Member Info for Burble

Yeah that's definitely interesting. As much as I hate LinkedIn, it is a necessary evil in the world of business.

So I've gone down a bit of a LinkedIn rabbit hole. This is a general musing post and not really pointed at anything in particular. But recent postings are interesting and quite candid.

Firstly there was the post by Scancell about Joe Chadwick's poster. Which then had a comment on by Peter Symonds saying 'Good luck! I'm 16 years in on this project. It's amazing and SO rewarding that it's finally getting this level of attention.'

I then clicked on his profile and found a post from about 8 months ago which said 'For the next month my Monday commute won't be 10 mins on a mountain bike to our Nottingham labs..... it'll be the Eurostar to Normandy to help push iSCIB1-plus into the clinic. Au revoir l’Angleterre, bonjour la France......'

In the comments he alludes to going to Normandy to Charles River to do some work on iSCIB1+ saying 'It's where the Charles rivers lab which was doing some work for us is based.'

In turn, if you look at Charles River their Evreux site does a lot of safety assessments. (https://www.criver.com/nonclinical-clinical-safety-europe/evreux-france-safety-assessment). I wonder whether CR were tasked with doing the pre-clinical work for the new intradermal iSCIB1+ cohort.

I then went down the rabbit hole which is searching for key terms related to Scancell.

A week ago we had a post from Claire Bryant (R&D at Velindre University) saying 'Delighted to welcome Grace and Joe from Scancell today for a site initiation visit for an early phase renal clinical trial. Honestly it’s been a great experience working with you to set up this study, we will be open to patients very soon 👍🏻'

So looks like we will have another site up and recruiting soon. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05329532?term=NCT05329532&rank=1#contacts-and-locations. So it looks as if they are expanding and opening new sites. out of the 14 sites listed, we currently are open in 9/14, so nearly two thirds of the sites open for recruitment.

Exactly my point - just because they're a therapeutic company doesn't mean this product has to only be used within the therapeutic space. The platform could be incorporated into a wide range of different mAbs and we know that these are used for anything from affinity purification, immunoprecipitation, labelling for things like FACS, immunohistochemistry, immunoflorescence, super-resolution microscopy, lateral flow assays, biosensors, lab on chip, bioprocess monitoring, food testing, animal diagnostics, targetting and delivery.

There are so many potential doors which you could be knocking on who could benefit from being able to improve the avidity and reducing the off-rate of your antibody. Licensing this technology would generate income even if this was low-digit numbers, every sale would increase our financial glide path.

Possibly, it had crossed my mind. But the conversation was more a general ‘if people with innovative therapeutic mAbs are reluctant to include Avidimab because in trials if it failed they wouldn’t know which was the cause of the failure, could you attempt to go for the low hanging fruit which didn’t need to go through trials? So companies like Abcam who make a lot of research reagents. Using Avidimab to improve the mAb kinetics could improve certain labelling antibodies etc’

Cleaner

Without being negative about other people's work, as we are not privy to both their background, knowledge, experience and the opportunities presented to them. Speaking to the BD lead at the AGM, I wasn't filled with much in the way of confidence that as an organisation we had the strength within the BD team to identify potential opportunities and progress any leads to their full commercial potential . I came away wondering whether the support that there was from the senior management may not have been as commercial as the organisation needed to get deals over the line and with the right number of zeros attached to them.

At the AGM I spoke with the Business Dev lead about alternative avenues for revenue generation off the back of the avidimab platform, as previously I had asked a question around why there was no commercial traction in this space and I got the sense that non-therapeutic alternatives hadn't really even been considered as options to commercialise this platform and generate some revenue. We spoke about the potential for use in diagnostic or as tools for use in research and development, rather than trying to get pharma/biotech to apply it to their mAb developments.

What was also interesting was when I was asked about my own background and I mentioned that I worked in the pharma sector and had a background in antibodies how quickly other members of staff were keen to move the conversation on to other things and the BD lead moved onto other conversations. That did not fill me with a huge deal of confidence - mainly from an interpersonal perspective, I would have expected something a bit more dynamic from a quick conversation.

My hope coming away from the AGM was that our new CEO brings with him more of the commercial experience that as an organisation we need - especially going into this data rich period and also could provide the support, growth and opportunities to help the SCLP business dev lead, or recruit to strengthened this part of the team.

