Member Info for KonarA

These new monotherapy arms have got me wondering.

In the original trial design, the monotherapy cohorts were those that didn't have approved checkpoint inhibitors. In those cases, giving Modi 1 as a monotherapy was better than giving the patient nothing. In cancers that do have approved Checkpoint Inhibitors, then the patient is foregoing the Checkpoint Inhibitor combination.

I wonder what the driver for this design is? Are they patients that have failed to respond to CIs? In which case, wouldn't adding Modi in, in combination be a better option? Are they patients that have had a bad reaction to CIs, or are contra-indicated? In which case would they be allowed or willing to take a different immunotherapy? Are they patients that have refused the CIs? How likely would they be to refuse one immunotherapy but accept another? The only conclusion I can come to is that they are fairly confident they can deliver equivalent or better results with a lower side effect profile, and they are asking patients to try the monotherapy. What's the ethics of this? I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this.

I was just relooking at the AGM slides, and something that I hadn't noticed before, is that the monotherapy arms have been expanded to include all 4 tumour types. The previous trial design slide only had 2 tumour types (Ovarian and Triple Negative Breast). Also the Combination arms have an additional indication (Triple Negative Breast)

2021 AGM Slides (expansion cohorts)
Monotherapy - 2 x 16 = 32
Combination - 2 x 21 = 42
Pre-surgery - 2 x 15 = 30
N = 104

2022 AGM Slides
Monotherapy - 4 x 15 = 60
Combination - 3 x 21 = 63
Pre-Surgery - 2 x 15 = 30
N = 153

Don't know if this has been discussed before, but that looks positive and confident to me. Also suggests to me that Scancell are confident they can beat standard of care.

you have someone just to look after your undergarden??

aye maybe you are right. probably was a bit trigger happy, but that was my reasoning.

I reported the original post at the time. The reason I did was because I believe an RNS should be discussed on the message board of that company, and posting immediately on another Bio is a naked attempt to drive interest in the other company at the possible expense of the second company. AIM is an illiquid and volatile market and even small divestment can result in bigger wobbles. Had the OP waited till layer in the day, I probably wouldn't have reported it. I didn't report any subsequent posts.

You asked the question.. thats the honest answer.

For me, this confirms that patient X has been asked not to disclose her results.

ok ignore part of that last post.. i was reading an article and supplanted company names.. *read Scancell.

I am also of that mind... and expect it will be in a few weeks.

Although I am also of the mind that it would be typical of Intersystems to release an RNS saying full remission of all three patients on the 29th December.

I wouldn't be surprised if patient X had been politely asked not to post about her results until the company does.

The safety run ins were to allow these cohorts to progress at full steam. No holding back in these indications

It's why I have always been so excited by the potential of Moditope. It's mechanism of action and target patient cohort mean that *if* it is successful, that success can be seen fairly quickly. If results are dramatic in an area of unmet clinical need, then the demand for acceleration of trials will only grow. Breakthrough designation would be a real possibility.

As well as all three patients in cohort 2 having scans, it's worth remembering that it's been 4 weeks since first patient dosed in expansion cohort, so some of those patients will have had 2 doses and be approaching their 3rd. Scancell might be starting to see responses in these patients as well now, and if recruitment and dosing is going as well as we are told that data could be coming thick and fast.

I'm not sure why you would think I'm "falling out" with anyone. Just a difference of opinion.

The fact remains that account was brand new, had no other post history, is not a member of any groups on that site.. and only questioned the scancell patient. So I stand behind my assessment.

The fact that it was a brand new account, that had only replied on her thread, and on each occasion referencing the science, was what was glaringly obvious to me.

no.. i didn't think "Scanxiety" had anything to do with Scancell

Irrespective of how much everyone on this discussion board wishes her success, it is tainted with self interest. The Macmillan board is there for peer to peer support and should not be abused. I have no problem with everyone discussing her posts that she chooses to put into the public domain, but probing her for updates is a whole different matter.

the obvious scancell investor poking her for updates should be ashamed of themselves.. imo

The phone is fine thanks Ivy.. its a Samsung Galaxy so waterproof. Saved me a few times!

I've just spent an age typing a long detailed response to this that got deleted when I accidentally dropped my phone in the bath!!

In summary I would say.. "They are just chancing their arm inviting anyone that may have an input, in the hope that your own integrity will stop you from presenting at a conference you have no specialism in"

I encounter this a lot as a former nurse with a specialism in a related field.

if you don't feel you have a legitimate voice to add to the specialism, then just ignore them..imho

you know those are tailored adverts served up based on your search history right? ;)