Member Info for KonarA

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.

All clinical trial abstracts as well as late breaking abstracts are under embargo. Being under embargo doesn't necessarily mean it will be late breaking.

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.

The abstracts are released after close of business Friday and the Presentation is Sunday. No obligation to update until Monday.

100% it is nothing to do with product/company collaboration. It is the Biontech MRNA vaccine being presented and Scancell have nothing to do with it, other than being a competitor.

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 - good to see you about - could you perhaps respond to my previous post. Still hoping for an explanation. Cheers

@violin - I wasn't being flippant and it wasn't a rhetorical question. You obviously can foresee a risk that I can't, and would appreciate you explaining how this cheap buyout happens.

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.

I wont link or copy the post, as i think that's disrespectful.. but i will just cherry pick a couple of words..

"Dramatic response" and "I’d had the benefit from these" (meaning Modi vaccines)

Dr Sally Adams i would guess. Free of any closed period now she has left.

@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.

No-one will be able yo say for sure. All we know is recruitment was going well and they anticipated recruitment to finish in Q1. Given that they have said they don't expect to formally report full results until Q3, then it is perhaps reasonable to assume that they anticipated recruiting right up until the end of Q1 and those patients will still be getting followed up in Q2. Exactly how many patients will have completed the study in Q1, we will only know through an update.

I think the fact that it is an oral presentation adds weight to the fact that we will likely get a clinical update RNS to go with it. Lindy will no doubt want to disclose the most recent trial results, particularly if she has managed to maintain (or improve) on the initial ORR % in a wider group of patients. The lower that P value, the more people will sit up and take notice.

To avoid any confusion... that's the title of the Minisymposium in which she is presenting

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/session/663

not the title of her presentation, which is "A DNA plasmid melanoma cancer vaccine, SCIB1, combined with nivolumab + ipilimumab in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma: Efficacy and safety results from the open-label Phase 2 SCOPE Trial"

Yeah a 10 minute presentation followed by 5 minute discussion. Real opportunity to push forward her thinking.

I'm certainly not insinuating that Lindy is there for any other reason than merit; and you are right that it's clear the trends are swinging back in favour of cancer vaccines / targeted stimulation of the immune system. My highlighting of Keith Flaherty was really to highlight two things - one that he has been a supporter of cancer vaccines in the past, possibly acting as a factor in the symposium being on the agenda in the first place. And two, that he may not have completely taken his eye off the SCIB1 trial. I am anticipating any future ISCIB1 registration trial to include him, and given his prestige within the field that could be a huge bonus - particularly when it comes to funding.

I agree..

and if you look at the titles of all the other abstracts, they are all either pre-clinical, phase 1, intratumor, intravenous or personalised. In a minisymposium titled "Cancer Vaccines: Ready for Primetime" the Scancell abstract is standing out as being the most clinically/commercially translatable.