Member Info for miavoce

They don't need FDA approval to be able to offer Lab Developed Tests (LDT's) so this will be the income stream initially.

Why not wait until the results in a few weeks, at which point I would expect an update on current trading and outlook, before making such definitive and potentially wrong statements about the commercialisation position ? You will then be able to speak with facts to hand.

Thanks Ruck. Very interesting.

I that for MODI or SCIB Ruck ?

One of the risks with the uncontrolled trail is that the doctors involved, through a form of unconscious selection bias, put their 'healthiest' patients on the trial (e.g. patients who haven't had so much treatment that their immune system has become significantly weakened). This could lead to the results being skewed as the trial participants are those that would have responded well to the CPI's on their own. This IMO is one of the reasons that in a small uncontrolled trial it is difficult to be sure exactly what difference the drug has made compared to the performance of CPI's on their own. This bias effect would be eliminated in larger controlled trials, which may well be why we see trials where the drug appears to have had a positive impact in phase 1/2 but then fails in phase 3.

Having said this, the results so far have been so good that I'd be very surprised if SCIB1 wasn't having a materially positive impact.

CFO is normally a board position. Probably just a formality moving him onto the board now that his probation period is over.

15 more trading days before the AACR presentation by LD. I am expecting an update on the SCOPE trial sometime in those 15 days.

Given that the AACR presentation by LD in April wasn't mentioned in the RNS this leads me to think that we may get a separate RNS for that one with an update on recruitment, patient progress etc. Here's hoping.

That is my expectation to Bermudashorts. In a couple of weeks it will be 4 months since we had any new data from SCIB1 so there must be a lot of progress to be reported.

I expect we will get an update on SCIB1 before the AACR presentation on April 7, 2024, 3:45 PM - 3:55 PM

3 months to the day since we had the last SCIB1 trial patient update - must be due another v. soon.

Sounds like you are thrashing around Fevertreeman !!!

Interesting really ? A £20k trade. How so ?

Video of the Angle conference presentation which took place today (thanks for flagging the conference to goosed on AD).

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaWMUx7GhE

Quite the opposite Matt - based on what Lindy actually said I would expect at least one or two mAb deals this year (5 parties in discussion, vying for exclusivity).

I would expect so Burble as it is effectively a new drug.

It certainly does feel like something may be brewing...

The renal cohort targeting 1st line treatment was also great new news.

'Oh and of course they initially went down the wrong DDA approval pathway, which set things back quite a bit.

Have to wonder why that was as there are plenty of consultants firms that help companies prepare submissions. '

LOL. It was a consulting firm that sent them down the wrong path.

The benefit of using NGS provided by the mayor players in this space is that there is a very large installed base of those machines across labs globally, so all Angle need to do is to publish the protocol for processing the CTC's through those systems and then those labs can carry out the CTC analysis themselves (assuming they buy a parsortix system) and can therefore provide the future Ovarian / Prostate tests and other tests themselves. If Angle stuck with their in-house genetic analysis solution for their tests then the labs would need to buy the Angle genetic testing tech as well as buying the parsortix systems and this would be a major blocker to other labs offering the tests.