Member Info for BuenaVista

...has gone. After all that talk of a breast cancer franchise, the indications for AVA6103 Phase 1 are already being declared as gastric, pancreatic, cervical and small cell lung cancers: https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/thz9au7cnj @ 25:15.

No breast cancer amongst those indications. Back in R&D spotlight 8 on 29 January 2025 ( https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/kbn3w56eye ) @ 10:50 the patient plot for breast cancer HR+, HER- is shown as pretty well equivalent to pancreatic cancer as a target emerging from the Tempus AI collaboration.

As they are looking for a partner for faridox in TNBC, maybe they have one or more lined up for the whole 'franchise'? After all, they are a very expensive indications for taking a drug through clinical trials to market. 'Avacta, your one-stop shop for breast cancer therapies'

Fill yer boots folks!

I thought you were busy bothering nurses

I see you as having no credibility or integrity, meaning nothing you say can be taken at face value, eggy.

Eggy, see at 8:20.

Doxorubicin half-life is 35 hours, meaning half of conventional doxorubicin is still circulating nearly a day and a half after iv infusion. Faridox, because it releases doxorubicin at the site of the tumour, has extended this half-life by 40%. And that is more than ample for a working prodrug.

Exatecan half-life is 9 hours and fundamental to why it failed in the clinic, which is why Avacta needed to design a sustained release version - AVA6103.

Avacta and lab results say half-life isn't a problem for either drug. If you can't accept that, at a distance from the experiments and lab results, then what does that say about you?

Maybe you don't realise that the half-life of the pre|CISION substrate (note: not platform - that's a technique, not a chemical) is totally irrelevant in this because it is inert - uncleaved AVA6000 just leaves the body. So, not enough AVA6000 getting to the tumour to cause a suitably strong therapeutic effect? Simple. just increase the dose, which is perfectly fine as long as it's not causing dose limiting toxicity. What do you think the Phase 1a trial has been about these past few years?

Alternatively again, she may have just finished a presentation to another group of people - farmers or investors - that may* or may not have gone well for her. She did at the start really sound as though she was tired of going over the same content (again).

* so well that a deal is in the bag and the webinar for us was just a formality needing to be honoured.😂

I wasn't able to listen live and have only had a rushed listen whilst doing other things. Will give it a proper listen later - no hurry now.

If CC was in the US, that would have been a 5am webinar start for her - up at ?... 4am? And dave over on the West Coast?... If in the UK, not an excuse for being low energy although she may have been disappointed by the negative share price reaction - but she should have angled the RNS better to the British AIM layman audience.

She may also have noted the share price dip badly when she started talking Phase 2 - the implication being more expense.

I did notice that the Q&A ended abruptly, which was very strange, so an alternative take on th ewebinar is that it was prerecorded and someone messed up the editing. Did anyone have their in-webinar question put to CC? (I'd really like an honest description of how and when questions are selected - surely Avacta wouldn't leave such an important role and responsibility as that to the IMC moderator???!)

Theirs a lot of truth in that Nlgb. Seams to work well on this bored.

Quote from Jennifer Specht: "My expertise includes treating women with triple-negative breast cancer, an aggressive form of the disease that does not respond to hormonal medications. At Fred Hutch, I ... and lead the Phase 1 Breast Cancer Program, which tests the safety and efficacy of novel breast cancer therapies."

Oops, didn't read the bit about him transferring...

Anyway, here's Jennifer M. Specht, MD: https://www.fredhutch.org/en/provider-directory/jennifer-m-specht.html

Diseases Treated: Breast Cancer

Maybe they're not doing much or any STS there with faridox?

I only snatched a quick listen to the presentation and Q&A post-webinar but didn't CC say Phase 2 would (likely) be a 2:1 comparison? - 2 patients on faridox for every patient on their clinician's choice of chemo. The choice being because, there being no SoC, clinicians currently make their decisions on what chemo to use based on several factors to do with the patient and their state and the cancer and it's state.

I don't know about Unicorno's mumbo jumbo. Maybe it would make more sense if it wasn't strung out by LSE's appalling text formatting.

Anyway, the changes are shown here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04969835?a=10&b=11&tab=history

The only change in the protocol as far as the way faridox works is the following:

'TNBC patients must be BRCA PD-L1 negative'

becomes

'TNBC patients must be BRCA wild-type'.

For anyone interested in the details of this refinement: https://www.google.com/search?q=What+is+the+difference+between+BRCA+wild-type+and+BRCA+PD-L1+negative%3F

Other than that, the inclusion criteria for TNBC have broadened from 'up to 3' to 'any' prior lines of therapy in the locally advanced or metastatic setting. Why this change? I don't know. It could be patient recruitment problems generally for an experimental therapy with boring old doxorubicin or, if BRCA wild-type is rarer (I don't know whether it is), it could be due to that smaller patient pool. Or it could be due to a different level of standard of care treatment options for BRCA wild-type. Or something else.

- - - - -

Additionally, Prof Lee Cranmer has been replaced by Dr Jennifer Specht as Principal Investigator at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.

I bloody hate predictive typing

Zeus given a joint-broker, so maybe the sole broker contract for this RNS.

Idiotic irrelevant comment by HurstBot unless it thinks Zeus will be overseeing a Nasdaq listing.

I see nothing strange in the use of terms such as anticipated, expected, planned, etc. As no one can be definite about what will happen in the future.

Fantastic news. Absolutely brilliant ...I think. I wonder how much of that the average AIM investor/trader will understand. Why is this such good news? What problem has been solved? How much is it worth? I do feel that Avacta comms needs to up its game and write for a British non-scientist audience if they want to support the share price.

But it is really good news

Different in what way?

The file has been replaced. Document properties are now:

File name: presentation.pdf

File size: 2.07 MB (2,167,203 bytes)

Title: Avacta AVA6000 SGC Data Release 17 Dec 2025

Author: -

Subject: -

Keywords: -

Creation Date: 17/12/2025, 14:32:55

Modification Date: 17/12/2025, 14:32:55

So it has been retitled.

- - - - -

Previous pertinent properties, now changed, were:

Title: Avacta meets Novartis: Pre|CISION single and dual warheads

Author: Victoria Juskaite

Created: 15/12/2025, 12:11:15

Modified: 15/12/2025, 12:11:15

My guess is that VJ originally created the file/template (for her Tumour Models presentation?) and CC then edited it for a presentation to Novartis (author is inserted automatically - but can be deleted, title needs to be created), and then edited it again on 15 December for today's presentation. Or someone else originally created the file/template and it has been passed around for people to use.

Anyway, whether Novartis got to see some or all of the content in today's presentation or something very different, it's good to know Avacta are talking turkish with their neighbour!

The presentation at Tumour Models was about Avacta's preclinical animal models for oncology. I think what happened is that that PPT file was used for its format for today's presentation (I know I used to find it easier to edit an existing PPT file than to create one anew!) but no one thought to edit the title and author in the properties.

I'm very intrigued to know what was in that presentation for Novartis and when, where and why it was given!