Member Info for Bermudashorts

Wrists slapped - will try to do better :)

Ee

As I said, that post was written before Scancell announced the formation of Glycan Therapeutics.

WTP, looks like that paper is the final peer reviewed version of a preprint published back in June. Below is a copy of my post at the time,(obviously it was before the announcement of Glymab Therapeutics):-

Bermudashorts

SC134 progress 23 Jun 2025 21:04

Looks like Scancell have been working away on their SC134 anti fucosyl-GM1 mAb. Have to stress that this is just a preprint and is currently still undergoing peer review, but new research has been published today to show that SC134 has now been developed into an antibody drug conjugate with chemo drug deruxtecan as its payload. This is the same chemo drug as AstraZeneca's blockbuster ADC Enhertu. Also Worth noting that BMS have a drug targeting fucosyl-GM1 in phase 3 trials.

Anyway here is the conclusion from the paper:-

'In summary, SC134-deruxtecan with its high specificity for FucGM1, a clinically relevant SCLC target, and its proficient in vitro and in vivo killing of SCLC, is a compelling candidate for clinical advancement. The combination of its direct target-mediated impact as well as its potential for bystander and immune effector cell mediated cytotoxicity likely all contributed to its potent in vivo tumour eradication, underscoring its potential for therapeutic benefit.'

Https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6888650/v1

I assume Scancell would be keen to take this into the clinic and perhaps we'll see some re-prioritisation of the pipeline.

Sorry, but you have to feel for IO Biotech and their shareholders. Their trial has produced some really encouraging results and they were so close. It must be gut wrenching to miss on primary endpoint by such a narrow margin and to see the market reaction.

Just to add some perspective here, ,the standard of care treatment in this setting is now the doublet combination therapy of PD-1 and CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors (ipi/nivo) and this is the combination being used in Scancell's Scope trial. Approval of that doublet therapy was based on results of the checkmate 067 trial which produced median progression free survival of 11.5 months. IO Biotech have produced an overall median PFS of 19.4 months and It was even higher at 24.8 months for the subgroup of patients who hadn't previously received PD-1 CPIs. So that's an improvement of nearly 8 months in median PFS over the SOC therapy and well over a year for the treatment naive subgroup.

Of course it remains to be seen how that translates and compares in terms of overall survival and afaik IO Biotech haven't yet published any ORR results, nevertheless you can see why they still intend to file for approval. It will be interesting to see how the FDA respond.

I'm not sure whether IO Biotech ran a randomised phase 2 in this setting

CW

Let's hope it doesn't rub off on Scancell because Elicio Therapeutics actually has a lower market cap than Scancell. Their share price is $8 because they have less than 16m shares in issue.

Vascular

Chester is correct, the £1m evaluation/holding fee was deducted from the upfront payment. According to Trinity Delta, the first milestone payment from Genmab for SC129 will be $3m /£2.5m. The structure of the deal for the second mAb seems to be very similar,, so likely to have similar milestones.

We don't yet know exactly what Scancell's plans are for Glymab Therapeutics, not just in terms of funding but also exactly how it will be structured in terms of costs/resources and valuations at outset etc. etc. We don't even know for sure whether the license agreements with Genmab will be transferred to Glymab Therapeutics or whether they'll remain with the parent company.

Ee

You may be right, but my understanding is that shareholder approval isn't required to set up the company but is necessary to transfer the IP from the listed parent company to the privately held subsidiary, even though on day 1 it will be a wholly owned.

.......and on 10th July they've also issued an intention to grant for application no. EP4004056, the anti Lewis-Y patent which I believe covers SC27.

Was just checking something else and noticed that the European Patent Office issued an intention to grant letter on 14th July for Scancell's anti Fucosyl-GM1 mAbs. This patent covers SC134, the mAb Scancell intend to take into clinical trials. Good stuff.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP20767753&lng=en&tab=main

Bibio,

Timings for the Annual Report and AGM will be interesting. In previous years they've been as early as August and as late as November . Will there be an AGM resolution to cover the transfer of IP to Glymab Therapeutics and if so will it be a special or ordinary resolution?

It will be better in the sense that results from cohorts 3 & 4 will have defined the target patient population for the registration trial but in terms of results ie. response rates and survival, it should be broadly similar to results already published for cohort 3 as they were limited to that population group. As posted earlier, if there is any improvement in the results it will be down to the prime dosing and/or the IM delivery method, not HLA typing.

OK, have just read your 11.14 .

No, I am definitely not the same person as Burble. I refer you back to my post to you on advfn. I was genuinely hoping to have an objective discussion with you as I think it could have been of use to all of us but there are limits and I've just reached mine. Reluctantly filtered.

11.07 , not 11.01.

It would be really good to be able to discuss this without the abuse and it would help if your default position wasn't to jump to conclusions and read what's being posted.

For clarity, I'm wading my way through the slide set of the presentation, trying to refer back to checkmate 067 and now checkmate 069 trials and previous presentations from Scancell to try and understand the published results. That's all I'm doing at the moment and I'm not passing any comment on what should/should not have been repoted - just WHAT was/wasn't reported and why.

Can you explain your 11.07?

.........I understand that (your 10.51) but removing patients who should never have got through screening in the first place because they didn't meet the recruitment criteria is completely different to excluding patients who did when you're trying to understand the results and compare back, as I am. I can understand in a randomised study it could skew results but that's not the case here.

I know that, and I'm not passing comment either way, just trying to understand more about patents that were excluded and specifically those with brain mets and acral melanoma because they wouldn't have met recruitment criteria and shouldn't have got through screening in the first place.

Scinv_temp

No, but do you (or anyone else) know whether Scancell used a CRO for the SCOPE study?

CW - thanks, much appreciated.

Being very lazy here, does anyone here have a link to the slide set for the SCOPE results presentation (as opposed to the video)?

Bibio - Yes and good to see you posting here!