Member Info for HarChris

Ice, this is just the data from the December readout, this isn't further validation it's literally the old data.

There's a few additional snippets that are excellent, like the 117:1 like you say and the percentage of neutropenia and lymphopenia given across all three indications. And also that just 8 patients had been dosed between TNBC and STS as of October cut off(no big surprise) hence the reason there's less discussion about them.

I'm hoping we're all getting excited this time next week re the addition of the last six months of data, but this isn't it.

Let’s see the financing sorted first and go from there, until that’s confirmed EXR isn’t necessarily a going concern.

What difference does a reduction in neutropenia mean to patients?

- Fewer infections and hospitalisations: severe neutropenia is the main reason patients on doxorubicin get serious infections, need antibiotics, or are admitted to hospital. Reducing it from ~50% to ~11% is a big quality-of-life win.

- Better tolerability: Patients can stay on treatment longer with fewer dose delays or reductions.

- Potentially higher cumulative doses: Because of the improved safety (including very low cardiac toxicity so far), doctors may be able to give more total doxorubicin over time than the usual lifetime cap of ~550 mg/m².

- Broader patient population: Older patients or those with weaker immune systems (who are often excluded from doxorubicin) might tolerate AVA6000 better.

How about for clinical trials and development?

- Easier to combine with other drugs: Lower neutropenia makes AVA6000 much more attractive for combination regimens (e.g., with immunotherapy or other targeted agents).

- Faster dose escalation / higher dosing: The improved safety allows quicker progression through trials and potentially higher effective doses.

- Stronger competitive positioning: This is a clear differentiation versus standard doxorubicin and many other chemotherapies. It strengthens the case for AVA6000 in indications like salivary gland cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, and triple-negative breast cancer.

- Better chance of regulatory success: A wider therapeutic index (efficacy with less toxicity) is very attractive to regulators and future partners.

Bottom line:

The reduction in neutropenia (and febrile neutropenia) is one of the most important early wins for AVA6000. It validates the pre|CISION platform’s goal of delivering more drug to the tumour while reducing systemic toxicity. If this safety advantage holds in larger trials, it could make AVA6000 a meaningfully better version of doxorubicin for both patients and future commercial use.

It’s an arm wrestle, it’s a seesaw with the financing on one side and the science on the other. There was a point last year where the financing almost took the win but Hughes’ appointment at least wrestled it back to a stalemate and we’re all waiting for the point where the science has gained enough confirmation and traction to swing it entirely in that direction. Where the science wins out and finance is no longer a limiting factor.

It’s an unknown as to the exact timing when the science wins out but it objectively feels closer than ever with reasons to believe it could be merely a matter of weeks away as deals land around the two conferences.

With just a dozen or so patients dosed from the first drug it was too early, with a hundred plus patients dosed across multiple trials there’s a case to be made that we’re right on time.

I’m quite comfortable in saying I suspect Raglan hasn’t been such smooth sailing as expected, that there might be some teething issues which need attention first but ECR have time on their side with the cash raise just a few months ago.

One of these days gold will start surging north again and Raglan news will land and this should go pop, it’s a wait or add below the recent placing price until that time.

You’re wrong Craig, the abstract is simply a placeholder. Christina actually said last week that they were still compiling the data for the two conferences, it’s being finalised now.

This was simply an abstract based on old (October cut off) data to satisfy an abstract submission deadline. The deadline won’t have allowed for up-to-date data so they had to go this way.

We will get a full set of new data next Friday.

I’ll try and hopefully you’ll try also to get less exercised by such comments or at least try to keep your history to CCs tenure, recent history rather than ancient history, which is much more relevant to Avacta as of today and where it might be in 3/6/9 months from now.

I never see you engage with any new info. Thoughts on the neutropenia post I just shared for example? Thoughts on Avacta keeping their cards close to their chest and saving all the new data for maximum impact at ASCO? There are surely more relevant things to discuss than those that happened under Alastair Smith in 2021?

