Member Info for Bermudashorts

Chester,

Just a couple of points re. your 18.22.

Depending on which study you use as evidence, response rates for the doublet therapy of Yervoy/Opdivo in this setting range between 48% and 58% so we've seen that adding SCIB1 into the mix has increased that response rate to 82% in stage 1 of the trial. It's important because whether you're expecting a response rate of 30% (as per your post) or 58% from the standard of care therapy alone makes a big difference in this number of patients.

The 90% figure you mention relates to stage 2 of the current SCIB1 trial (not iSCIB1+) and is the probability of achieving an objective response rate for the whole SCIB1 trial of 70%, not matching the 82% already seen. In stage 2 they need to see a further 18 responses from 27 patients.

Finally, it hasn't been discussed yet but the impact of SCIB1 on survival will potentially be the game-changer here. In a years time Scancell will be gathering 1 year survival data and we will start to see what impact SCIB1 may be having on survival of these patients. Obviously extending survival and quality of life is what it's all about, but it's also particularly important to the future development path. There's a strong correlation between one year survival and overall survival and so there may be a possibility of the regulators accepting 1 year survival as a surrogate endpoint in future trials. Not only does this reduce the length (and costs) of the next stage of development, but it also will impact on valuations.

Correction - 'you're confused' not 'your'

Been a busy weekend and brain not fully functioning - sorry

Green,

You are correct in that it was 73% of 15 and they announced it because they had achieved the required response rate to trigger expansion into stage 2 of the trial. Stage 2 will recruit a further 27 patients and they need to see 18 responses from this cohort.

Then there's the iSCIB1+ cohort which will recruit 11 patients so they can make a direct comparison to SCIB1 - obviously they need to see 9 responders.

I'm not surprised your confused, I don't think Scancell have ever published the trial design, nor have they issued any updates on number of patients recruited and when they announced 73% of patients had been recruited they didn't actually say as a percentage of what figure. Good to have it clarified now.

BOJO

I can see why it might appear otherwise, but as Burble has pointed out, the fact that the analyst from Liberum asked about intratumoral delivery was precisely because he was well reserached. Longs here will remember OncoSec, a peer of Scancell who were also developing a DNA plasmid therapy for melanoma delivered via electroporation and comparisons were often made between the two companies. OncoSec's therapy (TAVO) is administered directly into tumour lesions. So a good question and I assume the aim was to highlight the advantage of the delivery method for SCIB1.

It's interesting that Liberum were there at all. You would expect Stifel and Panmure to turn up and ask helpful questions but as far as I know Liberum don't have any connection to Scancell.

Violindog,

I believe Stifel (NOMAD & joint broker) have a price of 30p and Panumure Gordon's (joint broker) is 23.2p. I'm not aware of any independent analyst coverage.

Ivy,

To be fair, they may wait until stage 2 of the trial is complete.

H o m o citrullinated

krafty,

i believe that it was lindy durrant herself who first described tumours melting away. it was definitely regarding modi1 based on the results she had seen in mice in the lab and at the stage where they believed it wouldn't require checkpoint inhibitors.

modi2 is based on a different modification (carbamylation) and incorporates different peptides (****citrullinated aldolase a, immunoglobulin binding protein (bip), cytokeratin 8, vimentin). i know during one presentation lindy mentioned that she thinks modi-2 will be even better than modi-1 and of course it also uses the snapvax tech. so won't have the same manufacturing issues.

Mrbrain

lol I assume your 13.49 was aimed at me.

Perhaps have another read of the post in question and maybe do a little research before posting such nonsense. To help you understand, my post was positive and intended to highlight an aspect of the SCIB1 results that nobody had picked up on at that point in time - ie. the high toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors gives SCIB1 a significant advantage over other potential combination therapies because it doesn't add to that already high toxicity. This is a quote from my post:-

'It's important then that any additional combination drugs don't add to the already high toxicity and this is where SCIB1's benign safety profile really comes into its own'

Bantham,

You asked what sort of Institutional backing Angle has and expressed concern as to whether they would support Angle with future funding rounds. It's impossible to say for certain of course but a reminder that Angle's largest shareholder is Conifer who currently own 7.67% of the Company. They first invested in 2019 when they bought 12m shares and have since contributed to follow on funding rounds and increased their holding to just under 20m shares. They haven't sold a single share and that holding remains unchanged today.

It's worth reading up on Conifer which is run by Greg Alexander - a high profile and highly respected name in the investment community and once named by Warren Buffett as one of his 3 favourite investors. It's encouraging that Greg Alexander and Conifer continue to support Angle by holding long and if past performance is anything to go by then you'd hope they'd continue to support them if required in future funding rounds.

TF

Absolutely and worth remembering that afaik SCIB1 still has orphan drug status in the US which brings a period of market exclusivity following approval. I'm not sure whether Scancell would need to apply again to the FDA for orphan drug designation for iSCIB1+ or whether it would automatically transfer.

Konar,

Well done, will be interesting to find out.

A couple of points in response to discussions this morning:-

1) I agree with miavoce, I'm not sure that administering SCIB1 as a combination therapy has any impact whatsoever on the patent life of Yervoy or Opdivo . Whilst they are both administered as part of a combination therapy, they are still 2 completely different drugs and are administered separately. I don't remember Scancell ever claiming that they could offer CPI developers the chance to extend their patents. It would be different if they decided to reformulate them as one drug or if the CPI's were enhanced with Avidimab. This is one for Lindy to comment on.

