The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Agree, of all ministers I’ve ever had to deal with, George Freeman is passionate about the life science sector and really pushing for us to lead the charge in a lot of things. He knows his stuff too, unlike some of the previous science ministers.
Just an observation, apart from a brief AGM update about the advantages that the SCIB1+ amendment to the SCOPE trial would provide (this has yet to be implemented) we're now a week short of a year since the last proper SCIB1 RNS update (https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/phase-2-scope-trial-of-scib1-vaccine-expanded-5aan68mrmnyo27s.html).
My guess is as good as yours as to when we will next get an update. I wonder how recruitment for this has been progressing and how patients are getting on.
For me the stand out in this article is the following:
‘ it is the easiest treatment I've ever had. There have been no real side-effects. And this is one of the remarkable things, that it has been a total breeze compared to other cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy.’
This is from a patient who has experienced a lot through their cancer journey, they’ve been walked to a cliff edge and faced the harsh reality of life with cancer. Only to be given a second chance.
As a healthcare professional, they have seen the effects that other treatments have on other patients. So this quote to me is the real stand out. We know that Modi-1 has been well tolerated. Even if it only works in a sub population, in the patients it does work in this would be a welcome relief.
My 2p worth. If I were in the driving seat with regard to investor relations, I would look to have a quarterly update RNS, doesn’t have to be massive but similar to how other industries report. Something along the lines of:
Ongoing activities.
Trials:
Modi-1
18 patients recruited of which 3 in the last quarter.
X TNBC,
Y Ovarian
Z renal
3/15 sites currently recruiting
SCIB1
18 patients recruited, of which 3 since last quarter.
6/8 sites recruiting.
Doesn’t need to be anything huge or massively detailed. But it would at least put investors at ease that things were progressing and stop the guessing game that ends up going on where information comes out from other boards or by the strong research by the likes of Bermuda or other regular posters here.
We for instance haven’t had a proper update from the SCIB-1 phase 2 trial since June last year (excusing the AGM).
It really wouldn’t be difficult to do and just build it into a regular reporting schedule.
8 weeks for high-risk melanoma is why I keep banging on about the USP of SCIB-1 (and Modi-1 too) being off the shelf products. They’re cheaper to produce, no waiting around and in this example would get to work two months earlier than bespoke made therapies.
I read an interesting thing yesterday. At AACR23, Moderna highlighted some of their advances in cancer treatment. In their P2 mRNA-4157-P201/KEYNOTE-942 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03897881 ) trial which is investigating their patient-specific mRNA-based cancer vaccine in high-risk melanoma.
It was reported that, when combined with an immunotherapy, reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 44% in high-risk melanoma patients, compared to immunotherapy alone. https://aacrjournals.org/cancerdiscovery/article/doi/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-NB2023-0028/725913/mRNA-Vaccine-Slows-Melanoma-RecurrencemRNA-Vaccine#:~:text=Findings%20from%20the%20phase%20IIb,therapy%20for%20high%2Drisk%20melanoma
So whilst not a full trial read out from moderna, this gives us an idea of what others are doing in this area. We know that over 85% of patients were still alive 5 years after SCIB1 treatment and that was without an immunotherapy in conjunction with it.
Even more importantly to highlight, the Moderna vaccine is patient specific, with each vaccine dose requiring taking 34 antigen targets unique to a patient, manufacturing them as an mRNA vaccine before delivery. SCIB-1 is off the shelf. SCIB-1+ even more so as the changes Lindy and team have made mean this second version is suitable for a broader range of patients than the original.
I’ll be intrigued to see what results from our SCOPE study look like in comparison. Especially if we have managed to replicate the phase 1 results that we have seen previously.
Possibly.
If the CPI+Modi-1 shows promise, then there's nothing stopping them changing the protocol or adding a separate sub study to include patients who failed front line CPI. Obv. the only downside to that is costs.
Apologies, I hadn't spotted that in my quick scan through. Re-reading it, I wonder whether it comes down to if you're on CPI and it's working, you can join the trial and add Modi-1 to see if it works better.
If you have had a CPI and it's NOT working/not worked, then you cannot join the trial and go back on the CPI in combo with Modi-1.