I wouldn’t have given you both barrels no. I was always a bit wary of all the talk of takeover in P1a and the wild figures being thrown out back in 2022/2023/2024 for example. But honestly it’s clear that these long posts are just you trying to get recognition for having been more cautious than others back then, you want vindication. Here have it, have it from me but it’s irritating to have to keep rehashing all this so that you can call out certain posters.

Maybe some got lucky here, maybe there were more question marks back then than many alluded to or acknowledged, maybe there were legitimate questions that weren’t being asked. But things are changing, Christina is correcting course, she hasn’t missed a timeline, there’s a finance man in the centre of things with a clear strategy taking shape. We’re close to finding out for real what the data shows, whether deals are being signed and sealed. Looking backwards constantly is exhausting Wyn and it is mainly to serve your own personal satisfaction. There’s a case to be made that the share price is lower than it would be because many simply assume history will repeat even when it’s changing in real time.

To me it reads like every time you’re losing the argument you dip into one of your fanciful long backwards looking posts and it’s really tedious and boring at this stage! And I mean that kindly.

We didn’t get much new info yesterday as the abstract uploaded was from last year but we did get info on some of the side effects.

Worth noting that Doxorobucin in monotherapy/combo is one of if not the biggest challenge for clinicians , with grade 3 or 4 events occurring in between 40% and 70% of patients depending on the therapy.

11% is a VAST reduction, that’s as much as 6.5 fold decrease. Sure that figure might creep up as patients are dosed for longer with future protocols but this figure and this result is headline grabbing.

This alone will make ava6000 a far more tolerable therapy than current standard of care.

Okay whatever the reason the history doesn't matter if it's not repeating, I know you'd have to agree with that. If phase 1a took 4 years because of x, y, and z and now phase 1b is being wrapped up in 12 months and p1a in the latest drug has a new design that means it will race through multiple cohorts then x, y and z have been addressed and are no longer relevant and we should look forward. So hypothesising endlessly about them is largely a waste of time.

And so my reply to Viking stands, it's taken 5 years because of early teething issues that have been addressed and now all things are moving at much more rapid speed. If it hasn't been approved in another year now things are progressing at such speed then that would be a different story.

The FDA have granted a broader approval re limiting the lifetime doxorubicin limit though. A big tick in the box when it comes to validation.

Because a tiny biotech with limited resources trialling their first drug in human had to proceed with caution and in doing so it took 4 years for phase 1a to complete. Phase 1b however is completing in a quarter of the time which suggests history won't repeat itself and fda approval shouldn't be far away.

As you ask this question ad infinitum I doubt you're actually interested in the reasons.

SundayOff might be the weakest troll we've ever had on here.

It's kindergarten stuff.

Apologies BV, really that should have read 'many of you have this wrong, listen to BuenaVista!'

It makes sense, it allows the company to present totally fresh updated data at ASCO next week rather than have all the topline results already released.

Agree re talking heads who rushed to claim results were stunning.

How can it be the new data? It's the same PFS as given in December, it's the same number of patients etc do you think they stopped treating patients from October (clue, we know they didn't).

There's a few bits of new info which is positive (neutropenia is v low compared with Dox) but yeah it's definitely the old data.

I'm just wondering if we'll get anything from the company to explain this or we just have to wait until next weekend.

You’re all wrong! This is an abstract placeholder based on October data cut off, it’s the 19 patients from SGC discussed in December with an additional 8 patients across the other two cohorts (a fact we weren’t given back then).

This isn’t the data being presented at ASCO, that has not been released yet! Looks like we will have to wait til next Friday or even the Monday after for that as it’s presented.

I’m hoping a tweet this morning st least to explain this.

It appears the data is once again cut from October with 19 SGC patients and 8 across the other two indications. All that is new is the side effect profile which is vastly improved, especially as neutropenia is the most common grade 3 event with I think often more than 50% of Dox patients seeing grade 3 or 4 neutropenia whereas here just 11%.