Member Info for Bermudashorts

Chester,

I hadn't heard that but certainly ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) is going from strength to strength with record number of attendees last year in Berlin (37,000).

Chester,

The one to look out for and the one they attended last year was the AACR annual meeting which is held in April every year. The 3 biggest scientific conferences to watch for are AACR and ASCO annual meetings in April and early June and ESMO annual congress in October. All 3 attract tens of thousands of attendees and a huge amount of media coverage.

https://www.aacr.org/meeting/aacr-annual-meeting-2026/

Ciaskin,

Trinity Delta have first milestone as $3m, currently around £2.2m depending on exchange rates. Given that this is research paid for by Scancell I think we can assume that it will be around that figure. You'd expect the size of milestones to increase as development progresses and SC129 or SC2811 advances through further clinical trials.

TD's note on the interims is below:-

https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/h126-solid-iscib1-data-underpins-planned-progress/

Chester,

Following on from your comments yesterday, note that the word 'vaccine' doesn't appear in the RNS. Good to see IND cleared and looking forward to finding out more about trial design, particularly around total number of patients and trigger point for the interim review. Perhaps they'll reveal more with the interims.

Yes good call Chelsea

Ray,

Yes - presentation below gives much more detail and states:-

'SC134 compares favourably to BMS mAb'

https://scancell.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/pegs2023_fin-003.pdf

Marcus,

Worth keeping an eye on Bristol Myers' BMS-986012/BMS-986489, currently in phase 3 in combination with Nivo + chamo in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer. Have a look at how many trial centres BMS are running for this study - around 180 locations in over 20 countries so they're certainly spending $$$$$$ which should be reflected in speed of recruitment. Any positive updates will bode well for SC134. AFAIK BMS-986012 is the only other drug in development targeting fucosyl-GM1.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06646276?term=BMS-986012&aggFilters=phase:3&rank=1

Marcus/Pete

Let's hope that we're seeing the result of some one to ones at JPM rather than a rise driven by retail investors.

Ray,

Yes thaat would be transformational !

Phoenix,

Gosh I hope so, but for me the transformational inflection points that should lead to a complete and sustained re-rate of Scancell's market cap are clinical trial results, deals/partnerships or even funding. The act of obtaining clearance to run a clinical trial is a product of the SCOPE results and part of the preparations to run the phase 3. The Company have published phase 2 results and told us that they have had successful pre IND meetings with the FDA and there is no reason to doubt that the IND will be cleared. They have also told us about the intended trial design.

Chelsea,

Anything is possible and I'm sure they're also well on the way when it comes to selecting investigators and trial centres as well as the CRO. Am very much looking forward to finding out more on that front, especially who will be principal investigator.

Phoenixs,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm not underplaying how important clearance of the IND is to Scancell in any way - obviously they can't run the phase 3 without regulatory clearance. I was simply making the point that it's not the clearance of the IND per se that is potentially transformative, it's what comes next.

As for your second sentence, yes I am aware thanks.

Chester,

Clearance of the IND is simply confirmation that the FDA consider the trial is safe to run and the design is appropriate to meet the aims of the study. It's not a measure of likelihood of success or any form of approval and you would expect any bio/pharma with reasonably good data to achieve this. It's an important milestone for Scancell, partly because of previous issues but primarily because it means that they will now truly have a phase 3 ready asset to offer in negotiations with potential partners and investors. Not only will they have a route to market (subject to trial results of course) but it also it helps with valuations as development costs are more clearly defined.

So whilst we may see a spike in SP, simply securing regulatory approval to run a trial isn't necessarily the massive transformative event that we are waiting for. The most significant event comes with the announcement of how they intend to run and fund the trial. Will they manage to secure a licensing deal ahead of the trial? Will there be some form of simple clinical trial collaboration without funding with pharma or will they just raise funds to go it alone at least until the interim analysis and look to license at that point? There's also the possibility of a partnership with the CRO. Whatever happens, it's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out and it will give us a clear indication of how industry sees iSCIB1+ and the field of cancer vaccines in general.

An OncLive piece published today relating to Scancell's poster at the ESMO IO conference back in December.

https://www.onclive.com/view/frontline-scib1-iscib1-plus-ipilimumab-and-nivolumab-leads-to-t-cell-responses-in-unresectable-melanoma

Rob.

Yes I believe it was at ASCO.

Ray,

Indeed, particularly the loss of Keith Flaherty who is now President of the AACR. For those that weren't around back then it's worth having a quick read of the link below to understand what a big deal it was for Scancell to pique his interest and secure his services as PI for the planned SCIB1 trial.

https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/keith-t-flaherty-md-faacr-elected-as-american-association-for-cancer-research-president-elect-for-2025-2026/

LTH's here will remember Scancell's previous IND submission back in 2018 when FDA issues with Ichor's electroporation device resulted in long and costly delays and ultimately the decision not to run a US trial. I believe the problem was that Ichor had introduced a newer version of the device and the FDA required more data from Ichor on this newer version before they would allow it to be used in the SCIB1 trial.

Things are very different now, PharmaJet's Stratis system already has a general 510(K) FDA clearance and also has received FDA approval for specific vaccines. In addition, INDs for other DNA vaccine clinical trials using Stratis have been cleared by the FDA so there will be a wealth of information and data sitting in the Stratis master file and no reason to suspect that there will be any risk of history repeating itself.

Haven't been keeping up with all posts here so apologies if this has already been posted.

Some here will remember that Scancell were presenting at the ESMO Immuno-Oncology Congress in London in December last year and that they issued a clinical update prior to the conference. The poster from this conference has now been uploaded to Scancell's website. In addition, the abstract has also been published online. Some interesting points from both:-

1) The poster gives more detail and explains the rationale behind the exclusion of HLA-A1 and HLA-A33 types from results and why they will not be included in the target patient population for future trials:-

' Notable exceptions were observed in participants with HLA-A1 and HLA-A33. These participants exhibited lower ORRs of 39% or 0%, respectively. This

suggests that either the predictive algorithm for HLA-A1 binding was incorrect, the peptide had a low binding affinity, or it is incorrectly cleaved from iSCIB1+. Therefore, HLA-A1 will not be selected as a biomarker for future studies. HLA-A33 was also excluded from further biomarker analysis due to its extremely low frequency in the general population (0.9%) and due to only one enrolled participant possessing the allele, who experienced progressive disease. '

2) The abstract shows some previously unpublished and very early results from the first 12 patients from cohort 4 - these are the ' iSCIB1+ intradermal' patients on the chart. Given that Scancell now has the required data to take iSCIB1+ into phase 3 trials, recruitment to this cohort has now been halted and clinicaltrials.gov has been updated to reflect this.

https://scancell.co.uk/publications/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590018825005143

CW

Thanks for posting the Vulpes report but as you point out, it's nearly 3 years old and frankly the pipeline chart on page 12 highlights perfectly how everything in biotech seems to take much, much longer than predicted and why these reports have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

For those who are interested, it's worth having a quick read of the article below which gives an overview of DNA vaccines and offers a useful comparison to mRNA cancer vaccines. It's a shame that Scancell's SCOPE study doesn't get a mention nevertheless it's encouraging to read that the field of DNA vaccines is starting to come into its own.

https://cromospharma.com/cancer-vaccines-2025-part-ii-the-rise-of-dna-cancer-vaccines/