If you look at the CT page (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05329532)
'Patients scheduled to receive a CPI (e.g., pembrolizumab or nivolumab) together with Modi 1 must have been clinically evaluated, have not received prior CPI therapy, and the CPI must be deemed an appropriate treatment for their disease according to the CPI's SmPC.'
It suggests that patients will only be recruited to the CPI+Modi1 cohort, if they haven't already been on CPI. So recruitment may be slightly slower because the cohort of patients who are eligible for CPI but yet to go on it may be smaller than those who have already started it.
Depends on the reason for being there.
If it’s purely to present interim results, then I would expect the representation to be small or more junior staff. If it’s to present major findings or looking for collaboration partners/funding. Then I would expect seniority to be higher.
These conferences aren’t cheap, so there’s also a balance of how many people to send and also who else may be attending. No point spending money if the conference participants aren’t the calibre of person you want to be interacting with. Smaller companies therefore are v.selective over attending events like this.
There’s also a balance as to who you send and how much they are allowed to talk.
Konar/Bermuda.
Usually title and abstract submitted. If accepted, you turn up with your poster which features both title and abstract. The rest of the poster and any data on that, is not submitted to the organisers beforehand.
What’s interesting with this article is understanding how ahead of the curve we are with modi-1 and modi-2. No personalised biopsies needed. Cheaper to make, off the shelf medicines. Easier to store too for the bonus!
Seems cancer vaccines are back in vogue.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/07/cancer-and-heart-disease-vaccines-ready-by-end-of-the-decade?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The government policy on sustainable air fuels (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1147350/pathway-to-net-zero-aviation-developing-the-uk-sustainable-aviation-fuel-mandate.pdf) released yesterday mentions gasification plus Fischer-Tropsch technologies producing biofuels to have the greatest potential for net negative emissions given the high concentration of biogenic carbon produced.
I guess this could be of interest to Eqtec as their syngas could be the feedstock for further use in SAF production.
Kash,
Whilst it's difficult when the share price feels stuck in the doldrums. It's important to not consider cancer drug development as a race with only one winner. There are many different types of cancer with distinct underlying biology and clinical characteristics. This means that there is significant room for multiple cancer treatments to coexist in the market.
Whilst there are nearly 300 trials in progress it's important to note that they're not all targetting the same cancer target or the same cancer type and we all know that drug development is highly complex and involves many different stages before regulatory approval is given. Therefore it's not really a single race, but many multiple parallel races. In all of these many of the competitors could fall by the wayside along the way.
It's also important to look at the bigger picture of the benefits scancell has going for it.
- moditope is first-in-class - this is important and has many advantages both to end profit but also regulatory approvals along the way. It also means that for our race, we may be the only people running.
- IP - scancell is very good at patenting things and as stated previously, the moditope platform IP is incredibly broad and therefore incredibly valuable if it is successful. This also would prevent other people joining our race for a while/if at all.
- Target multiple cancer types - both moditope and immunobody can target multiple cancer types. One is more hands on crafting (immunobody) the other targets a common underlying process common to many cancer types (moditope). This means manufacturing and formulation are easier. So now, we have the same horse running in multiple races all on our own.
- Delivery - both are easy to deliver and therefore require less healthcare resources - again reducing costs and leading to better patient outcomes. This also can help too because adoption to become standard of care becomes easier if it helps reduce workload on clinical staff. It's great your horse makes it to the end of the race but if nobody wants it after that because it's difficult to handle/use - it becomes a problem. This shouldn't be the case for moditope or immunobody.
- low toxicity/off-target effects - again provides significant advantage to it being adopted as standard of care both by the clinicians and by the patients receiving it.
- Licensable technologies - SCLP technology allows you to licence technology potentially leading to more collaborations and this also provides bargaining chips when negotiating.
Yes I don't think our share price reflects how good our potential is. But I also suspect this boils down to two things - one is PR (we've all said this could be better), the other is stage. Moditope especially is still unknown, as the picture becomes clearer we should see the value start to increase - possibly exponentially.
Bermuda.
You share similar thoughts to me. IMHO we should focus on the information that SCLP have given us directly as investors and leave the speculation out of it.
Others may disagree, but that’s my position and I’ll stick to it.