Member Info for Matml74

Think the next dose will be a bigger jump. If they really want to find MTD within the next 6 months it doesn’t make sense to continue at the current escalation rate.

Chutz,

Don’t apologise for posting. Your thoughts align with mine and I suspect many others invested in SEE.

The presentation from October shows when the high margin current booked business comes to fruition and the hockey stick is just at the beginning of the curve upwards in 2023.

I have complete faith in how management is performing and the direction they are taking the company.

Rooba,

Can you point me in the direction of where you found the low dosage part?

“ theraputic levels in the tumour at low dosage”

Certainly have not seen that in the rns.

They have near enough stated it. The degree of reduction in side effects will be revealed on science day.

“AVA6000 continues to be well tolerated by patients in cohort 4 with a marked reduction in the incidence and severity of the typical toxicities associated with the standard doxorubicin chemotherapy administration.”

It doesn't necessarily mean there were 7 withdrawals. The 3x3 dose escalation means that if there are any toxic response in the first 3 patients recruited then another 3 need to be recruited into that cohort and a total of only 1 toxic response from the 6 patients is allowed for that cohort to progress to the next dosing level. This has obviously happened in a couple of the cohorts otherwise the timelines for each cohort would be similar to cohort 3.

Seriously Ronnie. The most important bit of the whole rns is in that sentence.

"This analysis shows that AVA6000 targets the release of doxorubicin to the tumour tissue at therapeutic level".

Wow. That is different.

Somebody is an idiot - is it CFP or is it Magna?

LOL. That question made my morning.

Which is what PM said by volume…… and 50% by value.

CES is about new products and announcing partnerships. The company has never released a won contract at CES so I wasn’t expecting anything in that regard but am extremely hopefully that we will see big contracts coming in over the next quarter. The partnerships they have put in place put them in a great position to hit their 50% market share target.

Secondary endpoints like ORR and others use the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) protocol which measures the size of tumor’s amount other things so this data is definitely being collected.

“ Just have a loo at what Magna is paying for Veoneer and the order book for the company, which is in excess of $1B so if we get £1 per share at an order book of $1B that is really paying top dollar.”

This is really irrelevant though isn’t it. What is the profit margin Veoneer is making on that $billion dollar order book? Basing a valuation of SEE’s technology and order book based on Magna’s purchase of Veoneer needs to take into consideration many other things than just a comparison of the order book and the value paid for the company. From what I have read Veoneer’s margin on that order book is not even closely comparable to the DMS royalty margins SEE will receive.

SEE still has to win as much of the latest RFQ that it can inorder to get the billion dollar plus order book. All will become clearer in the next 12 months in that regard, but what is certain is the high margin dms auto royalties are not yet significantly shown on SEE’s accounts, but they will be soon enough…….and the market will then wake up.

It was also at 40p one time last year which would be considered a significant rise…… but perhaps you conveniently forgot.

Have look 6 months before that. Don’t want to compare SEE to SEYE for that period? ….. and the 6 months before that? Didn’t think so. That would crush your narrative…:.: Oh SEE won $125m in one contract this time last year…… but that doesn’t count.

Well don SEE on the win. Merry Xmas!

Love it when Paul gets his Santa suit on.

“ BUT not fully comprehensive due to the paucity of data (its good I expect, but not enough samples to declare it statistically proven)!”

With any biopsies that the company may have this will comprehensively show whether ava6000 cleaves or not in the tumor. This is the important bit. Statistics don’t matter at this point. It either does or doesn’t cleave. Cleaving proves the mechanism. If it’s cleaving then the company will be able to look at PK data and dosage and determine an optimum dosing level.

P1b will then be rolled out in larger numbers with various tumor types and will then provide a much larger sample size to provide an even greater understanding of ava6000 in man.

Statistical significance is irrelevant at this point as the drug is no being compared against anything else.

Urdansea, take another look at the rns. This is the first major statement in the rns.

“ Science Day to include presentation of the data emerging from the phase 1a clinical trial of AVA6000”

Can’t see why anyone would be disappointed by that.

Energy, highly unlikely scenario IMO. There is certainly no rush for anyone to be listing on Nasdaq at present. High volatility and ongoing high inflation/interest rates mean companies aren’t getting the valuations that could be achieved in better market conditions. Mobileye a good example of that.

Company is better off clearly laying out its strategy of moving the platform forward and perhaps flagging the idea/plan of a Nasdaq listing if they are really serious about moving ava6000 forward in house as they will need a shedload of cash to do that.

The future MCAP is impossible to determine at this point in time IMO, but the CEO has said P1a data proving up the precision platform is a “major inflection point” for the company. For LTH’s it shouldn’t really matter what the SP is when results released in Jan/Feb but it will derisk their investment dramatically upon a positive confirmation of activation of dox in tumor which for me will be a big relief. With a P1b completed sometime in 2023 then it will become more likely that a future realistic valuation of the platform will become possible.

Pull your head out of your **** and read the trial protocol....

All being measured in P1a

Maximum drug concentration (Cmax) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]

Cmax (maximum plasma concentration) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.

Area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]

AUC (Area under the concentration versus time curve) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.

Elimination half-life (t1/2) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]

t1/2 (Elimination half-life) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.

Renal clearance (CLr) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]
CLr (Renal clearance) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.

Objective response rate (ORR) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]
ORR is defined as the proportion of patients achieving a best overall response of confirmed partial responses (PR) or complete response (CR), per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

Duration of Response (DoR) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]
DoR is defined as the duration of time from date of first response to date of disease progression, as per RECIST v1.1

Progression-free-survival (PFS) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]
PFS is defined as the time from the date of the first dose to the date of the first documentation of confirmed disease progression or death, whichever occurs first, as per RECIST v1.1

Overall survival (OS) [ Time Frame: Up to one year ]
Overall survival (OS), defined as the date of first dose) to the occurrence of death from any cause