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.
Yes, a very interestign few months coming up. In addition to the Q2W data, I'm also looking forward to the big reveal of Avacta's new IP connected to the AVA6000 trial and I'm hoping it will be a diagnostic test to assess each individual patient's active FAP level and hence suitability and best dosing regimen for treatment with AVA6000 and other pre|CISION substrates in the future. Think on that... IP for both diagnosis and treatment in a completely new area of tackling cancer.
I would agree with that for selecting the RP2D but they may want to go on and push the dose to see whether MTD is reached at the 310 level, which in total amount given would be equivalent to 465mg/m² of 3-weekly dosing (vs 385mg/m² in the final Q3W cohort). That would definitely be pushing it but they'd make their decision to do it or not based on the emerging side effects profile of the 2-weekly dosing.
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!
"Three patients now dosed in the US in two-weekly dose escalation study" was announced 7am on 21 March 2024. So that dosing was on 20 March in the US. Second dose would be 3 April. Two weeks for observation to 17 April. And "Avacta anticipates that the SMDC[sic] will review the two-weekly cohort 1 data by the end of April."
I presume JT means 310mg/m² which was C6 in the Q3W arm and would be C4 in the Q2W arm.
🤣 The usual baa-baa word salad I presume.
Which is sadder? Someone desperately trying to appear rich because of feelings of inadequacy or someone who's genuinely rich but needing validation from complete strangers on an anonymous BB?
Don't bother answering. It doesn't matter.
Icecool green binned for me as well PL. I was just going by the monikers I saw as latest posters in the thread.
What a pity. We were having a good discussion until icecool decided to wade in with his narcissist ego to give the trolls the oxygen to take this thread off topic. icecool you are the very definition of a twat.
Icecool is part of the deramping crew - or an idiot. The jury is out.
Please just ignore the trolls. They have neither the wit nor the will to understand and contribute.
Oops, obviously posted to the wrong thread...
Please just ignore the trolls. They have neither the wit nor the will to understand and contribute.
This is a granted (that's to say, IP is now protected by law) patent. I just hope Avacta can commercialise this Affimer invention, whatever it is - probably too complicated for anyone except an Einstein (who was a patent examiner) to dissect and understand.🤣🤣🤣
Here's a list of recent Avacta patent filings (no change since last shown): https://patents.google.com/?assignee=avacta&oq=avacta&sort=new
@Steelwatch200, City to United? 🤣🤣🤣
I'm ignoring the ignorant sealion's contribution which I'm sure is designed only to derail the discussion and whose trolling will only be taken up by the immature.
@Bella's "if he gets to a point where the trial cannot administer any further doses, for whatever reason, I'm sure he will be coached accordingly."
That would be reaching his lifetime cumulative dose, declining to continue, death (from whatever cause), unresolved side effects, etc (see the trial protocol). With a much reduced tumour mass he would have several options as I previously wrote - a different clinical trial (the guy seems to like them!), radiotherapy, surgery on the reduced tumours or return to any (obviously non-anthracycline) SoC there might be for his cancer.
160mg/mm² then, 160mg/mm² now.
There was the opinion expressed on here some time back that patients still on trial would be moved to the latest dose. That was the wrong opinion then and it would be the wrong opinion now. Anyone who doesn't immediately understand that should take a moment to consider what repeatedly upping patients' doses during the trial would do for understanding the response at each dose level; for understanding how AVA6000 works and what the RP2D should be..
@B2HS2L, that patient has two choices: continue being dosed at the 160mg/mm² level he has been on; or decline further doses. His part in the trial has not finished; of course it hasn't - it is important to see what the response is with long-term treatment: whether/when there is doxorubicin resistance; what level of tumour reduction can be achieved. He doesn't get to choose what dosing regimen he should be on any more than you get to choose what meds should get when you see your GP.
Maybe you should write to CC and take this up with her.
Scrap that. The percentage volume reduction will still depend on the shapes (long vs spherical) of the two tumours being measured as their morphology will not necessarily have changed, just shrunk, so back to somewhere between 26% and 59% shrinkage by volume.
Hi SW, thanks for the details about how tumour size is measured using RECIST 1.1 methodology. On that basis, the length will be arrived at more by measurement of a couple of sausages than a sphere, so much more on the length side. Precise percentage reduction still unknown but will be much closer to 26% than the 59%.
@B2HS2L, moving that patient to a more frequent (or higher dosage) regimen whilst his tumour was still being reduced by the dose and frequency he was on (that's to say, whilst his disease was NOT progressing) would have two effects:
For him, he would reach his lifetime limit sooner. I'm not sure he or his family and friends would thank you for that.
For the trial, further valuable long-term data for that 160mg/mm² dose level would not be possible. I'm sure Avacta wouldn't thank you for that.
Do you understand now?
A refinement to my earlier calculation...
The data for measurements of the longest axis of each tumour may be impressive, but the measurements of the volumes will be even more impressive. The tumours won't be spherical so the real volume decreases will be less impressive than for spheres - they will be somewhere between the reductions in sphere volumes and reductions in lengths - but using the volume of a sphere equation of v=(4/3)πr³ and website https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/sphere-volume the results are:
For length as d = 100mm, 35mm, 26mm
And r = 50mm, 17.5mm, 13mm
v = 523.6cm³, 22.45cm³, 9.203cm³
Size of tumour = 100%, 4.2876%, 1.7576% of original size
Quoted measurement reduction of 65% to 74% (26% of length) = 59% of volume
So, using the calculation for spheres (admittedly an overestimate), the reduction between the quoted 65% and 74% reductions (as measured by longest tumour axis) is about 59% of volume. The calculation on length is about 26%, so actual reduction of tumour size between those two scans would be somewhere between 26% and 59%.
I hope I've done the calculations correctly because these results are f'in amazing.