Member Info for LovableLumax

This is weird. Is anyone, invested or otherwise posting day in day out think the company is lying and preCISION isn’t working as designed. AVA6000 delivers more dox to the tumour then being administered as it has for 45 years. The very long trial has been treating patients who’ve been treated and so whose tumours refractory and before expansion not sensitive to dox.

People saying the results aren’t good when before they said it’s P1 so not measuring efficacy. It’s so boring. SGC no standard of care and we are some 100% over PFS which extends lives. 6000 is delivering more dox to tumours than conventional dox which is a fact and FDA has removed cumulative max.

Look at doxs efficacy or PFS when used. Touk you’re as tiresome as eggy, thorn or now tea. Either you’re slow and don’t get it or you have an agenda. I suspect you’ll buy before YE ahead 6103 data.

Eggy, thorn, teabag either has a short (fair enough) or if has no financial position is incredibly sad firstly for posting so much and for taking the time and effort to create multiple profiles when one has been exhausted to then move onto another. I remember when eggy was caught out in bed (so to speak) with Winnifrith. Anyway, I assume he's moved on from half-life but what a waste of time eggy is regardless of the reincarnated teabag.

Share price action poor but I believe we bounce soon. I've beeen wrong many times before but I am a lot more chilled now as FAP targeting proven over years (yes a crazyily long P1!) and more data due in less than 3 weeks (PFS calculation if not reached please), an accelerated route I soon after and surely finally a partner. 6103 added more indications, I assume sustained release working as we should be near to optimum dosing (2nd escalation) so hopefully lots of patients having lives extended. Unlike 6000 which was slow in recruitment (dox not sexy and investigators would have been looking at alternatives) 6103 should be rapid.

A fair number of holders trade a double digit % of their holding (fair enough as money to be made) which exacerbates any fall. It’d be nice to for some of us who don’t have the balls to trade to do better by holding all. Doesn’t matter too much just a bonus.

Wow, so it improves PFS by around 30% and OS by around the same, no mention of CRs but the most important metrics of PFS and OS. Now we look likely to smash PFS which will lead to better OS. All eyes on next conference. The market takes issue with uncertainty re a partner which I am hoping is announced out opf the blue after an accelerated pathway RNS so catch the traders out who are in charge as per.

Regulators are looking for PFS and OS as their main endpoints. Of course CRs will mean both are as good as can be but partials don't. 6000 has much superior data than what's currently available and the drugs under trial (PFS not OS as too early). The fact that since March we will not have to stop treating patients due to lifetime max being reached should only improve these results and with fewer side effects, a wider market due to fewer side effects and a lot cheaper to make (1/10TH cost). Those who continue banging on about efficacy surely have an agenda if they are ignoring the more important endpoint of PFS. Having the odd CR all well and good but if overall PFS is inferior so is the drug.

Less than 3 weeks to wait for more data and of course we know 6103 has increased the indications targeted and we are over 2 months into the trial and likely 2 escalations in so I assume the sustained release is working as planned. After all FAP targeting was the toughest nut to crack where as the linker and capping group as impressive as they are lower hanging fruit.

Hopefully news on an accelerated pathway for 6000 if not before end of the month soon after and a partner to take it into registrational P2.

Nope they would be licensing AVA6000 for use in SGC or other indications and they can also carve out regions.

As far as IP goes avacta has protected the sustained release (2nd gen) and dual payload tech too. No danger.

Avacta looking for a partner to take 6000 to regsistrational P2 and my assumption is that will happen soon after an accelerated pathway agreed (likely soon after next data dump). My preference would be to sell it completely as forego any royalties in order to get as much cash as pos on the balance sheet. They I suspect will also license dual payloads. If 6103 performs as it did in mice the initial data in Dec will be knock out and will surely lead to a takeover. Clearly if the data is poor it'll sink rapidly. I'm invested so I clearly believe the former.

I wager patients from 2nd cohort will be seeing efficacy given preclinical and the fact we are expected to have even better targeting in human as per 6000 animal versus human ratios. Exciting few months for 6103 and more 6000 days in 3 weeks.

Also P1 (escalation) will be circa 30 patientss whist expansion another 130 say to make 160 for P1 (an and b).

