Member Info for JohnnyB1

Thank you Burble. You make a good point she may just be talking in general.

Thank you Botski2 for going to the trouble of recording the AGM and to everyone for their feedback.

I have an old computer and I cannot get the volume high enough to hear it all properly. Talking about SCIB1 at about 35 minutes in it sounds to me like Lindy says "Basically the scans can't see any tumours on those complete responders".

We only know of one complete responder but she is talking in the plural (unless I am miss hearing her).

I see that the "all you can buy for £10" trades are still going through. The latest one is 66 shares; it had been 72 for a while. I shall be happy if and when it reaches single figures.

We know Scancell have stated “Full cohort data with SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ expected in Q4 2024 and H1 2025, respectively”.

I would not be surprised if we get a RNS tomorrow giving an update on the SCOPE trial.

Last year Scancell issued a RNS 28 November’23 (the day before the 2023 AGM) giving an update on the SCOPE trial.

It has been stated on here that you can’t plan trial results around an AGM. That is true, however we know we are due an update on the SCIB1 this quarter. Scancell will know when exactly in this quarter results on SCIB1 are due. Scancell will have had a degree of flexibility when planning the date of the AGM. It would make total sense to have the AGM after an update on SCIB1 (Rather than sitting around discussing 11 month old data on the 11 out of 13 patients). AIMHO

As of 24 September’24 there were 36 patients recruited in the SCIB1 cohort. With scans due at 13 weeks there would be no time to recruit, dose and scan any more patients. The SCIB1 data (whenever it is released this quarter) will therefore be on a maximum of 36 patients but could be on less than 36 (Due to time lapse between recruitment, dosing and scan). We know Scancell wanted to get at least 27 responses from this cohort. If Scancell have achieved this, the lowest possible ORR would be 75% (27 out of 36). The ORR would obviously be higher if Scancell get more than 27 responses on 36 (or less than 36) patients. Again AIMHO.

I think that the 72 trades aren't so much the number 72 but appear to be more the highest number of shares that can be bought without spending more than £10. ( E.g. the 71 share purchase yesterday came in at £9.90. Had they bought 72 at that price the cost would have gone over £10).

Whether these "most you can buy for £10" trades have any hidden meaning I don't have a clue.

I hope the "72 trades" aren't trying to tell us the share is 6 feet under (72 inches).

Samantha Paston started speaking about a quarter of an hour ago (Basel are 1 hour ahead of us in the UK).

Thank you Burble and Bermuda.

The only other reference I can see to metastatic renal cancer patients is in the RNS 30 May'24. This states:-

"Treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC in the first-line setting consists of double CPI therapy. The addition of Modi-1 to this cohort will enable the testing of the synergistic effect of Modi-1 peptides in improving the overall response rate, as demonstrated in our SCOPE trial, showing that the double checkpoints are ideal in synergising with targeted vaccines".

I suspect Scancell are talking about this new cohort of 44 patients. The sentence “In metastatic renal cancer patients mean PFS has not been reached at 10 months” would then make sense as this expansion cohort was only approved 30 May'24 so none of these patients will have reached 10 months of treatment yet.

Thank you Bermuda,

Yes I am assuming that Samantha's bio is the updated version.

I must admit I find the sentence about progression free survival “In metastatic renal cancer patients mean PFS has not been reached at 10 months” a bit confusing.

The RNS 2 September’24 states Lindy will be presenting. However, as others have said it appears that Samantha Paston will now be presenting in Lindy’s place.

I just wanted to point out that the wording against Samantha has changed from the wording against Lindy. In summary “OBJECTIVE RESPONSES IN 85% OF PATIENTS” has changed to “CLINICAL RESPONSES IN THE MAJORITY OF PATIENTS”. Also the following sentence has been removed “In metastatic renal cancer patients mean PFS has not been reached at 10 months”.

Lindy wording:-

https://www.terrapinn.com/conference/festival-of-biologics/speaker-lindy-DURRANT.stm

“……..has developed two vaccine platforms ImmunoBody® and Moditope®which induce potent killer CD8 T cells and cytotoxic CD4 T cells respectively. The first ImmunoBody®, SCIB1, has completed a phase I/II monotherapy clinical trial in which 14/16 patients with melanoma have been disease free for five years. SCIB1 is now in a clinical trial (SCOPE) in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and is showing OBJECTIVE RESPONSES IN 85% OF PATIENTS. The first product from the Moditope® platform, Modi-1, which targets citrullinated vimentin and enolase is in a phase II clinical trial (ModiFY) as either monotherapy or in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. In metastatic renal cancer patients mean PFS has not been reached at 10 months.” (This final sentence is removed in Samantha’s wording).

