Member Info for KonarA

Looks like that flirt with 30p triggered a bunch of Take Profit Orders

Anyone have a link to the committee video?

My understanding is that we aren't partnered on the development of the 2 antibodies.. we have licensed them to Genmab for their sole development. It is unlikely that Scancell would even be named on the Genmab product pipeline page, in the same way that Biontech is on Gen1059.

Oh i also meant to add.. I saw someone had mentioned getting accelerated approval. Its worth saying (for those that haven't been around for over a decade!) that SCIB1 was already granted Orphan Drug Status. Whilst we are taking iSCIB1 forward, you would think that fact should add weight to the accelerated approval application.

Fwiw i also don't believe an application to the FDA will trigger an RNS. An application will no doubt have a series of back and forth, and could (in theory) be rejected. Therefore, it is only when it is approved that it would fundamentally affect the valuation of the company (imo).

That's a funny way to ask for a favour

I don't know if this particular comment was picked up on yesterday, but in the QA session in response to why the CLN notes were paid down by a million Sath said "given our runway, and our *confidence* in our runway, there was a small partial redemption"

If you had no idea where the next money was coming from, would you give back the money needed to keep the lights on?

Most importantly, that replaces the revenue that goes with the shallows sale.

I think anyone saying there is a "lot of hand wringing" over funding, obviously hasn't been around long enough to know how many times we have been diluted just to get this Scope trial over the line!

I agree that Scancell is having great success, and has phenomenal potential - it's why I have been here so long. And I don't doubt that the money for an expensive registration trial will be found from somewhere.. I was just hoping it was non-dilutive funding. This seems like a missed opportunity to secure that. Two deals worth a potential 1.2 billion and we only have 12 million to show for it is frustrating, and its clear the market agrees.

Lets hope a more substantial milestone from the first deal is on the horizon, but if it is another payment of similar amounts, then it does feel like Genmab have taken advantage of those mates rates.

The anchor around the SP is the funding required for the ongoing trials. The upfronts from a second deal could have been able to take away the doubt of where that funding would come from. I had hoped it would be for a lower TCV but with more money upfront, to address the short term needs of the business. Today's deal, whilst great for validating the Glymab platform and further reinforcing the long term value in the company, has done nothing to remove that anchor. With no other negotiations publicly acknowledged, we are back to hoping that the Scope Registration trial will be funded by a partner - which is every bit possible, but by no means certain.

And for anyone saying upfront cash like that isn't possible - Genmab paid USD1.8 Billion for ProfoundBio which came with 3 pre-clinical antibodies (i.e. 600 Million each, paid up front in cash)

The bit you are missing is they have sold one of their major sources of revenue. The company believes they are best placed to explore rather than develop, and need money to do so.

You have misread that. The majority of the funds (72 million) go to CASP (14 paid already, 54 on completion and 4 installments).

16 mill to be paid to the government.

16+4+14+54 = 88

Maybe as a result of patent approval

We were told that people recruited to the SCIB1 cohort would be moved to the ISCIB1 cohort in order to get full representation of population, once the SCIB1 cohort had met its end points. Is it possible that these additional 4 people who were recruited to SCIB1 are now treated (or to be treated) with ISCIB1? Is this Scancell tacitly saying the endpoints have been met with the 36?

@miavoce - i tend to agree and can only conclude that the only way they can remain confident of a Q4 readout (else why not move it like they did iSCIB1?) is they are either:

a) Close enough to their endpoints that statistically they already know they have dosed enough patients - meaning the ORR is very high

b) They have worked out a way of predicting the response rates from the markers and immune response and can already predict who will respond

c) both

Whichever it is, it is very good for investors.

Thanks Bojo - I watched the presentation live and again today. I think I cover this in my 15.04. We can see from the slide in the presentation that Yes there is a response. But my question is a bit deeper than that - i.e. are there patient's with a particular tumour type where a TRP2 response is more significant?

Ultimately where I am going with this, is what is the degree of confidence that they will be able to report in Q4 this year on the scope trial? At the end of July they had recruited 32 patients. Now, at the end of Sept they have recruited 36 patients. Given the speed with which they are recruiting, and the length of time to first scan, then the only way they would still be able to be confident that they are going to report in Q4 2024, is if they were confident of hitting their end points in that time. But those patients recruited in the last few weeks are a long way from hitting there first scan. So either they are already very close to hitting their end points, or they may be confident from early immunology data the patients they have recently dosed are going to respond in sufficient numbers. Is this just based on Statistics? Or have they identified a way of predicting responders?

Just my thoughts out loud as I said earlier.

I'm fairly sure they haven't mentioned, i'm more wondering if it is plausible at this stage.

And my question here is more than just "can they see a T Cell response" - although this is obviously going to indicate that there is an immune response in itself. It's more:

"Is there a correlation between the specifics of the immune response and certain markers within the tumour itself? Is it reasonable to think with the amount of data they have collected so far that a predictable relationship could be established?".

The slide in the presentation shows that the patient's have in an immune response - what we don't yet know is what immune response relates to which objective response.

*Marker Expression

Just thinking out loud here..

We know that the primary outcome measure for the SCOPE study is Objective Response Rate (as measured by RECIST 1.1). This would obviously require a scan to be able to measure and report on. But we also know other outcome measure include Immune Response measured by Elispot and Market Expression based on tumour biopsy. I wonder if Scancell are yet at a point where they can start to predict who will or won't show an ORR based on early immune response measures? This relates to the point the other day that 36 recruited patients may be enough to hit the end points. Are they already seeing something in the data of the more recently dosed patients to be more optimistic? I'd be keen to hear the views of the medics and immunologists on here.