Member Info for BuenaVista

Firstly, the current C6 dose contains 2.79 times (not 2.7 times) the 'standard' 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose. This '75' standard has been adopted because it is what will be used in Phase 1b.

Secondly, all previous comparisons have been against the 'standard' 60mg/m² doxorubicin dose. By the old standard, AVA6000 is currently being dosed at 3.49 times the doxorubicin equivalent.

A further dose escalation to C7, at the same step change as the past two, to 370mg/m² would contain 3.33 times the standard 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose.

All this makes AVA6000, the pre|CISION platform and Avacta more valuable, not less.

Ignore the detractors as they are only interested in their own investment positions and stick with listening to what the company and, even more importantly, the clinicians involved in the trial say.

I've got to say I didn't read beyond AZ's own summary (as reproduced in my earlier post) in yesterday's RNS. Didn't seem too bad but the trial data clearly didn't meet the market's expectation. Plus a bit of over-selling no doubt.

In a couple of weeks HCI will be flooding the market again with their 2.75m share allocation.

I know SB was on about getting a stake in Avacta in the primary market but I think pharma-related businesses, be they industrials or investment houses, would be crazy not to build a stake below 3% in the secondary market at these prices when the price is likely to be higher should there - and there is no guarantee there will - be a fundraise open to new investors.

LTHs should just enjoy the low SP and continue building their holdings as and when they can (and want to, obviously).

Both Aptamer and Deepverge have invested in expansion. They didn't choose a good time to do that! Nor to do it from a strong enough base. Makes Avacta's more cautious steps look very sensible and that only encourages my belief in Avacta having a sound business strategy.

I'd say a tasty little morsel for Avacta to pick up but I'll let AS be the judge of that.

Going, going, ....

4 July 2023

Trading Update

Aptamer Group plc (AIM: APTA), the developer of novel Optimer® binders to enable innovation in the life sciences industry, today announces an update on trading and its working capital position.

Unaudited revenue for the year ended 30 June 2023 ("FY23") was approximately £1.75 million, which is in line with the comments made in the statement released by the Company on 5 May 2023. Looking ahead, the pipeline for fee-for-service revenues for the year to June 2024 ("FY24") currently stands at approximately £2.2 million across 30 discrete fee-for-service projects (after risk-adjustment for anticipated commercial and scientific attrition). Note that this figure only includes opportunities for which the Group has current visibility and further opportunities over the course of FY24 are expected to increase this figure. In addition, this figure does not include licensing opportunities which could make a meaningful upside contribution to revenue.

With a prudent view on the development of revenues from licence fee arrangements, the Group is targeting a reduction in operating cash outflow to below £3 million for FY24 (compared with more than £6 million for FY23) following a reset of the cost base, and to reach positive cash flow by the end of FY26, which will require approximately £6 million of revenue in FY26.

The Group's unaudited cash balance at the end of June was £0.2 million. In addition to trading income in July, further funding will be required in the short term in order to continue as a going concern. The Directors are actively reviewing all possible financing options that are in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders and continue to take steps to carefully manage its working capital. Whilst the Board is aiming for a satisfactory outcome of the financing there can be no certainty that these discussions will be successful, nor as to the terms or timing thereof.

3 July 2023

Datopotamab deruxtecan met dual primary endpoint of progression-free survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in TROPION-Lung01 Phase III trial

First Phase III results for AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo's TROP2-directed antibody drug conjugate demonstrated statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival vs. standard chemotherapy in previously treated locally advanced or metastatic disease

Trial will continue to assess the dual primary endpoint of overall survival

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/AZN/dato-dxd-significantly-improved-pfs-in-lung-cancer/16023427

Just paste it in sections into a new thread...

Thank you GracieP

I'm very, very pleased with the way the Phase 1a trial is going:

- Massive amounts of doxorubicin incorporated in the dose,

- Ttherapeutic levels in the tumour,

- No progression being seen in some patients,

- Possibility of regression at higher doses,

- and all with tolerabilty and safety at dosings up to C5.

