Member Info for Bermudashorts

WTP,

No, they haven't deliberately kept the RNS vague. It's standard practice for bios/pharma to publish top line results to shareholders and then present more detailed results at scientific conferences or via peer reviewed publication. So level and complexity of the information disseminated is appropriate to the target audience.

Going to be interesting to see how this one plays out

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/market-news/statement-re-receipt-of-unsolicited-proposal/15875705

The abstract is embargoed until 4th April (I think) and must contain previously unpublished research. As posted a while ago, the immunogenicity data in the recent RNS did seem a bit light on detail and I wondered/hoped whether it was being kept back for presentation at either AACR or ASCO.

Am delighted to see that Scancell have had an abstract accepted for presentation at the AACR Annual Meeting. This is one of the, if not the biggest scientific conferences in the world. The title of the abstract is:-

'Modi-1, anti-citrullinated neoepitope vaccine alone and combined with checkpoint inhibitors in patients with head and neck, breast, renal and ovarian carcinoma: protocol for the ModiFY phase I/II basket clinical Trial'

It will be presented by Lindy Durrant on April 18, 2023, 1:30 PM - 5:00 PM

Good stuff - have been waiting since 2015 to see Scancell present at AACR/ASCO!

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10828/presentation/10452

lofas,

There is no collaboration with Seagen - are you thinking of Genmab?

Pfizer to acquire Seagen for $229 per Seagen share in cash, for a total enterprise value of approximately $43 billion.

...........and this is why:-

'Seagen’s medicines, late-stage development programs and pioneering expertise in Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) strongly complement Pfizer’s Oncology portfolio'

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230313005335/en/Pfizer-Invests-43-Billion-to-Battle-Cancer?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

ee

From just a quick glance it looks like all Stifel's bio clients have issued an RNS this morning, so assume it was very much nomad driven.

roses,

Yes and full credit to the Bank of England for brokering a deal with HSBC over a weekend - of course they constantly plan for such events, but even so it's an impressive achievement. Hopefully the measures in the US will be enough to shore up sentiment.

Good to see Scancell clarify their postition so quickly.

According to fiercebiotech nearly half of all U.S. venture-backed technology and life science companies bank with SVB so the scale of this is huge and unfortunately the whole sector may be in for a bit of a rocky ride. In the very short term though there will be bios caught up in this with ongoing clinical trials as well as vital research. I very much hope they receive immediate support from their existing instituional investors to keep those trials and research going.

Scancell aren't always so good at it either!

crumbs

Jounce have a failed pipeline and bleak future but plenty of cash and Redx have the pipeline but need cash. The newly merged company will be called Redx, will be run by the existing Redx management team including the CEO, CFO, CSO and CMO posititions, have a Redx chairman, keep the existing Redx HQ in the UK and will only develop Redx products. So Redx is effectively executing a reverse takeover onto NASDAQ.

Redmile will have been closely involved in the deal and will be converting all of their Redx CLNs as part of the transaction. The significance for Scancell holders is simply that far from being this hostile hedge fund hell bent on taking over bios as some have suggested, Redmile have shown themselves to be a supportive and long term shareholder and have enabled Redx to grow their pipeline, secure licensing deals and grow sufficiently to be ready for a NASDAQ listing. I think most Redx holders expected a move to NASDAQ at some point but assumed it would be via a traditional IPO. The current enviroment for biotech has sadly resulted in a several distressed bios and created a moment in time whereby an RTO makes sense.

Yes, a shame the monotherapy data has come ahead of combination data as the most likely setting for RXC004 was always going to be in combination due to its mechanism of action. This from Trinity Delta back in January:-

'Key data from the monotherapy arms of the Phase II programme will be toxicity and tolerance, rather than efficacy, in our view. This is owing to patients having advanced, hard-to-treat disease, in addition to RXC004’s mechanism which, on its own, is cytostatic (slows cell growth) rather than cytotoxic (kills tumours). Hence, at best we expect to see evidence of disease stabilisation rather than improving outcomes (as measured by responses)................ we only expect responses in the monotherapy arms (partial or complete) if there is some residual synergistic effect from prior treatment regimens, notably checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs).