Samantha Paston wording:-

https://www.terrapinn.com/conference/festival-of-biologics/speaker-samantha-PASTON.stm

“…….has developed two vaccine platforms ImmunoBody and Moditope which induce potent killer CD8 T cells and cytotoxic CD4 T cells respectively. The first ImmunoBody, SCIB1, has completed a phase I/II monotherapy clinical trial in which 14/16 patients with melanoma have been disease free for five years. SCIB1 is now in a clinical trial (SCOPE) in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and is showing CLINICAL RESPONSES IN THE MAJORITY OF PATIENTS. The first product from the Moditope platform, Modi-1, which targets citrullinated vimentin and enolase is in a phase II clinical trial (ModiFY) as either monotherapy or in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.”

Perhaps we will get an RNS update ahead of Samantha’s presentation.

It is worth mentioning that it is not only Samantha Paston who is attending. Lindy is also there as a speaker (as mentioned by Rich62 yesterday):-

https://www.terrapinn.com/conference/festival-of-biologics/speakers.stm

I don't know when Lindy is speaking. Maybe Lindy could give an update in her speech ahead of Samantha Paston's discussion?

I just hope that "latest updates" isn't just what we already know.

As at 15 January’24 Calculus held 34,039,009 shares:-

https://www.scancell.co.uk/share-info

Page 25 of the 2024 year end accounts show that this figure had dropped to 30,831,721 as at 31 August’24. (Calculus sold 3,207,288 shares during this period).

https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/fininfo/2024/scancell-annual-report-2024-signed-signed.pdf

I suspect that they probably sold into the July/August rise and may still be selling.

Note: The accounts show that Vulpes Life Science Fund holds 117,729, 029. This is IMHO an error in the accounts because this is exactly the same number they held before the fund raise (They bought 2,181,818 shares in the placing). The correct figure for Vulpes holding is 119,910,847.

Sorry, the title should read:

"36 (of 43) Recruited in the SCIB1 Cohort Must be Sufficient to Show Necessary ORR"

The RNS states “Full cohort data with SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ expected in Q4 2024 and H1 2025, respectively.”

Looking at the SCIB1 Cohort, 36 (out of 43) have been recruited. We know that Scancell will give us data on this cohort in Q4 24. The end of Q4 (31 December’24) is exactly 14 weeks from today.

However, we also know that a patient’s first scan is at 13 weeks after their first dose. There is therefore no realistic time to recruit, dose and scan the remaining 7 patients (43 minus 36) in this cohort.

I suspect that not all of the 36 recruited have yet had their first scan. The only conclusion I can come to is that Scancell believe that the data already received from those of the 36 that have been scanned (and possibly data anticipated from those of the 36 soon to be scanned) will be sufficient to show the necessary ORR. The RNS (AIMHO) backs this up stating “Following completion of the SCIB1 recruitment, the remaining patients with the SCIB1 HLA haplotype will be recruited to test the efficacy of iSCIB1+ in the entire patient population.”

This is the full paragraph:-

“Both the SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ cohorts are in the second stage of the study recruiting a total of 43 patients each with a study design able to demonstrate that SCIB1 or iSCIB1+, in combination with doublet therapy, exceeds currently reported ORRs with doublet CPI alone, in a statistically significant manner. There are currently 36 and 27 patients recruited in the SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ cohorts respectively. Following completion of the SCIB1 recruitment, the remaining patients with the SCIB1 HLA haplotype will be recruited to test the efficacy of iSCIB1+ in the entire patient population.”

(Unfortunately I have not been able to access the webcast yet so haven’t heard what Lindy said).

Bermuda,

Thank you for your response.

I was aware Scancell had licensed the SNAPvax technology from Vaccitech. However, I was not aware the agreement with Scancell involved upfront, milestone and royalty payments so thank you for pointing that out, I appreciate it.

I agree it certainly is an exciting period. There is a lot happening over the next 6 months, hopefully they will throw in some good news with the year end results next week.

