Member Info for BuenaVista

Avacta are you listening? There is a needy PI fretting the weekend away.

Rather than signing up with a payment system to the free trial I opted to quickly select all and copy...

Fired up by AOH1996, the article is about these 'breakthroughs':

1. The tumour annihilator (AOH1996🥱)

2. A drug to supercharge your immune system - immunotherapy/checkpoint inhibitors

3. Vaccines that can cure cancer – and prevent it coming back

4. Flash radiotherapy (short burst of intense radiotherapy)

5. Super-viruses that can infect cancers

Whilst strictly correct, this is the sort of thing that leads to false expectations as it gives the impression that these people might be cured by this super new drug: "[AOH1996] is now being trialled in people for whom standard treatments, such as chemotherapy, have not worked." This is a first-in-human Phase 1 safety and tolerability study of course.

https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05227326

It'll be many years before it can be prescribed, if ever.

As for the other 'newest breakthroughs to celebrate', well, something old, something new...

Let me put my point another way.

If AS had been asked about ovarian cancer instead of breast cancer at the AGM, what do you think his answer would have been? And in that case, would ovarian cancer now be Avacta's 'focus'?

...or Ovarian Cancer trial...

Excuse me, but it was obvious from Science Day that breast and ovarian cancer would be next.

https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/MASTER-DECK-Avacta-Science-Day-23.02.23_compressed-1.pdf (Slide 87)

But none of that is imminent. We are still in Phase 1a. A definition of 'focus' is needed..

Beware speculators.

Is this idea being pushed by the Twatterati?

@JRDC

I must have missed this. When did Avacta say breast cancer will be an additional focus?

Also, you do know what Adriamycin is, don't you?

"I wonder how the licensing and regulatory agencies will assess AVA6000? Treat it as a brand new drug, or make allowances for the active agent being established standard care? Beyond this, will it allow a complete revision of dosing schedules and delivery systems? New treatment for different cancers?"

Eth, if you truly work in Cancer Care Services with a knowledge of the drug development process then surely you will know that regulatory authorities will only grant licences for dosing regimens and different indications based on clinical evidence of efficacy, alone or in combination, from clinical studies.

Anyone who understands the drug development process will know that meaningful data isn't released until the trial is done and the resulting analysis will stand up to critical inspection. In the meantime you can 'want' but it means nothing. You'll just have to be patient.

"Constantly amazed by the number of people who are demanding the ‘data’"

Anyone ignorant/arrogant enough to be demanding the data doesn't understand the drug discovery and development process and can safely be ignored/filtered.

"Let's spin this in a positive way."

The fact is, never have such high concentrations of doxorubicin been able to be targetted to a tumour, so of course it's not known whether AVA6000 may be able to keep tumours in check nor whether even higher doses may cause tumours to regress. And for those reasons, the dose is being escalated until the clinicians decide that DLT have caused the MTD to be reached.

The trial currently has been given authority to progress to a seventh cohort and a maximum dose of 400mg/m² or 3.6 times the standard 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose and 4.5 times the 60mg/m² dose. The clinicians, who are very experienced in these matters, have seen that DLTs were close so, personally, I don't see the escalation going up by 90mg/m² to that maximum should they decide to go to C7.

There's no point refuting what the 🦭 writes as it is all basically just 🐮💩 and one could write a book to educate the twat but it wouldn't read as it is not interested in truth.

Similarly there's no point engaging the 🦭 in discussion because, basically, it isn't interested in truth. It's a really weird individual to do this all day, raising 'discussion points' from the position of wilful ignorance just to... well I don't know the purpose of this fool that hangs around the BB like a bad smell.

Btw, I only looked at the post because it said 'we' when the 🦭 is so obviously outside the group of investors. And I only read enough to get the gist of the 💩 lies.

The bid price did dip to 97 just recently. As the ask price has been below the midprice, 98p buy might well have been possible. Will know in the next 10 minutes when the 15 minute delay catches up. Anyway, back to 98&100 at the moment.

Did they learn you nothing at 🤡 school?

Thanks cryptonomicon.

I think AS was referring to incentive shares that have been awarded. According to AVCT Director Deals here on LSE, the last change of holding by AS was the sale back in October 2020. If the company has achieved milestones in his incentive scheme(s) then he will have received shares. As these are declared as a block for all employees, now every 6 months, they are hidden. Happy to be shown to be wrong on this, but has AS's holding really not changed for almost 3 years?!

🤡

Yes, but even so, the board could still support the SP by buying shares on the open market for themselves and their spouses.

Still up in the air I think. If they have DLTs don't they have to enroll more patients according some rule based on the number of DLTs?

All those 32+ patients dosed in C1 to C6 represent quite a bit of data, stats-wise. Not saying the data would prove anything statistically, but 32+ data sets could, and from what has been said and shown, might well show consistently positive and efficacious results.

Actually, C6 started on 21 June but we don't know when the first patient was dosed except for hearsay at the AGM that it would be after 28 June.

Of course, for the other cohorts, we only know for two of them (C1 and C5) whenthe first patient was actually dosed. For the others, there may have been a wait of several days/weeks.