Member Info for LongBull

What was Prometheus' market cap in 2021 when it was 20 bucks a share @alextak?

Thanks glasshalfdrunk, interesting read. Eager to hear people's point of view of how preCISION could fit into this strategy

Why not this afternoon?

Thanks, so they can live next to each other and be complimentary. Not redundant...

Now I can sleep better!

No I know ;) plenty of challenges especially with delivery. That being said, if the trend moves that way Avacta's IP could be considered yesterday's play for Big Pharma business development teams. Mostly a narrative / focus shift which could impact the value for the company. Even though there are plenty of use cases still addressable.

Thanks BV. So I got a 'Yes' in both cases. This will not make me sleep better at night ;) (re investments, happy for patients)

BV, actually I have no clue. I understood that this could be more preventative as well. Therefore decreasing the solid tumor TAM. And then my concern sits in the fact that the attention of Big Pharma moves to these innovations

These developing technologies, such as gene therapy but also CAR-T is what worries me most for Avacta’s commercial prospects. Those are the new frontiers as I understand it..

Come tomorrow I might actually no longer be in the red after +5 years

Would not want to be out of this over the weekend

Agree. That being said, today we see biotech tickers rise across the board (driven by hantavirus?). Also could be due to press coverage of Science Day actually yielding some effect

Either way, happy with the rise.

I heard from an attendee at Science Day that the PPT presentation's title was: 'Meeting AstraZeneca_Daiichi Sankyo & preCISION #8'

Would be a good question for, let’s say, a Science Day? As I understand multiple members of this board are attending.

If only one could ask?

If only one could actually report back!?

Thompi, totally fair. Resource allocation most likely point. But if you are trying to prove the platform play it should be included. That’s a pre clinical slam dunk

The comparator pair is deliberate. Both are Daiichi DXd-platform ADCs, same exatecan-class payload as AVA6103, different antibody targets. So the comparison isolates one variable: FAP-trigger PDC vs antibody-mediated delivery. Picking both removes the "lucky comparator" objection and routes the message at Daiichi specifically, who has direct exposure to both.

A better third comparator would have been Trodelvy (Gilead). Different payload (SN-38), different linker, different owner. Beating it would generalise the platform argument beyond DXd and widen the partner aperture. Its absence is conspicuous. Most likely reason: the data exists but isn't favourable against SN-38's hydrolyzable-linker kinetics, or budget. Less likely: keeping the message Daiichi-focused

On the Daiichi read, the picture is more ambiguous than surface signalling suggests. A FAP-PDC is structurally complementary to their antibody-led DXd strategy and Daiichi has the PK expertise to actually evaluate the TSI claim. But public comparator publication is wrong tactics for bilateral exclusivity, if Daiichi were the genuine target, this would be shared under CDA, not in an RNS. The pattern fits multi-party process management with Daiichi as one of several audiences (alongside AZ separately, Gilead, Pfizer, Merck KGaA).

Bottom line: don't read the comparator pair as a Daiichi deal tell. Read it as a multi-party opener. The missing Trodelvy is the more telling detail

Thesis has become more solid I should say.

External validation required (AA, partner) before any re-rate occurs

Even though you are right One, it’s still hard to not be disappointed with this content of ‘news’ given the buildup by mgmt

T minus 5m

I’m happy the reference was not lost (on all)

@Saint, can you please dig a bigger hole for yourself to hide in?

Rumour on the street is that ABDX will come in with an offer for Avacta, half cash half stock. Details on their website