2) Naturally the focus seems to be on BMS, but that's missing the much bigger picture. There are so many others developing checkpoint inhibitors. For example, AstraZeneca also have an approved PD-1/CTLA4 combination but there are several companies including some Chinese and they are all looking for ways to stand out from the pack. One way to achieve that is to find the combination therapy that gives them best in class efficacy/safety. . Also the traditional targets for CPIs are PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA4 but there are others which aim to block different pathways and it may be that SCIB1 will be of interest to any bio/pharma operating in the wider field.

Dave,

I think today's RNS is the first and only update issued by Scancell so far.

Study investigators have a duty to prescribe the best possible standard of care therapy for patients and I assume it was very difficult to recruit to the Keytruda/SCIB1 arm of the trial when doublet therapy had become the first line treatment of choice. Although we know that the first patient was recruited towards the end of 2021 I suspect that very, very few patients were recruited prior to the protocol changes announced in June 2022. Pure speculation of course, but it may simply be that there weren't enough evaluable Keytruda/SCIB1 patients to provide meaningful data and of course their results couldn't be included with the doublet therapy arm for data integrity reasons. Good question though and it would be interesting to ask Scancell directly for a definitive answer.

As for the original SCIB1 trial, you're right, it was very successful, but in small patient numbers. The reason for the delays in following on with larger studies are well documented. Am happy to go into detail if you like, but IMO Scancell would have been in a completely different place had they been able to swiftly execute the planned US trial with Keith Flaherty as PI.

Finally, re your issues with consilium. I'm also registered to receive RNS alerts via email but find that it's very patchy. Sometimes I get them and sometimes I don't. Poor show that they are not answering your emails and slightly ironic that a communications specialist isn't communicating with you.

Burble,

It may simple be that the timing of the announcement was primarily driven by the fact that the target for stage 1 of the trial was 9 responders and the 9th responder was the trigger for expansion into stage 2. So even if the remaining stage 1 patients fail to respond, stage 1 has been a success and Scancell have notified the market that the trial has progressed to stage 2 (as they should).

Yesterday's rise was odd and I'm not sure that the RNS announcing the Milan conference can fully explain it - after all that RNS clearly stated that they were presenting prelinical data so there was no reason to expect a trial update at Milan.

Looking further ahead there's the World Vaccine Congress and also ESMO coming up in October. ESMO in particular attracts huge attention and is up there with ASCO/AACR. It will be interesting to see whether they are presenting, but both provide an opportunity to announce further updates with slighly more mature data if they want to.

Finally, an excellent presentation from Lindy, one of the best we've seen but I agree with your comments re. the slide detailing the BioNTech/Moderna products.

This may already have been posted, but in case it hasn't link below is to a new proactive interview with Lindy Durrant discussing today's news

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1026947/scancell-ceo-hails-exciting-high-response-rate-to-melanoma-treatment-1026947.html?viewSource=TwitterUK

Assume full details will be published in a medical journal or presented at a scientific conference in due course, but it's worth remembering that checkpoint inhibitors are associated with side effects. In clinical trials the combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab caused adverse events in 96% of patients and serious adverse events in nearly 60% of them, including some deaths - much, much higher than when either checkpoint is used alone.

It's important then that any additional combination drugs don't add to the already high toxicity and this is where SCIB1's benign safety profile really comes into its own. If efficacy results from the first 11 patients can be replicated in larger numbers without adding to toxicity then Scancell must surely be able to partner with one of the many checkpoint inhibitor developers for future trials.

Ivy ,

Yes dbDNA is different to plasmid DNA in structure. Just to clarify, both dbDNA and plasmids are simply vectors used to carry and transport genetic code. So in Scancell's case whichever vector is used is synthesised to encode for the relevant ImmunoBody peptides and because it's possible to use either, both are referenced on the ImmunoBody patent application.

That's my understanding and hopefully Burble will be along to comment at some stage. I would stress that patents have been the cause of a great deal of confusion and and misunderstanding on this bb in the past, especially so when looking at pending patent applications as claims can change during the examination process and also vary form jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So much care is needed!

Ivy, Sorry for teaching you to suck eggs. I know you are fully aware of all of the above, but some may not be.

Cleanerworld,

There is no connection between Scancell and Touchlight's patent applications other than Scancell have cited the Touchlight patent when applying for the new ImmunoBody patent. It's routine and standard practice for any relevant research or patent applications to be cited either by the applicant or the examiner in a new patent application.

The WIPO system seems to be down at the moment but below is the link to the European patent application for the application in question. If you click on the EP Citations link on the left you'll get a long list of research and patents from many sources which have been cited either by Scancell in the application or in the International Search Report.

So Scancell haven't 'used' Touchlight's patent, they've simply referenced it.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21769694&lng=en&tab=citations

Cleanerworld,

So your accusation of disingenuous conduct is down to a comment in support of Crumbs and you've even managed to get that wrong. Crumbs has a posting history that goes way back before your appearance on this bb and he has made a real contribution with relevant research and links over many years. It's perfectly understandable that folk didn't agree with his opinions re. the macmillan link but he was entitled to have those opinions and to voice them.

If you go back through my posting history, you'll find plenty of mistakes, wrong calls, hopes raised and hopes dashed. What you won't find are any deliberate lies, encouraging others to buy/sell/hold whilst trading sentiment, posting of links that are completely irrelevant to Scancell whilst trying to suggest otherwise. Posts that don't share your evangelical belief in Scancell are not automatically dishonest or disingenuous - they're simply voicing a different opinion and that's what these bbs should be all about.