Member Info for Matml74

“ Yes I know this is a very different product with so much going for it. But it is still the same old Al.”

But it’s not just Al is it! The SDMC reviews the data, you know, the independent clinicians that are running the trial and after each cohort they make a decision on whether the drug is causing toxicities to the patients they have given the drug, whether drug is halting progression of the disease, whether the drug is causing large reductions in tumor volume and they make a decision on whether or not to move onto another cohort………. Then they ring Al up and say Al you better get your ramping shoes on and dress up these results a bit.

Lombard actually held a higher percentage in 2022 but sold 70m when they shuffled them around in their funds and their buying since November 22 hasn't got them back to their pre-exisitng holding.

They are not going to buy out SEE. Magna will make a bid first and then see which, if any, of the big tech companies want to come in higher.

why do you think any one gives a **** if you sold some shares?

Maybe. You can read that statement in many different ways I guess.

I think it highly unlikely they run the P2 only in the US when they have trial sites up and running in the UK. Recruitment of patients is the main time limiting factor for completion on any clinical trial.

Don’t expect we will know much about this until mid 2024 in any case.

Cheers Tim. I guess with the fortnight study there will be 6 max patients per cohort and US sites have sufficient STS patients to cover this.

….. as per he did say it’s quick to FDA approval for that study and it’s nearly 2 months later!!!

“ With Bill Tap’s help in the US and the Royal Marsden we can ensure sufficient clinical trial patients. A successful P2 is critical.”

He was still talking Royal Marsden in the TG notes.

“ The 2 week study is definitely only US”

Where has that been stated?

There was a slide at science day which shows drugs in development for STS.

“KOL’s indicate no serious competition in first line treatment for STS”

The drugs listed in the clinic are either combinations with dox, nano particle delivery of dox or analogue of dox.

I think I will take Dr Tap’s assessment over some desk jockey analyst in London.

You should ask yourself…… Why would Numis release such a bearish note at this point in time, when they could wait a month and be presented will data which would give a clearer picture of the tolerability and efficacy of the drug, which would in turn provide greater insight into the development timeline and commercial opportunities.

I expect the guy is on the way out the door as part of the take over by Deutsche Bank and is doing a city mate a favour!

Exactly Boon. There is no way Magna have sold a share. They have positioned themselves for the eventual buyout of SEE, either by themselves or one of the tech big boys.

Explain how that can happen when all Magna’s shares were purchased at 11p in their initial buy in and they haven’t received any from the CLN which are also at 11p?

“ "However, more targeted drugs already exist. ”

Yet Doxorubicin is still first line treatment for many types of STS……. And this is where the credibility of his note falls down.

You only need to view Dr Tap’s Q&A posted last night to understand how important dox is for oncologists treating STS.

Here’s a nice example of a phase 1 patient case study. Hopefully we get something similar later this quarter.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ideaya-announces-first-reported-case-of-uveal-melanoma-patient-spared-enucleation-in-phase-1-neoadjuvant-ist-with-darovasertib-monotherapy-301857515.html

This is the most idiotic attempt to deramp yet.

Doxorubicin induced osteoarthritis is already a side effect of treatment…… but it’s not the reason why there is a lifetime cumulative dose in place!

What does it matter? Even if the group holdings are 5% it would still be larger than any II.

Engagement is good. There is nothing new in the notes.

Avacta have rns’d previously. Patients showing stable disease and patient showing significant reduction tumor volume.

55 director purchases in 12 months.

They know…..

“ @JT, I think the strategy is clearly to get AVA6000 approved for some sarcomas and then license/partner out for more lucrative cancers (breast, ovarian first, and then others) and maybe revisit the other sarcomas later for exclusive Avacta sales if the market size if big enough or they can bag several sub-types with one or two Phase 2 trials.”

I highly doubt that approval would be for subsets of sarcoma just because they were used in the P2. The vast majority of STS tumours express FAP just some to a higher degree than others. A very recent study showed that 85% of STS tumors (various subtypes) showed FAP positivity in over 10% of tumor cells. So whilst some subtypes may express FAP at greater levels it doesn’t mean that patients with tumors that have lower FAP expression won’t still benefit in some way from AVA6000. What Avacta is doing by selecting higher FAP expressing subtypes is ensuring the P2 has greater chance of success.

FAP diagnostics will become very important in the treatment of STS by clinicians. I think some people become misguided and think that because AVA6000 works in one STS tumor then it works in all STS tumors to the same degree. That’s not the case.

Hopefully enhanced dosing regimes and the excellent tolerability of AVA6000 will enable patients even with tumors that express FAP at lower levels to benefit.

Company has forecast revenue mix and by 2026 we know that will be approximately 50% royalties.

We also know from the company the royalties are high margin (approx 90%).

So from your projections you can also get a good guide on profit. The company will be flooded in cash.

The current “unknown” is who will be the big DMS/OMS winners for the next phase of rfq for the 2027-2033 period.

I’m betting it’s SEE.

“ The original p1b design with it's straight dox comparison could have provided some data but that's all changed now. (After the famous whaler spork brawl)”

The dox arm was for comparison of efficacy though not to determine concentration of doxorubicin in tumors. Tumors are so heterogenous that that data is meaningless and reason the data doesn’t exist.

It’s not ‘theory’ though is it Einstein. It is empirical evidence collected on many fronts……. which is obviously essential if you want to get a drug to market.