Member Info for Burble

Bojo

If they are now talking about iSCIB-2 - that at least adds weight to the evidence that the addition of avidimab isn't having any detrimental effect on the SCIB1 backbone. Plus does also increase the patent life too - making it more attractive for potential partners.

Berm

Interesting, at first I wondered whether this was because it was the one mAb that they had been struggling to humanise - but looking back at previous RNS, it was one of the four they had successfully done, so that line of thinking was rapidly quashed. Unsure then why that's now not on the table or being highlighted. Would love to know whether it is just an oversight or whether there is something going on behind the scenes. It was highlighted in January on slide 16 of the Interims.

Good spot on Moditope. You would think they would have to update on all arms of the trial rather than just drop all bar the RCC+CPI. Especially given they say on slide 13 'Early data from patients receiving Modi-1 as a monotherapy showed good T cell responses, safety and stable disease' it would be good to know what that looks like (think the waterfall plots we've seen for the SCOPE trial).

Do we know whether a recording will be put up on the website or on youtube?

I couldn't make the call, but have had a skim through the slides. A few things that stand out to me.

Firstly, SCIB1/iSCIB1+ readouts - in the PharmaJet RNS they stated 2024Q4 and 2025Q1 respectively, but this presentation now states 2024Q4 and 2025H1 respectively. Whilst I appreciate Q1 is in H1, this subtle change does give a bit of wiggle room for it to slip a bit.

Glymab exclusivity in ADC/TCB/Radio-immunotherapy - interesting because that may narrow down who the interested party is, interesting that they haven't asked for exclusivity on broader set of modalities.

Participating sites - it's frustrating to see that northern hospitals aren't featured on here. Nothing north of Leeds and nothing in scotland. Wonder whether this is by choice or not.

Finally the really curious one to me:

In the january presentation we were told about how they were focussing their efforts and then there is the list of stages that each product is at. This list shows

- SCIB1/iSCIB1+

- Modi-1

- Modi-2

- SC134

- Glymab

- Avidimab

Yet in this presentation we see two additions to this list

- iSCIB-2

- SC129.

The antibody, I can understand because previously this would have been covered by the broad term glymabs. But why has iSCIB-2 suddenly made a reappearance? It's also interesting that slide 5 of the presentation focusses on the real nuts and bolts of the immunobody platform - specifically highlighting the APC targetting, the off the shelf, the needle free, low toxicity and the customisable nature of the immunobody platform. This strikes me as them really putting the goods in the window. When SCIB1/iSCIB1+ read out, they've already got the window dressing done and potential partners/interested parties will suddenly wake up to the idea that this isn't a one hit wonder, it's a platform technology which could as has previously been said 'fill the oncology pipeline of any biotech/pharma'

Any one else have any further thoughts?

Not a huge amount we didn’t already know - I’m curious as to whether they’re in discussion with somebody for the phase 2/3 but can’t say, or that they are now looking forward to the big fireworks as these read out.

If it drops, I’ll be buying more. Payday is tomorrow after all.

Chelsea - that's a cracking yolk you delivered in your previous post.

In the RNS on the 24th July, it stated ‘Scancell continues to recruit to the SCOPE study, which includes patients treated with SCIB1 as well as iSCIB1+. 32/43 patients have been recruited into the SCIB1 cohort and 22/43 into the iSCIB1+ cohort, with clinical results expected in Q4 2024 and Q1 2025, respectively.’ So 54 patients total.

Eight weeks later that has now risen to 60.

So all ticking along nicely and repeating confirmation of read our dates. But I suspect based on this, it’s going to be closer to the end of the quarters rather than the beginning.

Https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/sep/15/double-drug-treatment-raises-survival-rate-for-half-of-advanced-melanoma-to-10-years

Doublet therapy in the news.

Then add SCIB1/iSCI1+ and I wonder how much more we can improve those stats by?

'[Lindy] who, along with her team at Scancell Ltd, are working on innovative off the shelf ImmunoBody® and Moditope® vaccines to addresses critical unmet needs for more effective treatments in cancer.'

Over the past few months we have seen this 'off the shelf' phrase being pushed more and more with each and every announcement. Does anyone else sense they're really starting to kick it up a gear to distinguish themselves from the personalised medicine.

Where does AGM and company results fit in all of that?

Https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66d6ad7c6eb664e57141db4b/Contracts_for_Difference_Allocation_Round_6_results.pdf

Can I just jump in here. Where people have said 'so it sounds like SC134 may add value to the company'. To me it's both individually but also demonstrating where they came from which is even more valuable to the company (and to others looking in). To me I see some of these papers/posters as positioning the goods in the shop window, but also saying 'if you like what you see here, there's more out the back'.

SCLP may not be wanting to take this through trials themselves (I could be mistaken there, but obv. this all depends on funding, timelines and staff capacity). But what it does say is 'we can make high affinity anti-glycan antibodies to clinically relevant targets, we have a platform for how to do this as has been demonstrated with four glymabs, we can show that these could have clinical benefit either on their own or when combined in other formats'.

