The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
That's a pretty epic mistake to make!
Not only is it 50% less revenue generated from the sale of the shares, but a number of people inferred from the exercise of the option that Scancell weren't in a close period. I could well imagine a number of sells went through on that basis - if I remember correctly the price dropped that day.
BTW the numbers in that may not be accurate, Scancell initially said a 13 plus an additional 27... but in the January update they said the target recruitment was 43. I can't remember if these numbers were clarified at the time.
Would it be ethical for the trial to continue to recruit people to Scib1 group, once iscib1 was available?
Well neither treatment has been proven to work, so the ethics of it would be debatable, but from a very practicle purpose it would be difficult to convince a patient to take the (arguably) lesser treatment of scib1 once iscib1 was approved and available.
So do you think the first iscib1 patient suggests the scib1 cohort has completed recruiting?
I do, but more than that I think it suggests Scancell have hit their targetted end points for Scib1, but thats just a gut feel. They could of course have started the iscib1 cohort and just be treating those patients who are ineligible for scib1 (HLA dependent). But if I was in charge of the trial, I would not want to fill that cohort of patients with the unknown variable (HLA negative patients), as I would also want to prove that iscib1 works in HLA patients as well (if not better) than scib1.
So if the trial of scib1 and iscib1 has progressed much further than the data in the abstract, why hasn't Scancell updated the market further?
AACR have a rule that says once the abstract is approved for presentation, then no further data from the trial can be released until after the abstract has been presented. This is to ensure that all the latest data is unveiled at AACR. Why do they do this - they want to maintain their position of prestige I guess.
So in terms of latest position we shouldn't read too much into the abstract?
We really shouldn't. The data is old.
So should we expect an update from Scancell at AACR or through RNS?
I believe that Scancell will have lots of data up their sleeve, and if it is good they will be deperate to present it at AACR. Particularly since they are presenting directly alongside the higher profile MRNA vaccines. What better way to grab the headlines than outshining MRNA? Keep in mind that AACR rules prevents them from publicising any data before the event, I believe there is a very good chance that Scancell will release data in the session and in an RNS monday.
So an RNS is practically guaranteed?
Conferences have come and gone where we expected an RNS, and never received one, so no guarantees. But if I was pushed for a guess, I would say an RNS Monday saying Scib1 has completed recruitment.
The following is my understanding of what we can read into or infer from the abstract. This is just my understanding - as usual I am happy to be corrected and to hear alternative views. I wrote this, this morning but wasn't able to post at the time, and the board has moved on a bit since then, but I will post it anyway. So in the form of a question and answer...
The abstract doesn't contain much new data, why?
The deadline for the abstract submission was January 6th. The last Scancell patient update was 27th November. At the time of the last Scancell update, 13 patients were dosed with 11 showing an objective response. The abstract submitted at the beginning of January to AACR is based on those same 13 patients.
But the abstract mentions 19 patients dosed. Why the difference?
Between the end of November and the beginning of January, another 6 patients had been recruited onto the trial and started treatment, but not yet reached imaging to be include in the observed results.
So if the data was from the beginning of January, are we not further on by now?
Yes, it is very reasonable to assume that we have recruited and treated much more patients between January and now. Many more patients will have reached the imaging stage and every observed response reduces the P value (the statistical likelihood that the responses are just luck and not down to the treatment).
Is there anything else to make you think we are further along than the 13 or 19 patients mentioned?
The aim of the first stage of the trial was to get 27 out of 40 patients to respond to the treatment (scib1). At the last update they had 11 out of 13. This means they needed 16 more patients out of the 27 to be recruited to show a response. Once Scancell achieved 27 responders, they would stop recruiting for for this stage (having achieved the target). if everybody that was recruited after the 13 all responded, the minimum we would need to recruit in total would be 16 (27-11). If we maintained an 85% objective response rate we would have needed to recruit roughly 19 more (19*0.85) to give 16 responders out of 19 treated. The 16 new responders along with the 11 that already responded would give us our target of 27 and recruitment to scib1 group could be stopped. We then have iScib1, which with the addition of Avidimab, is expected to be a more effective treatment than scib1. We treated our first iscib1 patient on the 26th March.
Interestingly, any data produced by the study after the submission of the abstract, is also under embargo until the start of the session in which the paper is presented. So Scancell couldn't update us on the Scope trial, even if they wanted to, without risking having the abstract pulled.
In fact just to add weight to this.. the presentations are coded CT or LB for Clinical Trial or Late Breaking.
Scancell's presentation is coded CT024.
I'm not saying they won't update - i hope they will. But when we have traders buying in on the "guarantee of a RNS on Monday" this has, in the past, result in them all being dumped on the Monday morning when the RNS doesn't arrive.
Just a caveat - whilst I would hope that we will get an update on the clinical data, we are not guaranteed it. We have had conference's come and go in the past, where this forum has been convinced an update will arrive, only for one to not materialise. I know people have pointed to the fact that there are different names against the abstract as being an indicator that it will be updated, but the data on which the abstract is based may remain the same.
That said - it would (imo) be a big mistake if Scancell failed to update with the latest data at such a prestigious event.
"could Genmab justify the price tag to their shareholders if they were trading for 10p and a market cap of 95million"
@Violin you still haven't responded to any of my questions regarding being "bought out cheap". Is the above the latest version of this?
Genmab don't need to justify the cost of acquiring. There are industry standard practices for valuing a biotech/pharmaceutical product or company that are unelated to the share price. Both Genmab and Scancell (and Redmile/Vulpes) will be fully aware of the value.
I would guess the reference to Biontech is highlighting the fact that the industry will see side by side the efficacy of the two approaches - DNA vs MRNA vaccine. Scancell must be very confident in the "wow factor" of their results to draw attention to this. No other reason for including it imho.
"Stifel Nicolaus Europe Limited ("Stifel") is acting as Sole Financial Adviser, Joint Bookrunner and Nominated Adviser in relation to the Placing and WG Partners LLP ("WG Partners") is acting as Joint Bookrunner in relation to the Placing."
This from the placing. WG Partners were acting previously. Looks like it has been made permanent, hence the RNS.
Violin i don't understand this repeated comment of being "very vulnerable" to a bid. Could you please explain what you see the risk as? There is no way someone buys up a controlling stake on the open market without driving the price through the roof.
Yes, why can't Scancell arrange for these patient's to be dosed at night, so that we can get a nice 7am RNS? It's all about the investors!
Meanwhile, back down here on earth.. fantastic news of progress. Could this signify that the SCIB1 co-hort is fully recruited and dosed as planned? Also worth noting they are still referring to the 85% ORR in that RNS. I would thought if they were aware of a change to that ORR they wouldn't be able to reference it.
@Berm - I hadn't realised Keith Flaherty had moved on from clinical trials, but given it was 9 years ago that we were speaking to him, it probably shouldn't be surprising. Knowing the prestige/scale of Mass Gen and Harvard Medical School (I've visited both), I am sure he will have handed his clinical trials portfolio over to someone as equally high profile. But as you say, there are plenty of other big names out there in the field for attracting clinical/financial intrest. I'm sure if we maintain the results that we have had to date with SCIB1 (or potentially better with ISCIB1) then we will have no shortage of options. Presenting the data in person at AACR will certainly help in that regard! And as has been said before, pharma money follows clinician interest.