Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Revising my post from earlier with the figures used by AN in the interview (which were much larger than my estimates)
For every assay that Angle develop:-
- the assay development fees will be low ($250k - $750k depending on complexity)
- following the assay development there should be multiple phase 1/2 trial contracts, with multiple pharma, with higher value (£1m-£4m depending on number of patients / tests per patient)
- a number of the P1/2 trials will be followed with P3 trials, the contracts for which will be larger still (£15m-£45m))
- and finally this may lead to the assay / parsortix being used as a companion diagnostic (Cdx) which will deliver significant annual revenue (£20-£100m per annum)
So the key message is THESE ASSAY CONTRACTS are critical as they open the gates to the high volume downstream cashflow. As my brother (who has worked in biotech sales or over 24 years) said when the last contract was announced, "where one large pharma goes the others will quickly follow as nobody wants to be left at a disadvantage".
For every assay that Angle develop:-
- the assay development fees will be low ($250k - $750k depending on complexity)
- following the assay development there should be multiple phase 1/2 trial contracts, with multiple pharma, with higher value ($1m-$3m depending on number of patients / tests per patient)
- a number of the P1/2 trials will be followed with P3 trials, the contracts for which will be larger still ($3m-$6m)
- and finally this may lead to the assay / parsortix being used as a companion diagnostic (Cdx) which will deliver significant annual revenue (tens of millions)
So the key message is THESE ASSAY CONTRACTS are critical as they open the gates to the high volume downstream cashflow.
As my brother (who has worked in biotech sales or over 24 years) said when the last contract was announced, "where one large pharma goes the others will quickly follow as nobody wants to be left at a disadvantage".
TGTD - Angle don't need 6m in new customer contracts to meet the 6m revenue target. As well as the new contracts they have:-
- A base of existing lab services customers from 2023 whose work extends into 2024 (and may well have follow on contracts already in place).
- Parsortix device & cassette sales which will also be generating revenue (they aren't going to announce the sale of each machine)
- Other product sales (the new kit)
The new customer announcement are just one part of the revenue picture. Hopefully we will get some good insight into the scale / trajectory of the bigger picture in the imminent results.
Hi TGTD, it is incorrect to say that the company needs a minimum of 12 months cash to meet going concern requirements for the auditor's to sign off the 2023 accounts in May. There is no such requirement for a going concern status.
What Angle need to be able to demonstrate is that either their revenue + cash will be sufficient to keep the company operating, or that their revenue + cash + a feasible cash raise (if necessary) will be sufficient.
Whether / when a cash raise is needed will become much clearer when we get some current trading / outlook info with the imminent results publication. Until then everything is pure speculation.
As far as the lab services business goes it is becoming clear that there are 2 pipelines.
Pipeline 1 : Pharma engages Angle to develop an assay (£150-£250K) -> pharma uses assay in P1/P2 trial (£0.5-£1m)->pharma uses assay in P3 trial (£2-£3m)->pharma uses assay in companion diagnostic (£multi million per annum)
Pipeline 2 : Same as above but skips the assay development step i.e. the pharma uses an assay already developed by Angle.
What matters now is the number of contracts at the start of this pipeline as this will give good visibility into likely future revenue as each project moves through the stages of the pipeline. In the forthcoming results the number for last year are largely irrelevant - what really matters is the insight provided into the growth of the above pipelines and outlook statement. I would hope that by now Angle are able to establish a more accurate view of how many of their 'prospects' will turn into customers.
AZ have not asked for this assay to be developed for no reason. Once it is developed we should then quickly see further contract(s) in relation to the use of the assay in one or more trials - this is where the contract value becomes £1milllion+. We should also see the same following the development of the assay for Eisai. Note also that these assays can also be used in contracts with other pharma.
We only need a handful of Phase 2 trials to be signed up to see a major uplift in the lab services revenue in 2025 (could easily exceed £6-8m) and this should multiply again in 2026 as other pharma follow suit. Add on the growing product sales, HER2 with Bioview etc and it is easy to see that we are beginning the hockey stick revenue growth (which will lead to re-rating of the stock).
I very much doubt a bid at 50p would succeed if the SCIB1 / iSCIB1+ results are as we hope they will be by the end of this year. Maybe £1 would succeed if Vulpes and Redmile are willing to accept but I think that would be a big IF. A $1.5bn market (or much larger for iSCIB1+) could easily deliver $1bn annual profit given how relatively easy it is to manufacture the vaccine...
I think the purpose is to move us from a position where there is limited awareness of Scancell's work and early results to a position where there is high awareness of Scancell's work and early results with major Pharma's keenly awaiting further results. Instead of Scancell needing to knock on big Pharmas' doors they will be knocking on Scancell's.
Hi TGTD
you were recently stating that FDA approval is needed before labs can use Parsortix for cancer types other than MBC. Here is the definitive answer courtesy of Andrew Newland.
'I can confirm that Parsortix may be used in CLIA laboratories for multiple cancer types as long as each laboratory independently establishes and validates a Parsortix based assay specific for the purpose they require. Each laboratory has to take full responsibility for demonstrating adequate analytical performance and securing certification (through CLIA or equivalent) for their individual assays.'
Hi Bantham
I expect that CLIA labs are not confused and know exactly what they can and can't do. This is all that matters (not the confusion cased by disinformation spread by ill intentioned posters).
Wrong TGTD. CLIA labs do not need FDA approval to use parsortix for testing any cancer types. As long as the labs have validated the tests that they are offering then there is nothing stopping them from offering the test. This is why Angle are developing the Ovarian and Prostate tests (clearly there would be no point them doing this if lack of FDA approval would prevent the tests being carried out by labs).
Here you go TGTD - approx 320,000 CLIA approved labs in the US. In due course, once they are fully developed by AGL, the subset of these labs that are commercial labs could provide the Prostate and Ovarian tests using parsotix.
https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/clinical-laboratory-improvement-amendments#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20CLIA%20covers%20approximately,for%20implementing%20the%20CLIA%20Program.
TGTW, how many times must I tell you this. Parsortix can by used to clinically test any cancer when the test is developed and undertaken by a CLIA laboratory - no need for FDA approval. This is how the prostate test will be delivered for example. Also parsortix can be used to support clinical trials of any drug in any cancer type. The Angle labs are ALREADY doing this.
Read slowly and let it sink in.