Member Info for BuenaVista

Applicants are Epibiotech Co., Ltd., Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Apicell Therapeutics Co., Ltd.

For those who weren't aware, Apicell is AffyXell through a translation engine.

Patent details: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2024054006A1/en?oq=WO2024054006

Epibiotech is a Korean company focussed on hair loss. 🤔Interested.

Yeah, but lemmings don't build planes.

Thank you JT. That'll be it.

From yesterday's RNS: "[18F]FAPI-74 PET is currently in clinical development and for investigational use only."

Can someone explain how [18F]FAPI-74 is used differently as a diagnostic and as a therapeutic? Wouldn't its use as a diagnostic also have at least some potential therapeutic effect?

Because some tumour have high levels of FAP, some have mid levels, and some have low levels.

Now how else would you determine what level of FAP a particular peson with a particular cancer has?

Classic! GeneralOz, what a comedian!!! Thanks for the chuckle. You and Thorn. To me, to you, to me, to you.😂😂😂

That also answers any questions about how the selected patients for FAPI-PET are to be selected.

But can an organisation dictate the placing price and demand changes to the BoD as requirements before buying in and owning less than 3% of a company?

Besides, from the NVF website:

"The Novartis Venture Fund team’s approach to investing

"We prefer an active, hands-on style of investment, one major element of which involves taking a seat on the company board. This enables us to collaborate closely with leadership and management."

I think they mainly do this with companies that are much smaller and earlier stage than Avacta, or they used to (from personal experience), or after taking a greater than 3% stake in a larger and more developed company. Venture funds are, after all, essentially incubators.

CTSFO asks "why now?" Well, we don't know how long this has been in the planning. I'd rather we be surprised by something like this than to have the possibility dangled and then it coming to nothing or being endlessly in the process of being implemented - you know how impatient our FUDsters are.

And what does it add? Well, AS was constantly working off that old table of FAP concentrations. And it was old and quite limited. This scanning technique will offer very precise results. Maybe they've found that the data in that table aren't reliable predictors. Maybe they've found discreprencies in the clinical responses (an after-the-event surrogate for FAP levels) between patients for the same cancer. Maybe they want to home in on the STS sub-types that will give good clinical responses in the registrational trial. Maybe all or these and more reasons.

Absolutely desperate FUDding there from one of the resident trolls that, unfortunately for it, knows nothing and therefore just makes a twat of itself. Probably never listened to when AS explained why FAPI-PET was difficult to implement. Probably? Definitely, as never listens to anything.

All that but no TR1?

@TheTruth23's "No mention of FDA approval timelines etc? Be great, as others have suggested, if they could properly map out where they are and a detailed steps plan for the next months and years."

Don't be ridiculous. A detailed steps plan for the next years? Oh I see, you are simple AND ridiculous.🤣🤣🤣

Good news! - and nice mix of British English and American English, although tumour has definitely become tumor.

Very pleased that we've moved past the end of A2C1 and not only actually started A2C2 but also a study to identify high FAP cancers, and specifically cancer subtypes, on an at least individual person basis.

Avacta could never have fitted four cohorts of 8 weeks into the timeline stated since the first time this arm was mooted, and especially not since the 28 February fundraise announcement, even using Alan's magic calendar.

There are two things here Ice. The first is the safety for review by the SDMC. My understanding is that this consists of 2 doses followed by a two week observation period. If the third patient in C1 was dosed in the US on 20 March then we are well past the date when the SDMC could have reviewed the C1 data. That means either there has been a problem with one or more patients and extra patients needed to be added in OR it is no longer Avacta policy to report the completion of a cohort and escalation to the next dose. My email to CC last Thursday about this latter possibility has not been answered. I'm not totally surprised as she will have been very busy and she doesn't know me from Adam. However, this I can say... My first email failed to deliver as the addressee was not in the Avacta email system. My second email didn't fail to deliver. That means either that it was delivered to her inbox, or it got automatically binned as it was from one of the gmail/outlook/yahoo/etc mail services that non-business people use, or it was filtered into her junk folder for the same reason. My emails to AS got through to him so I hope mine to CC will also get through. Whether she will open/read it is another matter. I will resend on Thursday, but with a read receipt!

The second thing here is the 8-week surveillance, which is for monitoring for efficacy as per the scans shown at AACR (and possibly by other means). I think it takes a while for doxorubicin to have a noticeable/measurable effect. These 8-weekly surveillances would be ongoing for as long as the patient's cancer doesn't progress.

It's a market-wide problem. I can't sell my Hen's Teeth shares either.

@Bridgedogg1, you spread your posts around don't you ...bit of a scattergun approach to speculating. I'll wager you know next to nothing about Avacta or the pharma industry, but prove me wrong: explain what IP means to you and why you think a comparison with PureTech is valid.

😮😭

😉👍

I was sat in my car in White City this morning with "a friend" and was buzzed six or seven times by an old guy in a Morris 1100. Him and his binoclulars were a bl**dy danger on the road.