Member Info for Bermudashorts

Scinv

I have only ever once reported a post here and it was one of my own!

Scinv_temp

lol - I'd previously posted that I thought there was more to come from cohort 3 as I didn't think there had been enough time for the latest patients to be included My final post was simply correcting that and confirming that it looks like it was the full update.

Scinv_temp

No looks like it is full cohort 1 & 3 data for ORR so we can just expect survival updates and results from cohort 4.

Yes I saw your posts, but thought they only completed recruitment to cohort 3 in June - if so there must be more to come from cohort 3? Haven't the time to check first and last patient in dates tonight, unless anyone here knows, perhaps Chester or Chelsea?

Nope, haven't sold and haven't bought. My position is exactly as previously outlined - will review it when full SCOPE results are out and strategy for running and funding next study are clear.

Scinv-temp

The kind of person who has been home for just over an hour and hasn't even yet had a chance to watch the presentation.

...but you were comparing T cell responses from different settings. Scancell's patients had been previously infected with covid or previously vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated/covid naive patients who featured in your link. Surely much easier to generate an impressive T cell response in patients who have never been exposed to an antigen than to boost/increase a pre-existing response? Unless you test the same patient population and measure in the same way how can you draw any conclusions?

Whatever the outcome, the real benefit of the covidity trial was that non-dilutive funding was secured to allow Scancell to trial avidimab and a new method of administraiton (PharmaJet's devices).

Scancell-

'volunteers who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, irrespective of their vaccination status, or volunteers who were vaccinated but not infected with SARS-CoV-2. 44 subjects were recruited, 41 of whom were seropositive at screening and, as such, had pre-existing T cell responses specific to RBD and NCAP, with correspondingly high neutralising antibody titres'

versus-

'Blood samples were obtained from 30 healthy individuals working in health care and laboratory donors who had not tested positive for COVID-19'

There is some evidence in the patent application re. CD64 binding:-

'Example 20. Fc Modified HuIgG1 Constructs Show More Avid CD64 Binding Compared to Unmodified Fc

Targeting antigens to the high affinity FcgammaR1 (CD64) induces better humoral and T cell responses through a combination of enhanced antigen internalisation as well as improved APC activation. A purified RBD construct with a modified Fc shows prolonged interaction with CD64 compared to the unmodified RBD-Fc construct, a phenomenon more pronounced at higher CD64 receptor densities, suggesting increased avidity ( FIG. 43, real-time SPR binding curves). This is evident from the kinetic parameters in Table 7 where at higher CD64 densities (300 and 900 RU) a slower dissociation (kd for RBD-iFcv1 is of the order of 10 −4 l/s compared to 10 −3 l/s for the RBD-Fc) and a higher maximal binding (Rmax) are observed for the modified Fc compared to the unmodified Fc construct.'

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US410034394&_cid=P12-MD942K-20516-1

So I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, every patient has been censored either because they're still on the study and the final PFS time is currently unknown or because they have progressed/left the study. From memory 3 patients had progressed?

Re. my comments on the other forum, I was referring to median PFS and my 21203 to you summarises the point I was trying to make - would be good to get an answer

Scinv-temp

Genuine question - are you absolutely sure that the censoring in this case isn't simply to show that the patient is still on the study so not the final data and denotes current PFS in weeks? So each cross relates to PFS in no. of weeks for individual patients and censored because they're still on the trial?

Crusty, - That's a fair point and you may be right. Of courese it really doesn't matter who it is and ex-employees should only know as much as we do regarding trial progress.

greenshaw - there could be a multitude of reasons why these options have been exercised now and as you say they may have already been offloaded or they may have been tucked safely away. Impossible to read anything into it other than Scancell now have another 1m shares in issue.

Greenshaw,

Difficult to comment on the tax situation without knowing individual circumstances, but one tranche of those 1m share otpions were issued under the company's EMI scheme - assume this must have been those granted to Keith Green.

Although these options were granted to 5 ex-employees, John Chiplin very sadly passed away some time ago and without knowing how his outstanding share options were handled by his executors it's difficult to comment but given the circumstances it's unlikely perhaps to be related to John Chiplins's options. I had discounted Richard Goodfellow as there was a block listing back in 2023 to cover his options. Have just checked again and it was only for his 4.5p options and looks like all 2,880,000 of them have now been exercised as the last blocklisting return was made in July 2024 and shows a zero balance.

