If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
I think you can see the process with AVA3996.
The substrate will need to be shown to be inert (not metabolised into something active) except for cleavage by FAP (and only FAP) and the leaving group wil need to be shown to be non-toxic. The warhead will also need to be shown to be substantially active only in the TME, and the more toxic the warhead, the more substantially it needs to be active only in the TME. If the warhead has not been through trials itself then its metabolites will need to be shown to not cause substantial side effects.
07 Jan 2021: License Agreement with POINT Biopharma Inc "The agreement provides POINT with an exclusive license to the pre|CISION technology for use in the first radiopharmaceutical prodrug the company intends to develop, and a non-exclusive license to the pre|CISION™ platform for the development of a broader pipeline of FAP-activated radiopharmaceuticals."
https://avacta.com/license-agreement-with-point-biopharma-inc/
A non-excusive license deal with Novartis to develop FAP-activated radiopharmaceuticals should surely be possible, given Novartis' interest in radiopharmaceuticals and their keen competition with Point/Lilly in that area. Would be a good way in for Novartis to test the water, although I think they, like any company, can look at pre|CISION in detail in their own labs, just can't publish or commercialise anything without an agreement with Avacta.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/point-breaks-open-phase-3-data-showing-how-drug-14b-lilly-buyout-saga-matches-pluvicto
That was "Agreed" to "If it's validation that BP is looking for then this could come in a few forms"
Agreed
@gje,
Pharma companies are very conservative. Unsurprising when the huge sums of money and the companies's (and the CEOs') futures are at stake. Decisions are taken very carefully when it comes to new drug classes, new mechanisms of action. There is a definite 'After you' culture until commerciability is proven and then the 'Me too' culture kicks in and takes over and it's a very strong-willed CEO who can resist piling in along with the rest (like with Novartis not joining the ADC beanfeast: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/jpm24-cancer-players-jump-head-first-adc-field-novartis-ceo-explains-how-hes-resisted ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me-too_drug
I believe Avacta need a deal or two with BP, such as a non-exclusive licence to use pre|CISION with a company's specifically named oncology class of drugs. Backend-load the deal(s) with milestone and royalty payments and once one signs up the others will (mostly) all say "Me too!"
So is AS looking for the big deal to commercialise pre|CISION or is he looking for the big deal as a takeover (uncomplicated by annoying little deals that might tread on the toes of the buyer) and a nice job for himself in the new set up? Remember, no one - not AS, not MM, not the sealion, who I now see has joined in as a green box, nor anyone on here - has your best interests at heart. A buy out at a large premium on a heavily discounted share price wouldn't matter to AS as long as his future was secured. That's life. It's just the way of the world.
When is commecialisation though? This year? Next year? AS hanging on for the big deal. Pharma can wait because no one is commercialising this if Avacta is going it alone. Avacta doesn't have the resources - cash, staff, skills - to go it alone and pharma knows that. Pharma can wait until Avacta are desperate for cash again. Science good, management bad and needs replacing with pharma-savvy leaders.
Investor webinar https://www.turnerpope.com/investor-evenings/webinars/ response to question @29:30:
"We've got sufficient data now to partner the pre|CISION platform. ... Clinical data is absolutely key to deals and deal value. We've now got very clear, irrefutable clinical evidence that the platform selectively targets a warhead to the tumour tissues, etc, etc.
"A couple of things are critical to us in the commercial partnering process. One is continuing to build that body of [positive data, as just described]. The second is to be in a strong negotiating position with a long cash runway which we also now have. In terms of strategy, we want to retain as much as we can right now because we know how valuable the pre|CISION platform is, so doing small quick deals is not attractive nor sensible. So care needs to be taken right now to do the right deals, with the right partners obviously, otherwise we actually risk reducing the value of the commercial opportunities. For example, we don't want to do deals that cut across our own pipeline strategy ... and we don't want to do small deals, which are easy to do of course but you could carve out a portion of what a large pharmaceutical partner of the right calibre might be interested in."
So he's saying "Unless you're prepared to offer us a massive deal we're not interested."
I miss the old AS, who might have said something like "We're exploring all avenues but will be guided by obtaining the maximum longterm value from the platform." Ambiguous, but would have kept potential partners, traders and shorters on their toes.
AS has effectively trashed the SP by declaring that there will be no deals at all for months and months and months. Not even a little one to keep the lights on beyond April next year, to get the ball rolling, to induce FOMO in BP. Is the long wait for THE BIG DEAL the true strategy or it an excuse because there hasn't been any serious interest yet for any licensing deal for any aspect of pre|CISION? Do we trust AS's word? The company needs professional, savvy leadership. Are we facing an offer of 60p at a 50% premium and cushy roles for Avacta management in the new organisation?
@Bella's "Does " don't worry about funding" seem like a true statement. "
Yes, in the sense that "Only two owners" is a true statement when each owned half of the car.
What are the FAP levels like in paediatrics? Given that FAP is associated with tissue remodelling.
@WeAreGroot, I wasn't able to see the original Xcrement as the poster has blocked me or not added me to the list of admirers but I know it can only be one of the pom pom girls. So, what research do you think I should have done? Maybe enquire on here as to what it was about?
So... in what way did I slam the poster's Xcrement as 'lies'? I'll let others decide who looks like an idiot and I'll take your apology as a given.
It looks like an Xcrement from one of the pom pom girls.
What's the primary source?
Trolls only plague companies that will come good. As you say Nanomat, they exploit the volatility to prey on weak holders.
So JWBellamy can't name any "rampers that were here above £1 are no longer here".
Please ignore this trader troll. It has nothing to contribute about Avacta. It just smears its excrement here.
JWBellamy is just a trader troll. It makes unsubstantiated statements and then disappears. It never attempts to justify the statements when asked to.
Prove me wrong troll. Answer my questions from the Publicity thread:
@JWBellamy, that's interesting [JWBellamy wrote "Interesting to see that loads of the well known rampers that were here above £1 are no longer here"]. Which rampers are you referring to? Can you name any of them?
I think going for a more frequent dosing was an obvious decision, not necessarily influenced by any outsiders, be that the FDA or prospective partners, as more frequent, lower doses of doxorubicin are already a thing in the clinic - Pfizer's ⅓-strength dose given weekly for instance. I'd be very disappointed if Avacta weren't already thinking seriously about it by Science Day but there is a process and certain investigative steps to be followed. Didn't FMcL say somewhere (perhaps in the TG notes?) that weekly dosing was a step too far? It wasn't ruled out completely. A successful fortnightly dosing will inform any decisoin about weekly dosing in the future much more than the 3-weekly dosing could.
Toukankahmoon wrote "What I don’t understand is that it isn’t on Cancer UK’s radar"
Firstly, how do you know it isn't? Do please tell us your inside knowledge.
Secondly, if it were, what difference would that make to Avacta or Cancer UK?
My "465mg/m² given 3-weekly would be 6.2 times the standard 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose and higher than the lower maximum cumulative lifetime dose!" was of course incorrect.
465mg/m² of AVA6000 is approximately 314mg/m² (465x54/80) molar equivalent of doxorubicin (that's to say, of covalently bound doxorubicin), or 4.2 times the standard 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose.
@JWBellamy, that's interesting. Which rampers are you referring to? Can you name any of them?