In the clinical trial space, Power’s (formerly WithPower) 'already recruited' metrics should be viewed as estimates of the target population pool rather than confirmed study enrollments. Because patient data fluctuates rapidly, these figures serve as valuable guidelines but come with specific caveats:1. What 'Recruited' Numbers Actually MeanWhen platforms like Power report how many patients are already engaged or recruited, they typically refer to the number of patients in their digital registry who have matched your general criteria.The Process: Power uses AI to scan EMRs (Electronic Medical Records) to match patients to trial protocols.The Reality: These figures reflect pre-screened or potential candidates rather than patients who have formally signed a trial consent form.2. Industry-Wide Accuracies & ChallengesThe gap between pre-screened numbers and actual enrollment is a known industry hurdle:The Drop-Off: In the clinical research industry, only about \(17\%\) to \(54\%\) of patients who contact a clinical site for a trial get fully scheduled for a screening visit.Screen Failures: Across all trials, screen failure rates can approach \(90\%\) in some therapeutic areas due to strict eligibility constraints that are only uncovered during an in-person medical workup.Site Discrepancy: Conversion rates can vary significantly by trial site. Top-performing sites often convert nearly \(3\times\) better than the lowest performers despite pulling from the same patient population pool.3. Why the Numbers ChangeCompeting Trials: If a site is running competing trials (e.g., for major depressive disorder), a cohort of patients might quickly be funneled into a competitor's study, diluting the initially estimated recruitment numbers.Patient Opt-Outs: Some pre-qualified patients inevitably drop off due to distance, scheduling restrictions, or a lack of interest after learning the details.For the most accurate and actionable view of trial capacity, project managers are encouraged to track pipeline depth (the number of patients actively moving through the screening steps at a local site) rather than relying solely on initial recruitment estimates.

It can say what it wants but there’s no way.

No way on earth that many have been recruited!! Hopefully we’ve escalated twice so now on 3rd cohort and remember enhertu took 3 to find its optimum. We should be helping a good number of patients albeit nowhere near that many.

Sadly PFS and OS a very low bar so even beating by 30% very positive. There is unlikely to be a high CR rate for SGC and although great they’ve got 1 it’s 2% of population.

SGC very hard to treat which is why PFS so poor as well as so few CRs. Regulators want PFS and OS but yes different ways to skin a cat and CRs not the only way! Halting progression durably is what 6000 is doing with SGC.

Touk, what's the point in tumour shrinkage if not sustainable? As CC said it's about PFS and OS and the regulators agree. Tumour shrinking good for headlines but not always survival. 6000 has super PFS which will improve with lifetime limit lifted

Touk, whoever takes 6103 forward (if it performs as designed Avacta surely taken over) won't be looking to trial SGC but will target bigger indications with a lot larger markets. 6000 is approved for SGC will make decent money for several years

Touk, whoever takes 6103 forward (if it performs as designed Avacta surely taken over) won't be looking to trial SGC but will target bigger indications with a lot larger markets. 6000 is approved for SGC will make decent money for several years

Regulators are more interested in PFS and OS than ORR. Avacta will update its PFS end of the month but I expect it to be near or better than 9 months achieved in P1 with 11 patients and to 38..

Efficacy among patients in the SGC expansion cohort also remained consistent, with multiple confirmed responses (four partial responses and nine minor responses observed among 38 evaluable patients). The disease control rate remains consistent at 92% (35/38 with best response of stable disease or response). Nine patients are continuing treatment, and a further 11 patients remain in follow up for disease progression.

Again what;s the point in having better ORR is it's less durable? Hence regulators want PFS and OS.

Again, impressive results but our P1 9 months PFS with a disease control rate of 90%. Surely with lifetime limit being lifted this will only improve and ADCs are a lot more expensive and difficult to manufacture, unlike AVA6000. These really promising results illustrate how superb ours are. Exciting times.

Yep but the main objective is PFS and OS so our P1 results better as longer sustained PFS and I bet we also have fewer side effects. Also worth remembering the lifetime limit of 6000 was only lifted in March so my bet is our results would have improved if we hadn't taken some off treatment due to max dose being reached