To me the abstract has a number of interesting angles. Obviously the data will be interesting to see, but from a commercial perspective, it’s the fact that SCLP are demonstrating the company has the ability and skill set within their employees of being able to isolate SCIB1 specific T-cell receptors from patient clinical samples.

Whilst there has been lots of interest in CAR-T technology across the oncology sector, TCR-T technology is still relatively in its infancy with the first TCR-T therapy afamitresgene autoleucel being approved by the FDA only in August last year for the treatment of synovial sarcoma. In comparison to CAR-T cells, TCR-T technologies are able to recognise intracellular targets - including cancer specific mutations (think moditope siPTMs). A reasonable lay-persons summary can be found here - https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/next-generation-therapeutics/t-cell-receptor-therapies.html

We’ve seen interest in TCR-T across the space recently, with the likes of AstraZeneca’s purchase of Neogene (https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2022/astrazeneca-to-acquire-neogene-therapeutics-accelerating-ambition-in-oncology-cell-therapy.html#) or the joining of Adaptimmune and TCR2 (https://www.adaptimmune.com/investors-and-media/news-center/press-releases/detail/241/adaptimmune-and-tcr2-therapeutics-announce-strategic) or BioNTech and their acquisition of Kite from Gilead (https://www.gilead.com/news/news-details/2021/biontech-completes-acquisition-of-kites-neoantigen-tcr-cell-therapy-rd-platform-and-manufacturing-facility-in-gaithersburg-maryland).

So having this skillset within the organisation to me adds another string to the bow for the company. Furthermore, it gives the company marketable products that could be sold in isolation.

This skillset also will be interesting with the ongoing Modi-1 and iSCIB1+ trials as patient samples taken pre- and post-vaccination can be compared and TCRs isolated and sequenced.

Hopefully we’ll get to see the poster and learn more about this.

Oh no. I’m sorry to hear about your health C7. Although we have never met, you’re in my thoughts at this time.

Likewise, the map only shows the UK sites open - nothing anywhere else on the globe.

Https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(24)00735-6/abstract

A newly published paper highlighting how even patients with brain metastasis, the Ipi/Nivo immunotherapy combination has significant benefits.

A lay summary can be found here.

https://melanoma.org.au/news/from-just-16-weeks-survival-to-long-term-disease-control/

Also to note the lead author Prof Georgia Long has links to the SCOPE trial and sits on our clinical advisory board (https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/update-from-iscib1-clinical-advisory-meeting-y824qupx4k2jy8c.html)

Scinv 'Last year they were invited to present at a prestigious IO session at AACR, and they presented results from a year before. This year, with substantially more data and confidence, just a poster. This is what happens when one is unprofessional.'

Firstly, I would tone down the slander. It really does you no favours.

Secondly, AACR IO is different to the main AACR conference. This is a new conference being added to the calendar this year having spun out of the dedicated IO session at AACR and for completeness according to the website 'will encompass the very best of basic, translational, and clinical research in immunology, inflammation, and immunotherapies for cancer, including immuno-oncology (IO) drugs, inflammatory modulators, vaccines, and cellular therapies.'

So I'm not surprised that they haven't got a speaking slot at this - given it's a US focussed event and the inaugural one. To have a poster accepted is good especially given the audience and the focus of this conference. I wouldn't dismiss the attendance being inconsequential so quickly.

Furthermore, as the flagship AACR is held at the back end of April, we may also be in attendance there - whether that be just in person, in person with a poster or having a presentation slot. Who knows - we only have a few weeks to wait to find out.

All duly noted.

I guess i was wondering around funds etc whether that hampers our ability to gain investments. I agree though that we probably would do better off AIM.

And yes the constant non-dilutive funding is being said ad nauseum. I hope 2025 we see a turning point, especially with the new CEO in place

Something that does confuse me is why SCLP continues with so many shares in circulation.

Can someone enlighten me, would a share consolidation help or would it hinder?

Though curious how long this calmness will continue and what news will come next!

If you listen to the question from Edward Sham (Singer Capital Markets) at the most recent analyst call he asks this question.

'I did notice in the presentation that you guys paid particular attention to head and neck cancer and renal cancer and that you guys were obviously exploring it in multiple solid tumours. So I'm just wonder if that is the kind of key focus for modi-1 now?'