In short, exquisite targetting of a known and respected cytotoxin. What's not to like? OK, well, maybe they could have picked up sooner on the possibility of driving the dosing levels higher and thereby have saved some time but that delay was only a few months. I suspect they are covering as many epithelial cell cancers as they can in Phase 1a (see the Fred Hutchinson call for advanced breast cancer patients) as favourable findings in all cancers would show that all epithelial cancers can be treated with AVA6000. and then... Hello licensing enquiries...

------------

To answer ipadtrader's question: Avacta Diagnostics can, I'm sure, identify suitable diagnostic Affimers but they haven't a Scooby how to create a product, which was a large part of why Coris was acquired.

"I have heard a recording of the afternoon session and have a transcript. "

Is this generally available Thompi? Or how much do you want for access?

$1.75bn eh? I'd take that as the introductory fee for the global rights to develop AVA6000 for breast cancer. Not including the milestone payments nor the 10% royalty on sales of course.

Well all you have to do chawala is wait.... wait.... wait.... wait....

Let me know the name of your clinical development firm ShearClass. I want to buy shares.

Oh hindsight is a wonderful thing!

The dose intervals used are used for a reason. The purpose is to hone in on the MTD.

They are going higher than they had thought they would with the first four cohorts.

What if DLTs start to be seen at 600? What would the MTD be then in your scheme? And in your (incorrectly projected) extension of the real sequence?

550 would be a lot better as the MTD than 405, yes?

"Also, check out his body language at 45m, as soon as that well worded question came in, he closed up like a clam and then tried to BS his way through why the top people in the organisation are not buying at the moment in the open market."

Either that or he lost patience with the tediously slow, longwinded question.

The 21 June RNS stated: "The data continue to show a very favourable safety profile for the tumour targeted chemotherapy and several patients in cohort 5 and earlier cohorts remain on treatment as their disease has not progressed."

We took this to mean patients from C5 and at least two of C1 to C4, but most likely C3 and C4 as biopsies from these cohorts showed levels of doxorubicin in the tumour that were above the therapeutic level for doxorubicin. There were no biopsies from C2 and the biopsies from the patient in C1 were below therapeutic level. The first dose from C3 was no earlier than 29 June 2022 (the date of the announcement of DE to C3).

The trial protocol includes:

"Key Inclusion Criteria: 5. Life expectancy of greater than 12 weeks, in the opinion of the investigator" (so could be estimated at several months), and:

"Secondary Outcome Measures:

"5. Objective response rate (ORR) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]

ORR is defined as the proportion of patients achieving a best overall response of confirmed partial responses (PR) or complete response (CR), per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

"6. Duration of Response (DoR) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]

DoR is defined as the duration of time from date of first response to date of disease progression, as per RECIST v1.1

"7. Progression-free-survival (PFS) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]

PFS is defined as the time from the date of the first dose to the date of the first documentation of confirmed disease progression or death, whichever occurs first, as per RECIST v1.1

"8. Overall survival (OS) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]

Overall survival (OS), defined as the date of first dose) to the occurrence of death from any cause"

As none of the patients would have been monitored for one year by yesterday and AS does not comment on individual patients, I'm not surprised he ducked out of further comment on PFS.

And like a post-curry wind, the sealion's little friend blows in.

https://*********************/companies/uk/other/avacta-group-plc/research/capital-access-group/avacta-group-initiation/23_202306290223344580

www . research - tree . com

Making the platform available to other companies for use with their own 'toxic' agents has always been an option, of course it has. It's just that those other companies might now be seriously considering licensing in the platform technology.

Of course it's about the money and funding things going forward. pre|CISION is a very valuable platform and Avacta should rightly exploit it to provide as great an ongoing revenue stream as they can.

SB, what's the title?