is to a joint Scancell/Vaccitech (now Barinthus Biotherapeutics) whic was presented at CICON23 in Milan last September.

'SNAPvax formulation links TLR7/8 adjuvant to peptide to ensure co-delivery to APCs.'

'Modi-2 peptides can be formulated with SNAPvax technology enabling improved solubility and GMP manufacture and Modi-2 SNAPvax mediates strong immune responses and tumour therapy in mouse models'

https://scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/posters/2023/modi2-poster-25-sep-2023.pdf

Dracula/Violindog

Scancell is primarily a cancer vaccine developer and their most valuable assets by a country mile are ImmunoBody and Moditope. On the other hand Genmab only develop antibody therapies so if they bought Scancell the bulk of the cost to them woud be to acquire vaccines that don't fit in with their business model or strategy. I can't see why they would do that when they can just license whatever glycan mAbs they're interested in from Scancell.

Pure speculation of course but IMO the most likely candidate for a takeover here would be one of the checkpoint inhibitor developers and probably one who isn't going down the mRNA route. When we talk about CPIs we tend to just think of Merck and BMS and anti PD-1 and CTLA4, but there's also PD-L1, LAG3 etc. and many other developers (including several Chinese pharma/bios).

No worries Burble - thanks for tying anyway.

While it's quiet, the abstract below caught my eye:-

'It's been long thought that CD8+ cytotoxic T cells play a major role in T cell-mediated antitumor responses, whereas CD4+ T cells merely provide some assistance to CD8+ T cells as the “helpers.” In recent years, numerous studies support the notion that CD4+ T cells play an indispensable role in antitumor responses. .....................................................................These new insights on CD4+ T cells may pave the way to further optimize cancer immunotherapy.'

Frustratingly I can't access the full paper but am pretty sure Scancell's research is cited.

Burble/Ivy - you probably have access so may be of interest to you.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mc.23730

The discussions Scancell will be having on the glycan mAbs are a world away from those VAL will be having with potential clients for their new lab venture. Scancell have developed their own IP and created these novel and innovative mAbs. They will be handing over full data sets under NDA to potential partners who are then spending research $$$ fully evaluating them in the preclinical setting and where appropriate creating their own ADCs to understand how they will perform with their own drugs. Should they go ahead and license the contracts will potentially be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Contrast with discussions VAL will be having selling routine assays.

I honestly believe that if Lindy adopted a VAL style of communication, it may temporarily please some retail shareholders but would severely damage credibility with those who matter most to Scancell's future and who ultimately will drive shareholder value here.

Scinv_Temp, BOJO - You're not the first to have issues with replies to emails. Not sure how you sent your mail, but they seem to have a particular problem with the 'contact us' link on their website and it may simply be a question of nobody picking up your messages rather than a deliberate decision to ignore them. It's something they need to address (along with a couple of other issues with their website).

ee - why/how would issuing positive clinical trial updates prejudice commercial discussions?

Almas,

Thanks for that.

If nothing else it would be good to at least get a clear picture on how recruitment is going across the board but particularly for Modi1 - which cohorts are still recruiting and how many recruited so far. If you have the time I'd be interested to hear any feedback or comments from you on the presentation and I'm sure others would appreciate it too. No problems though if it's not possible.