'Yes I can answer that, yeah I think these are the ongoing studies that we're doing in head and neck and renal cancer in combination with the checkpoint inhibitors. As you know from our basket slide, that we presented a few years ago we have tested it and various other solid tumours as well and that has shown safe tolerability and good tolerability and good stable disease in those patients as well. But right now, and given our financial resource we just want to get to the end with renal cell carcinoma, head and neck as a priority and then we'll assess where we are with our finances etc about other solid tumours'.

I hope that answers your question Ruck.

Im also curious how much more Calculus has to sell off. That definitely isn't helping the SP.

Look at it in two ways:

- if BMS partnered with us and the SCOPE outcome meant this became the new standard of care for melanoma. This would mean that they would still make revenues off of melanoma, especially if this broadened to include the neoadjuvant setting.

- alternatively, it could mean any party could bid for it knowing that the CPIs would be off patent and so generics could backfill.

So this could provide fertile ground for bidding war.

Nivolumab - 2028 in the US, 2026 in the EU.

Ipilumimab is already off patent, losing this in 2021 in the EU, 2023 in US.

So soon is the answer!

Could there be a large trade being put through in the background?

As mentioned earlier Modi-1. Sath confirmed now to be focussed on H&N/RCC and pausing others for the time being due to finances. This is something I had suspected for a long time given we had had no information on it. It would be good to see a read out from those other patients - my fear there is that they didn’t do amazingly well and therefore by shelving them quietly it doesn’t detract from the progress we are seeing in the H&N/RCC cohorts.

Interesting when asked about partnering for SCOPE trial. PL says ‘it’s fair to say that we’ve got really intriguing data set and that’s the initial feedback that we have had from pharma….there is interest coming from pharma to look at that data as we progress forward’ this to me is good. This suggests that there is a line (singular or plural) which is open. If the latter, it could generate a bidding war which could be good for us as shareholders.

‘Our job is to generate the compelling data and then in a proactive way present that [data] to pharma in an engaging conversation’ I have a hunch this is possibly a reference to the fact previously whilst the datasets may have been good the way that LD and the BD staff presented these was in a way that big pharma possibly didn’t really take too seriously. Hopefully moving forward we see that PLs leadership means we turn a corner and start putting the accelerator down.

Overall, a breath of fresh air and one that I’m confident will translate through to success with the new CEO at the helm

some brief thoughts from me after listening into the analyst call.

the overall slide deck looks so much more professional. it focuses less on the hyper scientific details and focussed more on the investment case with clear timelines, clear reasons for investment and clear reasons for working in this space.

graphics - look again more professional, with continuity throughout and less of the ‘rushed this on microsoft powerpoint on the train’ feel to some of the data presented.

the waterfall plot we have seen has been re-coloured. this time to show complete responders, partial responders etc. previously it went into detail about whether patients were m1a, m1b or m1c - data that tbh the average investor didn’t need to know or possibly didn’t care about. other graphics have been dropped such as the scope response kinetics, and t-cell response. i think this shows a real step change away from being an academic led organisation, to one led by somebody who knows how to build an investment case and build interest in your company and the products you are developing.

likewise, the addition of the ******-meier curve demonstrating the divergence between us and the existing standard of care. that alone showed why scib1 is a great product.

i also liked the fact that pl highlighted where exactly our product fits. with the scib1 on the left and iscib1+ on the right, vs the stage a patient was at. this in combination with the old swimmer plot from the original scib trial highlighted succinctly that if approved the number of potential markets could significantly increase should we go into the neoadjuvant or adjuvant settings too. again helping build an investment case, rather than focussing purely on the science.

phil's summary slides i also liked - clear, easy to understand and really positions the products in the window for people to see what we have on offer - but focussed on investment rather than science. if we compare these to the ones say at the last agm you’ll see lds slides these are quite wordy, lack anything to catch your attention and also imho nothing to write home about.

with reference to the glymabs - i’m intrigued by the growing pipeline. both in terms of antibodies (are there more which could be announced over the next year) and also the fact that he said ‘it’s early days but there are a number of other conversations going on around other antibodies in the pipeline’. something i do fear is that we sold ourselves short with the genmab deals and that this has set the bar for the ones to come. i hope that pl is able to raise that up - especially for up front cash because that would really put a halt to repeated dilutions.