Member Info for BuenaVista

The intention to do the fortnightly study was announced FIVE MONTHS AGO. Screening was already ongoing TWO MONTHS AGO. Something is seriously wrong somewhere in this process.

Or they could just be writing the RNS blurb from scratch each time rather than using the time saving method of having standard, agreed and approved texts that can just be slotted in as needed. Wouldn't surprise me given the way this company goes about things.

I'm absolutely convinced the board knows what coming. The question is "What is coming?"

We shouldn't forget that article on 'telltale signs your company is about to be taken over' - top management staff who will have no role in the new organisation leaving for other jobs and the company not doing anything to support a continually falling share price that will make the modest takeover premium seem a bargain to traders and frustrated, demoralised investors alike.

And all the while, the silence from the company is deafening.

Of those are the figures then it could just be another Avacta RNS balls up Patrick.

Working on a first approximation of the mid market price being 95p:

9,515 x 95p = £9,039.25

So 3 employees got £3,000 or some combination of more employees getting less each.

It's the bonus for top management? For a project team? A little for a lot of staff? No big deal.

Also gotta say, not the RNS I was hoping for.

You think AS should RNS that the company is in negotiation with other companies?

Interesting topic and interesting comments. Some observations:

The company only needs to communicate if there is price sensitive news. It is not required to provide new sheets to bedwetting investors. That said, the lack of news about the 'short' 'parallel' Arm 2 study starting 5 (FIVE) months after ANNOUNCING the intention to do it is deafening.

C7 data has not been released because they are still being collected and, anyway, it is *not usual* to RNS individual bits of clinical trial data. Show me any company that RNS's that. However, what is really meant here is "Why hasn't the company released the Arm 1 safety and tolerability data?" and the answer is, as AS has alluded, that it will be presented at conference where it will have greatest impact - the purpose of conferences is to present first reports of new findings, ffs - and presented in full detail in a peer reviewed paper for the world and posterity.

'The platform is proven' (and 'It Works™') means that the peptide linker in the pre|CISION substrate is cleaved solely by FAP and not by any related enzymes. It does not mean that all pre|CISION substrates will be inert (not biochemically active until meeting FAP) nor that there will be enough ACTIVE FAP to cleave therapeutic levels of the cytotoxin. I would suggest that the microenvironment not just in the tumor but in the whole body is a lot more complex, subtle and nuanced than PIs imagine.

In addition to the lack of clarity about which camera are susceptible, the platform has further not been proven to industry licencing or takeover standards because AVA6000 has only been used in Phase 1 on pretreated end of life patients. A pivotal Phase 2 (@Thorn, note it is Phase 2 or Phase II, not Phase 11) trial on clean untreated patients is needed to prove efficacy in the clinical setting. And in any case, deals take a long, long time to arrange and we should take comfort that the bigger the deal, the more thorough and protracted the negotiations - a point that should be appreciated.

My thoughts on the falling SP? I hope it is down to 20p come 6th April.

AS said "don't worry about the funding" so we will see.

I see the oil industry trolls are still active here.

AFC/Speedy should get incontact with some of these people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67873127

👍

Could someone precis please what this means when the one-off Coris purchase is excluded.

...But do you think he would answer the questions fully, before falling asleep?

Excellent suggestion! Saves on trsavel and AS can do the answers over cocoa and biccies before bedtime.

I would suggest that, if the proposed meeting were to happen, the resulting Q&A only (using a NDA if necesssary) be published as a blog on the Avacta website, something that I think investors would find useful, especially if repeated quarterly. Oh, hang on...

It's not invested. Just ignore it.

@WeAreGroot, on that web page: "The sponsor of the study (such as the government, drug makers or technology companies) typically pays for all costs involved with a clinical research study. This includes supplying the new treatment, as well as any special testing, possible extra physician visits, and research costs involved in the clinical studies. Each study sponsor identifies top nationwide physicians to partner with to administer the actual study with qualified patients. The FDA requires that participants in clinical studies receive all study-related doctor visits, diagnostic testing and study treatments free of charge."

Those are the additional charges due to being on th estudy. It does not include hospital stays, doctor visits, tests, etc associated with the condition. D-Geeman has previously supplied this link: https://www.cancer.gov/research/participate/clinical-trials/paying

We won't know whether any patients have been dosed in Arm 2 until the RNS announcing that the first three patients have been dosed.

It is true that patients receiving non-first line treatment can be included, but I think it's clear that Avacta (and perhaps those they are in negotiation with) want to see how AVA6000 performs in treatment-naive patients, albeit in the "metastatic setting".

A further point about first line treatment in the US. Healthcare insurers lists what treatments can be reimbursed. These will be SoC treatments. Getting the insurer to pay for an experimental treatment may not be straightforward. The US healthcare system is shy te.

"Maybe if early diagnosis and cancer hasn’t spread, they would use an approved treatment rather than an experimental one."

Yes, that is the reason why Phase 1 is carried out on terminally ill patients or patients who have exhausted all recognised treatments, first line to nth line. It is an ethical matter. However, when a patient presents late (as US citizens without healthcare insure who can't afford doctors might...) then if their cancer has metastasised their chances of survival are very, very slim. Hence my question earlier in the week about patients having to pay their own healthcare costs when on a trial in the US: is it really feasible that a poor person, or even just a person without healthcare insurance, in the US could pay for their own care costs when terminally ill? Wouldn't bequeathing to family be more sensible. Having a first line treatment study in the US may sound great, but how does it work out in practice. Avacta, and CC in particular, will know the answer to this but maybe (just maybe) this is why the fortnightly study is slow getting going.

Metastatic cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10224927/

(Indolent tumours either stop growing or grow very slowly.)