Genmab have done a deal on one. We have another unknown party interested in others. These papers coming out demonstrate further opportunities that the platform has. So raising the profile of both individual glymabs or indirectly the platform used to generate these. Both of which add value to the company.

If you use the website 12 ft ladder, then paste the mail link in, it removes the paywall and allows you to read the article (works too for a large range of other pay wall websites!).

Anyway, nothing on SCLP in there. There's a huge section talking about mRNA and Merck.

To summarise (ChatGPT not me) the article recent advancements in cancer vaccines, particularly for bowel and melanoma cancers, offer a glimpse of optimism in the ongoing battle against cancer, which remains the leading cause of death in older populations. While cancer death rates have historically been stubbornly high, recent developments in treatments, such as antibody drug conjugates and checkpoint inhibitors (including pembro), have significantly improved survival rates and reduced the severity of treatment. The introduction of mRNA technology, originally used in COVID-19 vaccines, holds promise for future cancer vaccines. This mRNA research lead to vaccines that could one day treat or even prevent cancers, particularly in middle-age patients.

The UK, with its strong biomedical history and expertise in genomics, has the potential to lead in the cancer vaccine revolution. However, there are concerns about the country's ability to capitalise on these innovations, given the decline in clinical trials and delays in healthcare delivery within the NHS. While the potential for cancer vaccines to transform cancer care is immense, challenges remain in ensuring these advancements reach patients effectively. With proper application of genomic knowledge and innovative treatments, defeating cancer may become a reality, but it requires overcoming current systemic hurdles and embracing new technologies.

Well that would be exciting if we did get Modi-2 into the clinic. Am I right in thinking this has the potential to target a broader range of different cancer types than Modi-1 was?

Can I also add something to Berm's post.

One of the challenges the sector is facing with personalised mRNA based medicines is storage. For patients on trial, hospitals are having to find -80C storage for individual patient doses for between 2 and 5 years! That's a HUGE amount of freezer space required if every patient needs bespoke vaccines made. Melanoma alone is 17500 new patients a year, let alone if this is expanded into other disease indications.

Who pays for that freezer space? Is it the manufacturers? Is it the tax payer?

The beneficial economics for an off the shelf vaccine, both in manufacturing costs and full end-to-end supply chain costs are huge. To add to that, the NHS net zero supplier roadmap sets out the steps suppliers must take to align with the NHS net zero ambition through to 2030. If an off the shelf has better shelf life, lower carbon footprint and doesn't need huge volumes of cold storage, we may see further excitement in SCLP in the future as people realise the potential.

BioNTech’s off the shelf vaccine for melanoma clears phase 2

https://www.biospace.com/drug-development/biontech-regenerons-mrna-cancer-vaccine-combo-clears-phase-ii-in-melanoma

‘ Of the 17 patients in the early-stage study who were dosed with both BNT111 and an anti-PD-1 agent, six achieved partial treatment response.

Around the same time, BioNTech and Regeneron announced their immunotherapy collaboration, testing BNT111 with Libtayo in patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma. Under the terms of the agreement, the companies will split development costs equally and retain full commercial rights over their respective products.’

So if Regeneron and BNT are entering this sector, it’s natural that a competitor with a PD-1 inhibitor may also want a chunk of the pie. Will also be interesting to see our results and how they stack up in due course with the same cohort of patients when BNT/Regeneron start trials in the unresectable cohort of patients

Also interesting that we are now seeing the line ‘ Scancell's novel 'off the shelf' therapeutic cancer vaccines for advanced cancers’ being pushed more.

Correction: re-reading the RNS I realise I made a fundamental mistake with my previous post but couldn't delete it.

Looking back, the ASCO poster session itself is 3 hours long. Meaning, LD et al. would have been stood by their poster and therefore been discussing the poster with people interested for that time. Not what I had originally read this as, that this was 3 hours AFTER the poster session had finished.

My apologies for any confusion this has caused.

From my own experience of large conferences (and do take this with a pinch of salt, as my posters have never been going to change the world), but people generally stay around to talk for maybe 5-10 minutes before heading off. Occasionally you get somebody who is interested and you may grab a coffee or dinner with them. But 3 hours discussing a poster in my experience is pretty much unheard of.

Rat

Commercial enterprises could cover a whole range of different things.

- Biotechnology companies technically could fall outside of pharmaceutical

- Healthcare organisations (especially US for profits) and health insurance companies - if iSCIB1+ is cheaper to produce, administer etc

- Contract research organisations - especially those wanting to support a Ph2/3 trial

- Supply chain - for example people are building supply chains for personalised mRNA med and the iSCIB1+ Ph3 trial could demonstrate that this is unnecessary

- Healthcare consulting firms

- Marketing and advertising firms

- Legal and regulatory firms - think consulting etc.

Then I guess outside of this, we have the wider Immunobody platform to consider. I can imagine this could easily be modified for animal health for instance, or as has been demonstrated has been used for infectious disease - plenty of companies out there who would be interested either from a treating patients angle, or because ImmunoBody could disrupt their markets.

Bob

Yup! This is the nod we needed. The question now on everyone’s mind is, how much better does it work than SCIB1! Guess we’re all waiting for front row seats when those results are released