Member Info for Bermudashorts

No, we have one H&N patient with a confirmed, partial response. Not an interesting snippet but hard evidence of significant and dramatic tumour shrinkage due to treatment with Modi1.

Then there is a second patient, we have no idea or even remote suggestion as to the type of cancer they are suffering from, nor the clinical trial they are taking part in. It's impossible to say at this stage that they are 'likely' to be suffering from kidney or H&N cancer and benefiting from Modi1. Whilst it could be Modi 1, it could also be SCIB1 or one of any of the following ongoing trials for other cancer vaccines:-

Prostate cancer ( x2 )
Lung cancer (x2)
Ovarian cancer
Bladder cancer
Brain cancer
Oropharynx cancer
Melanoma
Head and Neck (x2)
Cervical
Penile
Other HPV cancers

https://endpts.com/who-are-the-women-breaking-barriers-in-drug-development-nominate-them-for-endpoints-annual-report/

ripley

Thank you.

TF

It's a shame that you seem unable to discuss these issues and allow others a different opinion without getting personal - accusations of being on the case, taking the high ground and now 3 line whip. What's that all about? Please explain.

Finally, in your 11.39 you've copied across the whole of Marcus' post but for some reason have omitted the important final sentence - here it is:-

'It could be a different cancer but good to hear of a vaccine working so well.'

So for clarity, we all agree that we dont know what type of cancer this patient has and we don't know what clinical trial they're on. I'm sure Scancell will update the market as and when they've gathered, verified and analysed sufficient data.

TF,

So we have a snippet of news that is now being posted as another responder to the Moditope trial with no hard evidence.

We have no idea whether it's a Scancell vaccine or not and even if it is it could be SCIB1 so could be melanoma. I think there are about a dozen ongoing cancer vaccine trials in the UK, so let's not assume that every bit of good news coming from a trial is Scancell related because yet again it needs pointing out that there's a flip side to that coin.

You may think it's nit picking, but if we keep raising expectations ever higher then Scancell will never be able to meet those expectations. It does Scancell no favours at all.

As for your accusation that I'm on the case again, well perhaps I am or perhaps I'm simply expressing an opinion and challenging unsubstanitated anecdotal evidence presented as fact.

TF

How do you know that it's either H&N or kidney cancer rather than any other cancer type?

It's important to note the difference between the Avacta and Scancell AACR abstracts.

Avacta have submitted and will be presenting a regular abstract and AACR have already published the titles AND text for all regular abstracts. Scancell's abstract comes under the clinical trials section and AACR have only published the titles for all clinical trials and late breaking abstracts. The text will be embargoed until a later date - I think the 14th April, but not sure.

It may well be that Scancell fully intend to RNS their attendance and presentation at AACR, but are waiting until the embargo has been lifted and they are able to give more detail.

Wild/Ruck,

I've just caught up on previous posts and sorry that this discussion is continuing - this truly will be my last post.

The patient discovered her comments were being repeated on twitter and made it very clear that it upset her. She was happy to share her progress on macmillan which she described as 'a place for supporting each other, not publicly sharing private conversations'. It's a huge and very convenient assumption to suggest that because she continues to post on macmillan she must be happy with lse/advfn discussing her comments and pontificating on the size of her tumour reduction. How do you know that she is even aware of the posts here? How do you know that she wouldn't be even more upset by the tone of some of the discussions and the obvious financial benefit to the posters here?

Of course we don't know and so we each have to decide for ourselves whether we are prepared to take that risk. It's a simple choice - are we prepared to post knowing that there is a risk that our discussions will upset and distress one of Scancell's clinical trial patients? Moreover any information shared will not have any context or explanation from the real experts (Scancell) and so might be misinterpreted. Perhaps not so much of an issue with positive updates, but very much a problem with anything that is perceived as less positive.

I can fully understand why some feel it's OK to take that risk, but let's not kid ourselves we're providing a public service here or that we know the patient would be fine with it. All the benefits of making others aware of Scancell and Modi can be achieved by discussing Scancell's words rather than those from one patient.

botski/Dalester

Yes Padlock were targeting autoimmune diseases, but with very different tech. They were developing PAD inhibitors but I'm not sure what happened to their pipeline after BMS bought them.

