Member Info for BuenaVista

Well said SB. Company can't say one thing and do another. The Open Offer was on the terms set out in the Circular. The £2m OO raise was a sop to PIs - although open to all current investors, including the IIs, the IIs also had the other raise, which was oversubscribed and extra shares were issued, to obtain shares at 95p.

If Phase 1b, as described on Science Day, is two different doses every 3 weeks for 12 to 18 cycles (36 to 54 weeks) vs standard 75mg/m² doses every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles (18 weeks) for STS, then (and please check this) the patients will need to be anthracycline naive. This then takes on the characterisitcs of not a Phase 1b trial but a Phase 2/3 trial. A small Phase 3 trial but maybe just confirmatory given how well doxorubicin is known and characterised?

Lots of good news due about this before the end of Q2 I think.

https://www.mdanderson.org/patients-family/diagnosis-treatment/clinical-trials/phases-of-clinical-trials.html

And they haven't announced specific details either then or for Science Day so that the SP stays low for IIs to buy in?...

Andrew Saunders spoke of European sites for Phase 1b so that would require the approval of another regulatory authority, probably the EMA, and so another hurdle.

Same people, different persona.

Are you USBilically connected to our very own HurstBot?

Novice on a red run? We can only hope.

Yes, I'm sure the data so far will have given them a good indication. However, the 2 DEs proposed in the slides at Science Day are... speculative? How can they go from nowhere near MTD to finding it in 2 DEs? They must have a very good idea of where it is in order to be able to do that. I would love to see more frequent dosing but accept that it may be best to first go for a doxorubicin equivalent dosing regimen (three weekly), but greatly extended, and then later to look at more frequent dosing. However I think it all depebds on the protocol for the rest of Phase 1a - or an effectively new Phase 1a and Phase 1b as the current protocol says three weekly dosing and changing that to weekly or bi-weekly would be a major change for high doses of (pro)doxorubicin and its side-effedts.

Whose surly?

You'll need to ask Livedataaccount that ;-)

Haha. What a complete load of monkey droppings this thread is!

Who are the experts that are making these 'predictions'? Has anyone stopped to question credentials or are you all too wrapped up in fantasies about how much money you're going to make?

Myself, I make no predictions about SP or MCap. I don't believe the Stiffle or Trinity Delta projections. It's like religion: everyone is convinced that theirs is the true one but all can't be right and it's more likely that all are wrong than that one is right. Clocking out again.

Shares are issued at the rate of 118.75p per share, so a SP of 1,000p just means massive profit for HCI.

Different audiences TG.

Their delivery is perfect for a scientific community audience that is critical of what is being described.

PIs want the enthusiastic elivery of dumbed-down science that they can understand and rah-rah-rah along to, even if they don't really understand, but rather just feel that they're going to make money.

IIs...? Maybe they (the non-medical ones that is) want something inbetween? The promise of wealth delivered with gravitas. But probably most of all, context for the science so that they can go away and do their research on stats for drug discovery success, market size, time to market, etc.

Thank you for your input J_T. So, in summary, all the cancer types in the Phase 1 trial (STS and pancreatic, colorectal, non-small cell lung, breast, head and neck, ovarian and bladder cancers, all being FAP-rich) could potentially be treated with AVA6000 if AVA6000 has a suitable efficacy vs toxicity profile and a mode of action that will be effective. However other pre|CISION substrates (prodrugs) may have a more efficient cancer-killing mode of action, hence there are good licensing possibilities there.

Btw, thanks for the book recommendation. Crackin' good read!

Myles has a trading pot. Wow. It's not a secret. It's up to others how they want to play the game themselves. If they only buy when the SP has gone up and then sell when it's gone down again then... well, they're going to do that sort of thing anyway, whether they follow Myles' tweets or whether they don't. Personally, I find Twitter a very shouty cesspit best avoided. Others choose to wallow in it and that's their choice. I just don't think it's a place suited to rational thought and analysis; not the place to get reliable information, just fantasy projections and massive FUD doses.

To be suitable for treatment, there has to be a FAP-rich TME and then the cancer has to be susceptible to doxorubicin.

At Science Day it was stated that most of the cancer types accepted onto the trial were not treated with doxorubicin and that this didn't matter as the purpose at this stage was to test for safety and tolerability, not for efficacy.

Of the different cancer types that there are, STS, breast cancer and ovarian cancer are routinely treated with doxorubicin, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma are potential indications for AVA6000 and there are several others where there is an apparent limited role for doxorubicin (slide 87). Of those in that last group, it wasn't clear to me whether the limited doxorubicin role was due to the limitation of doxorubicin's lifetime cumulative dosage or whether they were inheritently not susceptible to doxorubicin's mode of action.

Below are the approved indications in the US. I'm sorry to not see prostate or pancreatic cancers there. Can someone shed any light on the susceptibility of that last group of cancers in slide 87 to doxorubicin, with a view to improved delivery and targeting via AVA6000?

FDA Approved Indications
Acute lymphocytic leukemia
Acute myelogenous leukemia
Hodgkin lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Bladder cancer
Metastatic breast cancer
Ewing sarcoma
Metastatic neuroblastoma
Metastatic ovarian carcinoma
Metastatic osteogenic sarcoma
Small cell lung cancer
Metastatic soft tissue sarcoma
Thyroid cancer
Wilms tumor

Non-FDA Approved Indications
Advanced endometrial carcinoma
Metastatic hepatocellular cancer
Multiple myeloma
Advanced renal cell carcinoma
Thymomas and thymic malignancies
Uterine sarcoma
Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia

Taken from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551633/

Thanks for the book recommendation. 288pp - not bad!

Siddhartha Mukherjee appears to have written three well received books on cancer, genes and cells but they are looonnnggg and my reading pile is already half a mile high so 288pp sounds like my kinda book.

Same thing.

No need to be abusive just because you're wrong.

Take your own advice!

There is a valid point here. For all the talk of Affimers being good fits for receptors, antigens and undruggable targets, where are the deals with big pharma? Lots of preparatory work going on demonstrating the utility of Affimers so maybe we're still in the scoping phase. However the technology has a time-limited patent life and whilst new drugs discovered using the in-patent Affimer technology will have 20 years of patent protection (with royalties to Avacta of course) that will cease being possible when the Affimer patents expire and \affimers become something that any company can freely use.