Member Info for Bermudashorts

Cleanerworld,

Good grief - disingenuous conduct. Please explain with specific examples.

Burble,

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, you may well have hit the nail on the head and the difference is that the update due is for 15 Keytruda only patients and the remaining 28 will be on doublet therapy, but then Lindy Durrant also confirmed in the RNS of 10th July that the results due in Q3 include those on doublet therapy so it's a bit of a mystery.

This is from the latest TD note:-

'Top-line data from the first stage (Cohort 1) of the SCOPE study, examining SCIB1 in combination with doublet therapy, are expected during Q423. This cohort will recruit up to 15 patients ........'

'The second stage will recruit up to a further 28 patients (for a total of up to 43 patients across both stages).................Recruitment is expected to be complete by the end of 2023 with data around three months later'

So that reads that stage 2 with 28 patients is an expansion of cohort 1?

Regarding overall patient numbers, the RNS of 10th July was very careful in its wording, ie. '73% of the required number of patients' . I'm not sure how the trial is powered but required number and planned number might be 2 different figures and as you alluded to in your post, they might refer to different patient populations. Worth noting that originally the trial was due to recruit 44 patients and so the difference between the 43 referred to by TD and the 87 on clinicaltrials.gov might be accounted for by another iSCIB1+ arm?

I guess all will become clear when the AACR-CIMT posters are published which no doubt will include a summary of the trial design.

'

Have finally had time to catch up with the latest Trinity Delta note and am trying to reference back to Scancell's RNS announements and make sense of exactly what we should be expecting in terms of patient numbers and treatment from the trial update due in Q4? I can't find a slide or presentation with details of the trial design and know that there have been some protocol amendments.

Does anyone know what the difference is between cohort 1 and stage 2 in terms of treatment, method of administration etc. or is stage 2 simply an expansion of cohort 1?

Ivy - lol touché

Crumbs - I'm sorry you've taken so much stick, you absolutely don't deserve it and rest assured many here appreciate your posts over the years.

Ahananda- congratulations, you have managed to achieve a new low on this bb with your 8.55 - no mean feat.

Sorry, meant to add thanks to Spursboy for posting as it's good to see positive and encouraging articles regarding cancer vaccines - that wasn't always the case!

Don't have time to check, but am pretty sure the patient in the Mail article was suffering from HPV positive H&N cancer and the Modi trial is in HPV negative patients. So not the same trial.

I would just like to add to AB124's post.

There have been some comments today which seem to be suggesting that Scancell have somehow contributed to this situation through lack of updates. Whilst I understand the frustration, in this instance I think this is unfair and couldn't be further from the truth. It is after all only 8 weeks since a full update was issued via RNS which is a mere blink of an eye in terms of an oncology clinical trial. It's hard to see what else Scancell could be expected to do.

They couldn't and wouldn't issue updates on a patient by patient or scan by scan basis and can't be responsible for posts on the macmillan site. Those posts were all about a cancer sufferer kindly sharing details of her cancer journey in order to help other fellow sufferers. It's important to remember that they were written from an entirely different perspective and for a different audience to this bb. They do however mean that Scancell has lost control over the dissemination of results for this patient and have had no opportunity to add any context, perspective or explanation. That can only come from experts with access to the hard data for all patients - ie. Scancell. Anything else is pure speculation.

Finally I'm sure all here wish Trish the very best of luck with her new treatment. Hopefully the tumour shrinkage she has seen with Modi-1 has put her in the best place possible to enable her to benefit from the new trial.

Didn't see that coming. Ergomed has been a cracking investment and proof that holding long on AIM can work out. Look forward to watching from a distance and hope they continue to go from strength to strength.

Cleanerworld

I think you're probably referring to the link below. If so, they'd like to recruit a CMO but can't afford it atm.

https://www.lgbco.com/quoted-landing-page/the-future-of-healthcare/scancell/

The paper in cleanerworld's link was discussed in some detail here back in May. Johnny, you may remember that this was the revised version of Scancell's original Covidity research published as a preprint a long while ago. We also discussed the involvement of Texas Biomedical and as suspected, it seems that rather than carrying out the work in-house Scancell chose to make use of Texas Biomedical's facilities and expertise in developing and carrying out research on covid animal models.