Regarding the Karolinska collaboration, Scancell's focus was purely cancer related although LD did confirm to me at the time that should any new therapy emerge from the collaboration in the autoimmune space, the IP would be jointly owned by both Scancell and Karolinska. Think the collaboration has probably now run its course.

kashdog,

A mistake we see time and again on this board (and indeed most bio boards) is the belief that other companies and other new therapies are competition to be feared. This often translates into the need to talk down other drugs in development or an almost gleeful reaction when other drugs fail. As others have said, the reality is that the field and market is vast, cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease and despite the claims of world domination we see from some quarters, there never will be a one drug solution that captures the whole market. In short there is plenty of room for everyone.

In terms of the SP, I think the problem is more general than Scancell specific. The current banking woes are weighing heavily on sentiment and risk appetite. The bio sector has been particularly affected by the collapse of SVB who will be sorely missed. I have reviewed by entire portfolio, paying extra attention to bios who will be needing funding over the coming months. I have reduced and exited positions accordingly and will be holding more cash until the picture is clearer. I'm sure I'm not alone. I should add that at the moment my Scancell holding remains unchanged as fortunately this crisis has hit at a time when their pipeline has the potential to offer near term inflection points that help to mitigate the funding risk (IMO).

Chelsea - Firstly I'm sorry to hear that you've been in hospital again and hope you're feeling better or at least on the mend. Secondly thank you for the kind words.

Regarding the Modi1 clinical trial, I'm hoping that the next update will be confirmation that the Safety Review Board has cleared cohort 3 and that the first patient has been recruited to cohort 4 at the higher combination dose. As TD have said ' The outcome of combination treatment cohorts will help define Modi-1’s clinical and commercial positioning' and it will be good to see progress there.

TF

I wasn't going to reply to your last and prolong this debate as we clearly will never agree, however, I feel I have to make the following points:-

1) My original post acknowledged the fact that others wouldn't agree and my opinion would be unpopular. I have no issue with that or others having different opinons.

2) It's therefore disappointing to see that because you don't agree with my view you accuse my of taking the moral highground and I'm genuinely sorry you feel that's what's going on here. Is it moral highground or common decency and a sensible position regarding what information is necessary/appropriate/reliable to base investment decisions upon?

3) As for your last sentence, yes of course that's possible, but the point is we don't know - so why on earth would you take the chance? You must surely appreciate that it's highly unlikely in view of her previous comment which you yourself posted here a while back. This was her reaction when she found out her comments were being discussed elsewhere:-

'I thought that this forum (macmillan)was a place for supporting each other, not publicly sharing private conversations. If that is your tweet can I ask you to please remove it. I feel really anxious that it's been made so public without my consent'

Finally, you say that it was just a harmless discussion and yet we have posts stating as fact that the tumour reduction has been 80% - like it or not, expectations have been raised based on nothing but speculation and in complete contradiction to the patient's own comments.

You'll be pleased to know that I will leave it there, but remember the flip side to this coin.

Nobody has said that the tumour reduction shouldn't be discussed - of course it should and of course it's exciting, but please explain how it is relevant to now assume that this patient has an 80% reduction in the size of her tumour based on nothing more than speculation? How does that help anyone? It certainly doesn't help Scancell.

As for having empathy for the plight of cancer patients and the stress they are under - how does a thread analysing this patient's comments, speculating on various formulae to assess the size of her tumour under a thread with the title of 'interesting maths' fit in with that? When considering an answer to the question, please remember that this patient has confirmed that she was horrified and distressed to see her comments being quoted and discussed outside of the macmillan forum? Where's the concern for her distress? And before anyone reiterates the earlier sentiments that it doesn't break any rules and that she's put the information out there in the public domain - just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Hang on a minute, how do you know the reduction in area is 80%? We have no idea how the radiologist/consultant has calculated or for that matter communicated the tumour shrinkage to the patient.

The patient herself has confirmed that she had tumour shrinkage of 55% followed by stable disease at the next scan - that although the rate of shrinkage had slowed it was heading in the right direction (btw that wasn't new news yesterday as posted). She has also confirmed that her tumour has shrunk from 4cm to 1.8cm which just happens to be a shrinkage of 55%.

