Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
I watched the Sarah Danson video. At the end (from about the 12th minute) it's about the question of vaccinations "off the shelf" or "personalised".
My impression was that she is very positive on this topic and that she favours the "personalised" option a little. In the comparison she said "even cleverer" when she talked about the personalised vaccination.
Here in the forum it was once mentioned that the ORR without SCIB1 is about 50% (I don't remember who wrote this but it is assumed to be correct here).
Please correct me if this is wrong.
My question now is whether anyone knows what the reduction in tumour volume looks like without SCIB1.
Just to be able to make a comparison from this side. If this is possible at all.
Could it be that publications about Scib1/Scib1+ have been "deliberately delayed a bit" to wait for Ultimovac's results/publication to emerge like a phoenix from the ashes?
Lindy "coincidentally" spoke about Ultimovacs for the first time only recently, or had she mentioned it before?
What do you think?
Hi Bermuda ,
thanks for your answer.
No, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I asked the question to be able to categorise who treat the "harder" cases. You opened my eyes.In your answer you answered directly to 1 or 2 other questions i asked myself.Thanks for that too…
Hey WTP .
I write from the I form so why are you knitting a „they“ in there?
I write for me and not for anyone else, so if you took my post off then please refer to me and not to „they/them“...
I don't have to justify myself to you, but as already written, I have been invested in Scancell for about 4 years and have topped up 3 times during this time...
Next time I wanna post something I could send it you befor, for checking if its ok🤦🏻🤦🏻
Hi folks . This is my first post and I apologise in advance for my poor English. Deepl translator is my companion😁 . For your information. I have been invested in Scancell for about 4 years.
Now to the topic. I'll post the reason for authorisation from Iovance …
„ This indication is approved under an accelerated approval based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Iovance is also conducting TILVANCE-301, a Phase 3 trial to confirm clinical benefit.“
And here are the OR‘s for this treatment.
„ The FDA approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the C-144-01 clinical trial. C-144-01 is a global, multicenter trial investigating AMTAGVI in patients with advanced melanoma previously treated with anti-PD-1 therapy and targeted therapy, where applicable. AMTAGVI demonstrated deep and durable responses. The primary efficacy analysis set included 73 patients from Cohort 4 who received the recommended AMTAGVI dose from an approved manufacturing facility. Among the 73 patients, 31.5% achieved an objective response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) with a median duration of response not reached at 18.6 months follow-up2 (43.5% of responses had a duration greater than 12 months). Additionally, the supporting pooled efficacy set included a total of 153 patients from Cohort 4 and Cohort 2. Among the 153 patients, 31.4% achieved an objective response by RECIST 1.1 with a median duration of response not reached at 21.5 months follow-up2 (54.2% of responses had a duration greater than 12 months).“
Now my point. I think Overall Response Rate and Objective Response is the same?!?!
With an ORR about 80-90% from Scib1 we could laugh about this results. Am i wrong?? Your thoughts???