Hi Bermuda,

Just looking at your post at 21.57 yesterday showing PharmaJet had announced more details on the agreement:-

“Under the terms of the agreement, Scancell will use Stratis for the clinical development and commercialization of their advanced melanoma DNA vaccine. PharmaJet will receive development and regulatory milestone payments, and upon commercialization, will also receive royalties on net sales. Scancell will be responsible for the clinical and regulatory development as well as commercialization of the combined product.”

I am just wondering why Scancell’s RNS yesterday makes no reference to these regulatory milestone payments or royalties on net sales.

I don’t know but I would have thought that if Scancell were going to be responsible for those payments they would be obliged to disclose this material fact in the RNS (Albeit without necessarily disclosing the amounts).

Might it be possible that Scancell have already found a partner (Maybe Bristol Myers Squibb) for the Phase 2/3 adaptive registrational trial planned for 2025 and that that partner (and not Scancell) will be responsible for making these payments to PharmaJet.

By way of comparison there follows 2 instances (Both of these date back to 2010 but they still serve as examples) where Scancell would be liable to pay milestone payments. In both cases Scancell disclosed this fact in their announcement:-

https://www.scancell.co.uk/national-institutes-of-health-licensing-agreement

“Under the agreement, Scancell has agreed to pay the US Public Health Service an undisclosed upfront fee in addition to certain milestone fees and a royalty on future sales of SCIB1. Scancell will have the right to develop and commercialise its ImmunoBody® vaccines for the treatment of melanoma in humans incorporating epitopes from these targets.”

https://www.scancell.co.uk/antibody-licence-agreement-with-cancer-research-technology

“Under the terms of the agreement, Scancell will make an upfront payment to CRT in addition to development milestone payments, and royalty payments on future sales. Scancell will exclusively fund the development work, and have sub-licensing rights on agreed terms.”

Yes a great article Burble.

Interesting that James Larkin speaking in the article is also on the SCOPE Clinical Advisory Board. His photo is even on Scancell's website:-

https://www.scancell.co.uk/scib1-iscib1

Sorry too many characters in heading. It should read:-

"Institutional investors trading large blocks of securities without any details being made public until later".

I am wondering whether there are some large trades going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of.

I have noticed some small trades over the last few days. (E.g. 6 September at 16.13 Hours trades of 6 shares and 29 shares. 4 September at 16.25 Hours trades of 117, 294, 35 and 23 shares). If you put your mouse arrow over the “i” (information) the trades show as “Trade was executed as an SI”.

I have never seen this before so I googled it and came up with:-

“Under MiFID II, a systematic internaliser ("SI") is an investment firm that deals on its own account on an organised, frequent, systematic and substantial basis when executing client orders outside a regulated market, multilateral trading facility (MTF) or organised trading facility (OTF), without operating a..”

I then found the following link:-

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mifid-ii.asp#:~:text=Understanding%20MiFID%20II,-MiFID%20II%20amends&text=Equities%2C%20commodities%2C%20debt%20instruments%2C,is%20located%20outside%20the%20EU.

“MiFID II limited the trading volume of a stock in a “dark pool” to 8% of the total trading volume of that stock anywhere over 12 months. Such pools are private financial exchanges for trading securities that allow institutional investors to trade large blocks of securities without any details being made public until later.”

2 minutes in to the video Lindy says “Genmab basically did a deal with us about 18 months ago for one of our antibodies and they are attaching a drug and a linker and are taking that forward into an ADC”.

I will start by saying that I do not pretend to fully understand this. However, for lay people like myself the following information on Scancell’s website explains what an ADC is:-

“In addition to being potential therapies in their own right, the specificity of the anti-glycan mAbs enables their development into a range of antibody-based therapies with differing mechanisms of action, including:

• Antibody drug conjugates (ADC) for the delivery of cytotoxic drugs, immunotoxins or radionuclide agents.

• Redirection of T cells using T cell - engaging bispecific antibodies to enhance immune-mediated anti-cancer therapeutic effects.

• A chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) approach for adoptive cell transfer.”

Anyway moving on to my point. I am certain that the following Genmab news item from April’24 will have been mentioned and discussed at the time. But it certainly fits in with Lindy’s reference to ADC.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/genmab-joins-adc-arena-with-1-8bn-profoundbio-acquisition/

“Genmab could soon join the growing list of companies targeting the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) market, with the announcement that it has agreed to acquire ProfoundBio for $1.8bn.”

Hi Oddmoney,

I think we are saying the same thing. I posted my message a minute after yours and only saw your post afterwards.