The true indication of RXC004’s potential efficacy, and likely the biggest commercial opportunity, will therefore arise from combination studies with CPIs'

Redx have a collaboration with Merck for the combination trial - let's hope RXC004 performs as hoped in this setting.

Finally as always, a thought for the patients who agreed to take part in the monotherapy trial.

Crumbs - thanks for your 15.02, very encouraging - as Scancell would say :)

GIVEMESUNSHINE,

In answer to your various points and in no particular order:-

1) There were 3 patients in cohort 1 - confirmed in 2nd paragraph of RNS dated 16th August

2) With regards to any results from cohort 1, all we know for certain is that these 3 patients have shown a DTH response. IMO it's unlikely that any of the patients with stable disease come from cohort 1 (see dose info. below) and we know for certain the patient with a partial response came from cohort 2. Therefore the most logical assumption is that the data from cohort 1 shows that Modi-1v vax was safe and generated a DTH response.

3) The dosing frequency is 4, 6, 12 weeks and then every 3 months for 2 years

4) The difference in dose between cohorts 1 and 2 is not only the addition of the 3rd enolase peptide, but also the dose levels increase from 80ug for cohort 1 to 400ug for cohort 2.

5) Assuming cohort 3 passes muster then cohort 4 will also be given the 400ug dose of Modi1, but obviously in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor

Hope this helps

4)

GIVEMESUNSHINE,

Not sure whether this is just an issue with internet communication or there is some misunderstanding regarding patient recruitment to various cohorts. If a patient is recruited into cohort 1, 2 or 3, they will forever belong to that cohort, no matter how the trial progresses. So cohort 1 patients will always be cohort 1 and won't migrate to cohort 2. Similarly, cohort 2 patients will always be cohort 2 and won't migrate to the expansion arm of the trial.

I wonder if you're referring to the possibility of cohort 1 patients being switched from Modi-1v to Modi-1 ? I'm not 100% certain, but believe that would be subject to MHRA approval and it'll be interesting to see whether Scancell have already applied for that or not.

The Redx pharma Redmile CLNs which were due to be redeemed this summer had a one year extension clause - not sure whether that option was also incorporated into the Redmile/Scancell agreement.

WW

Last post on the subject. Please read back, I challenged your suggestion that TD should have reflected the DTH results in their valuation. We completely disagree on that point and that's fine. Judging from your responses, you clearly think that I am one of the posters mentioned by rats who have belittled the DTH results. I'm sorry you feel that.

Regarding TD, your comment that TD have given Moditope an 87.5% chance of failure is not correct, moreover it could potentially deter anyone new to Scancell and if that's what you believe then no wonder you're so wound up. The probability of success figure used in TD's valuation is simply the probability of Modi1 meeting all of the assumptions in their valuation -ie. a marketing launch date of 2029 and $3.5 b in peak sales etc. They are not saying at all that it has an 87.5% chance of failure, but that it has an 87.5% chance of failing to meet their assumptions and there's a huge difference between the two. Given that we only have results from 14 patients after just 2 doses and nobody yet knows the optimum setting for Modi1 or even which cancers then how can they possibly be more confident at this very early stage of the sales figures or launch date?

WW -

As I say, that has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion, but thanks for the advice.

rats - If you read my post you'll see that I did indeed ask the other seven posters who had recommended your post. Please understand that my post isn't intended to provoke an argument, I genuinely want to understand why others believe that anyone posting here has belittled the DTH results. Of course I may have missed something, but the most negative post I've seen is agreeing that it's highly encouraging - hardly belittling.

WW - I have no idea why you keep bringing up the TD note yet again, it has nothing to do with the points we're discussing.

Ivy,

Would be good if the accusation that the DTH response has been talked down as a sideshow by some contributors could be explained either by rats or the 7 posters who recommended his post. If you feel some have talked it down, let's discuss the posts and why you feel they are talking down the DTH responses. You never know, you might find that the posts in question have been misinterpreted or were unclear.