Now we have posts on this board discussing shrinkage of 80 to 90%. Like it or not , expectations have been raised and how are people going to react if the next macmillan post confirms that the tumour is still stable with a 55% reduction? What would have been excellent news will now become disappointing to some......and for what? What knowledge have we gained that we didn't already know from Scancell?

There's a good reason why there are strict protocols surrounding communication of clinical trial results and whilst we may be very happy and find it 'interesting' to discuss the very personal data from one patient, it's worth remembering that there is a real risk here that less positive updates will have a disproportionately negative impact.

Surely the point is that Scancell have already confirmed via RNS that this patient has had a partial response and that's wonderful news.

I'm probably in a minority of one here, but it feels very uncomfortable speculating about this patient's tumour in this way. We haven't seen her imaging, we have no idea of the shape of her tumour and we're not radiologists. Isn't it better to just concentrate on what Scancell themselves have told us? ..... tumour shrinkage suggesting a partial response at first scan followed by further shrinkage at the second scan giving a confirmed partial response. Surely that's more than enough?

I realise this won't be a popular opinion, but imagine if it were your wife's/mother's/daughter's tumour being discussed in this way by complete strangers.

Bojo

Scancell are using a ctDNA liquid biopsy for the Modi1 trial.

I assume whenever there is a tumour present, whether it's stable, growing or shrinking it must be possible for it to shed CTCs. As Ray has pointed out, you'd hope that the patients immune system would recognise them and deal with them. It's also possible for cancer cells to migrate to the bone marrow and lie dormant for weeks, months or years. So even a patient who has been cleared of all signs of cancer still lives with that threat hanging over their heads and that's where those memory T cells could really make a difference.

I haven't gone back to check (someone else may know) but the 2015 ASCO presentation was definitely SCIB1 and not Moditope. As far as I know Scancell have never presented on Moditope at AACR/ASCO/ESMO.

It's detail and really not that important - you asked me what the significance of the 2015 date was and as explained, it was the last time Scancell presented at either AACR/ASCO. I'm sure you understand that the point I was trying to make was that it's been far too long and good to see that those 'wilderness years' are now over and Lindy is able to discuss a Moditope clinical trial at such a major event.

It's a rival bid, so no impact on Redx other than to introduce a level of uncertainty regarding their own agreement with Jounce. Will Jounce shareholders stilll support the Redx deal or will they be tempted by the cash offer from Concentra who already own more than 10% of Jounce?

Ruck,

No it was 2015 - see below, but earlier I said that I thought they'd only presented once, if you've found they also presented in 2014 then it's twice.

https://investegate.co.uk/scancell-hlds--sclp-/rns/update-on-scib1-data-at-2015-asco-annual-meeting/201505180700254089N/

Cleanerworld

In answer to your questions, Scancell would have submitted an abstract which essentially is a written summary of the information they will be presenting. The abstract is reviewed and the authors notified that it has been accepted for publication/presentation. At the actual conference Lindy Durrant will be presenting a poster which expands on the information contained in the abstract. The abstracts will be published in full and I expect/hope that Scancell will upload the poster to their website at some point.

The abstract/poster must contain new and previously unpublished research but that doesn't mean that it's price sensitive - remember this is a scientific conference and the target audience is over 20,000 scientists who will be attending. We won't know until the embargo is lifted, but I suspect the poster will focus on the trial design and hopefully include some early results - perhaps expanding on those immunogenicity results too.

I think we will probably all have a different view on what we can take away from Scancell's attendance at AACR this year. I think they've only ever presented once at ASCO back in 2015 and nothing since at either ASCO/AACR or ESMO (the 3 massive scientific conferences). Rightly or wrongly, to me the lack of attendance was a reflection of the protracted delays in the clinical development of both SCIB1 and Modi1 and so I was very much hoping they'd be presenting this year. The fact that they are means that it's finally all systems go again and Scancell are doing the things you'd expect a good bio to be doing (if that makes sense).

Obviously all just my opinion - Burble will know more.