Johnny,

Genmab and Scancell had a glycan mAbs collaboration agreement back in 2001. I assume Genmab's investment in Scancell relates back to this collaboration as it also dates back to 2001.

This is from Genmab's 2001 Annual Report:-

'Other securities and equity interest consists of equity shares in Oxford GlycoSciences Plc with a market value of approximately DKK 7.3 million as of December 31, 2001 and shares in a privately held British biotech company Scancell Ltd. at a total cost of DKK 8.4 million. Both companies are strategic partners of Genmab A/S'

https://www.scancell.co.uk/genmab-and-scancell-announce-cancer-antibody-product-collaboration-%E2%80%94-first-disease-target-identified

Moving on, some may remember that SC134 is the Glymab mAb targeting fucosyl GM1 that Scancell are developing as a TCB (T cell redirecting bispecific) and were intending to take into the clinic in small cell lung cancer. That is now on pause while they concentrate on the current trials.

So it's good to see from the link below that preclinical development work for this mAb has been ongoing. The link is to the research summary for an application by Scancell for HRA approval to run a study for SC134. The aim is to identify the patient population most likely to benefit though analysis of small cell lung cancer tumour tissue in the lab. The application was approved back in April but has only very recently been uploaded to the HRA website. If nothing else it gives a tiny insight into the complexities of drug development and the amount and scope of research required.

It will be interesting to see whether they still intend to develop this mAb in-house or will now look to out-license.

.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/distribution-of-antibody-target-in-small-cell-lung-carcinoma/

Chelsea - thank you, appreciated

Cleanerworld

Re. your first sentence, for some reason that often happens with Fiercebiotech/pharma stories.

Re. your second sentence and the 'thought your (sic)selling' comment- I've been holding Scancell stock continuously (albeit at varying levels) for over 11 years and have held/hold many biotech/pharma stocks - so yes I am probably reasonably well informed compared to those who are new to the sector. I have also fully explained that I have reduced my holdings and why.

Re. your final sentence - most stocks have private twitter groups and Scancell probably has several. It also has a telegram group although I don't use telegram so not sure what's posted there. If you're on twitter there's nothing to stop you starting your own group or perhaps someone reading your 19.52 will invite you to join theirs. I never send or receive private messages on lse (don't think you can any longer in any case) and occasionally I receive DMs on ADVFN and sometimes they are Scancell related but often they're related to other stocks. Hope that clears things up.

Cleanerworld,

That article was from 2020?

Things have moved on a bit since then. The original tribunal found in J&J's favour, there has been a second tribunal which also went J&J's way and now Genmab have filed an appeal. Meanwhile Darzalex goes from strength to strength and Genmab is making hay while the sun shines on the royalties front. They have just raised their full year guidance mainly on the back of strong Darzalex sales. Not sure how this is related to Scancell other than to highlight the importance of making sure those licensing contracts are watertight.

https://ir.genmab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/genmab-file-appeal-its-second-arbitration-under-license

Not me either!

Isthisawinner,

Unless you have inside knowledge of the terms and conditions of the Indivior licensing agreement then how can you possibly know that this is a bad deal? To make that judgement call you'd need to know the triggers, the timing and the amounts of any near and medium term milestones. You'd also need to know details of the negotiations with Indivior, what their intentions are for INDV-2000 and how the drug is performing in a notoriously difficult field.

Given the inherent risks in early drug development it seems like a good strategic move from C4X to realise value from non-core assets and secure funding to enable development of their core pipeline. Time will tell, but the funding cloud is weighing heavily on several bios at the moment and it's great to see it dealt with in a non-dilutive way.

Oddmoney,

Development timelines are completely up to Genmab as they now effectively own SC129 and may do as they like with it. Having said that, the licensing agreement will likely contain a clause requiring the IP to be returned to Scancell if Genmab decide not to proceed and also allowing Scancell to reclaim the IP after X number of years of inactivity.

The reality is that it's in Genmab's interest to develop its pipeline as quickly and efficiently as possible, not least because the patent clock is ticking and of course Lindy Durrant has confirmed that all seems to be going well.

The neoadjuvant study wasn't mentioned in the previous update - good to see that it's going ahead.

Crumbs,

All posters who have been here for a while know and appreciate your history and the contribution you have made to this bb. Your posts articluated the frustration and disappointment that many of us felt and much better IMO to be honest about your position as you have done.