These are the options that were granted during covid when senior management took a 25% pay cut for 3 months and were given 1m share options in exchange. So could be Sally Adams, Keith Green or Cliff Holloway.

Chester,

Just a comment regarding your point on tight timelines. We really have no way of knowing when Scancell took the decision to explore the possibility of transferring out the Glymab platform, but it won't have been a quick decision with short timescales. Before going public they will have thoroughly evaluated legalities and logistics and taken advice from the relevant experts. Actually filing with Companies House would have been the tail end of that process and of course they knew that the moment they registered it then the existence of the new company would be in the public domain so they needed to arrange the investor meet presentation to communicate with shareholders.

They had two options, either arrange the investor meet presentation with a long lead time and file with Companies House at the very end of that period or file and then quickly commuicate to shareholders. IMO had they take the first option we would have seen all sorts of wild speculation (at both ends of the positive/negative spectrum), much better to follow the path they did.

I have no idea whether or not it'll be granted but Ultimovacs have had both European and US patent applications granted for their UV1 vax in combination with CPIs

Moonparty

Just to add to your earlier post, Scancell have also filed a patent applicaton for SCIB1/iSCIB1+ in combination with PD-1 and CTLA4 checkpoint inhibitors which would provide IP protection in this setting until 2043.

Greenshaw,

I think it depends entirely on whether they're aware of the reason and what it is. For example, it appears there have been some patients who have suffered from severe side effects following the first dose of the doublet CPI therapy, leading to a pause/delay before they go on to have their second dose. The treatment to manage CPI toxicity is steroids which of course are an immunosuppressant. These patients may not have had enough time/doses of SCIB1/iSCIB1+ to mount a strong enough memory T cell response before treatment with steroids and before they continue treatment. I'm not saying for one moment that this will cause a drop in ORR, but if it did, we know Scancell have adjusted the dosing schedule for cohort 4 and have introduced an accelerated iSCIB1+ dose to overcome this.

The whole point of clinical trials is to learn from early results, not just to discover whether the therapy merits further development, but also to establish the optimum setting, dosing, patient population etc. etc. before moving on to much more costly larger studies. They'll only get one shot at a registrational trial and they have to absolutely certain that they give themselves the very best chance of success. So if there is a known cause for a drop in ORR (backed up with data) and there is a solution, I really don't think it would be a massive issue, we'd just have to wait for results from cohort 4.

We discussed Genmab's GEN1078 trial a while back on here - seems like they've had to terminate it due to toxicity. Genmab have had quite an eventful few months.

https://www.oncologypipeline.com/apexonco/node/1441/

This may already have been posted, but in case not Lindy Durrant is presenting at the Antibody & Tides Summit in September in Amsterdam

'🎙️ 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟲 𝗞𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗺𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗺

↳ Marie-Eve Beaulieu | Co-Founder & Chief Scientific Officer, Peptomyc

𝘾𝙚𝙡𝙡-𝙋𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙞-𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙨 𝘼𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙗𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝘼𝙡𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨: 𝙊𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙈𝘾 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝘿𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩-𝙞𝙣-𝘾𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙨 𝘼𝙣𝙩𝙞-𝙈𝙔𝘾 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙨

↳ Lindy Durrant – Chief Scientific Officer, Scancell

𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘼𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙗𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙘: 𝙇𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 20+ 𝙔𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝘿𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙉𝙐𝙏𝘼𝘾 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙡

↳ Ben Thomas – SVP: External Innovation & Operations, Oxford BioTherapeutics

𝙀𝙣𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙉𝙚𝙭𝙩-𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙉𝙚𝙪𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘼𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙗𝙤𝙙𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙀𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙑𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙨: 𝙁𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙂𝙚𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙘𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙄𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮

↳ Dr Walter Cabri – Professor & Board Member, University of Bologna / inSEIT

𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙡 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙂𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙇𝙋𝙋𝙎 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙋𝙋𝙎: 𝘼𝙙𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘾𝙤𝙨𝙩-𝙀𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙋𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙎𝙮𝙣𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙨

↳ Mike Webb PhD – Former VP, GSK

𝘾𝙈𝘾 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝘿𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙊𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙤𝙣𝙪𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙨 𝘾𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝘿𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡

↳ Dr David Gilot – Director, AstraZeneca

𝙎𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙈𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙣

Would be good to coincide with ESMO which is in October .