Member Info for BuenaVista

As reported in Linkedin coverage of ESMO 2025 (thanks GMCC), Oncomatryx's OMTX705 is a novel ADC which has been in Phase 1a since 2022: https://oncomatryx.com/oncomatryx-announces-fda-and-aemps-ind-clearance-for-omtx705-a-first-in-class-tumor-microenvironment-targeted-adc-to-treat-advanced-solid-tumors/ and https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05547321

Preclinical work: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32161121/

Important elements are the targetting entity: "1. Targeted Antibodies against the Tumor Microenvironment: We have developed highly selective antibodies that are engineered to recognize and target specific proteins within the tumor’s microenvironment, particularly in Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts. This level of precision ensures our treatment zeroes in on the root of the problem."

and linker cleavage: "3. Innovative Conjugation Strategy: We have developed a conjugation strategy that delivers unmatched ADC stability in the patient’s bloodstream. This stability prevents nonspecific payload release in the patient’s bloodstream and guarantees the cytotoxic agent reaches the fibroblasts in the tumor microenvironment, minimizing treatment side effects and maximizing treatment effectiveness."

Full details, pipeline, etc.: https://oncomatryx.com/adc-platform/

With your vast experience of administering chemo, I'm surprised you continue to call an infusion an injection. Something like adrenaline may be injected intravenously in an emergency to give a quick effect. Not anticancer drugs.

But let's look at the relative merits of a single combo drug (A) vs a two-drug combo therapy (B).

A will have a single PK profile, B will have two PK profiles with - here it comes... - two half-lives, etc.

A will require a single regulatory authorisation, B will require three authorisations (although the one for AVA6103 should be assumed as given) and that means clinical trials for both drugs and then for the combination therapy (so two additional sets of clinical trials for B rather than one for A), which means a lot more time and expense to get to market for what might be marginal, if any, difference in efficacy either way.

A will have a fixed ratio of the two component drugs (supposedly 1:1), B will indeed be flexible - which seems to be your argument - but how beneficial would that be if the two components are needed to work together and different ratios (but always with more FAP-EXd) could be achieved by mixing, or giving separately, AVA6207 + AVA6103?

Also 23rd - The Christie, Manchester

"All patients should have peripheral veins or central line that are, in the opinion of the Investigator or delegate, suitable for peripheral or central intravenous infusion of AVA6000."

Injection...

😂😂😂

Apologies...

'Prof Eggy', the man who does research without actually doing any research.

Well done eggy, you've just won ignoramus of the year.

MrIndia wrote: "and some boredom by traders who always expect news every week." yet "Then the news dropped and it went upto 1800 and over a few weeks. This is likely to happen again starting next week. We are expecting news on multiple fronts"

/Irony

😂😂😂

Frustrating (for me), but they're not going to give anything away about the structure(s) of AVA6207. My only question about Wednesday's presentation is will David be mothered again?

I should think his take would depend on how Avacta was progressing against schedule, what the data were looking like, and what the quality of the interactions with Big Farmer were like.

You held me until Novotech.

All the authors go to stand 10 deep at the poster.

"We now demonstrate how the use of the precision technology platform has been widened to selectively control the release of multiple warheads from a single molecular species via a FAP cleavable linker."

Marvellous stuff!😀

Taking TNBC through trials to the market will take a LOT of money and a LOT of time. That is why they said they want to partner with a major player for TNBC. If SGC and partnering for TNBC goes well and there is funding available, then faridoxorubicin for STS opens up, although there may be other priorities by then (AVA6103, AVA6207, ...?) or another company could take it forward. I think we are in a very fluid ideas period at the moment until the deals start being struck and we know more about which candidate drugs, which indications and which partners/licencees there are.

...and they received different doses of AVA6000 and had different cancer sub-typyes, some more responsive to doxorubicin than others.

Yes, as far as efficacy goes, these were two very small heterogenous indication cohorts. What they saw in Phase 1a was the absolute minimum that can be expected in terms of efficacy.

In contrast, the SGC patients responded at higher doses.

310 mg/m2 Q3W - 6th best response

385 mg/m2 Q3W - PR

385/200 mg/m2 Q3W - 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th best responses

250 mg/m2 Q2W - 2nd best response

The target patient population swung to SGC in these later cohorts.

https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ESMO-2025_vfinal.pdf

Fair enough opti, but there will be many here who don't know what's involved in a poster presentation.

If you examine the poster eggy, you'll see that the STS data come very largely from the earlier, lower dose, cohorts. And that produced partial responses in two of the (terminally ill, pre-treated, etc.) patients.

160 mg/m2 Q3W - top partial response (PR)

200 mg/m2 Q3W

250 mg/m2 Q3W - 2nd best PR, plus the 3rd best response

310 mg/m2 Q3W

385 mg/m2 Q3W - 5th best response

160 mg/m2 Q2W - 4th best response

250 mg/m2 Q2W

Reviews aren't really up to date articles as they report on reports of earlier work and are themselves some time in compilation, submission and acceptance. From a quick look, this one doesn't seem to cover conferences, which is a big omission. It also omits patents. Ouch! As Avacta's PDCs have only appeared in conference abstracts and patents (and even then as Bachovchin patents), then we are invisible to this review. It's also my impression that we've only recently started to emphasise the 'PDC' term.

The easiest way to get into a review is by publishing a peer-reviewed article with PDC or peptide drug conjugate in the title.

It's obviously not a 3 hour presentation. It's a poster, one of hundreds in the hall. Francis Wilson will stand in front of it and talk about it to anyone who passes by and shows interest, so group talks and on an individual level answering questions and going deeper into the science.