Member Info for opti_mystic

Isn't it tonight?

No Thorny you're wrong. They're right. I agree BV it'll licenced out for STS most probably at some point. In the meantime bigger fish to fry.

The answer was far more nuanced than that. It wasn't that 6k isn't better (probably) it's that there are a number of issues from a Avacta strategic point of view that made the pivot to SGC a better bet. Firstly the cost and additional risk of having to run a trial in STS where the unexpectedly high pure dox PFS was 8 months. As we all know Avacta has limited cash resources and having to run a trial for that long and longer to prove efficacy advantages was deemed not a good use of the cash runway especially when given the very promising results they were seeing in SGC which had no standard of care. From a business, use of cash, and probability of success and speed to market point of view a no brainer.

This has been known for days that these two companies had moved over the 3% reporting limit. I don't know how the timelines work and don't really care facts are facts and reporting them is hardly a crime.

Specifically what don't I know Thorn?

Sure cj; we're uncertain but I don't think CC is. TNBC is going to be huge for this company and it's just the beginning.

That excludes any specialist funding that is non-dilutive, not sure if that's going to be necessary now.

LDA there are three capital pools The cash runway marginally enhanced by the sale of Coris, the access to deeper capital pools than AIM will provide by a dual listing on the Nasdaq, and the partnership opportunities that exist of which CC mentioned two, one quite soon with the Pre|Cision platform and someone else's payload and another later this year/early next with the partnering opportunity that exists for AVA6000 that will be unlocked by the P1b trials data that is currently ongoing.

Yes BV I mean if BP agreed the rocket worked it would already have gone to Mars and because the rocket has not yet gone to Mars means no-one in BP is convinced it does. I'm with B2

Own it Cold you're asking for yourself. I don't need approval, and neither does Avacta nor the oncologists nor the patients from BP or II's because that is not the definition of whether it works or not, that would be in the results of the trials in patients and the evidenced based work in the lab like the plasma ratios and lack of toxicity observed in patients treated. Frankly your views are illogical and incoherent. Linking the SP directly to anything here is simply making an assumption that is proven time and again to be incorrect and you're doing that whilst making other assumptions about the efficacy and linking the efficacy to BP agreeing that it works, as if, if they agree it works it does and if they don't agree it works somehow the actual data becomes irrelevant. That is also proven to be incorrect and is clearly utter nonsense.

Yes Cold you are. I don't know what you're expecting but these are heavily pre-treated patients and even so there is a 90% disease control rate and the previous PFS was 3.5 months and AVA6000 is already at 5.9 months and increasing every day. If it does that for pre-treated patients it can only get better for those in a first line setting. Also there is no standard of care, they got nothing .So if world renown oncologists think this is great, I'm going with that. It's better than anything else they know of and yet you're not sure about the efficacy; on what possible basis do you come to that conclusion?

Good question cj. I am of the opinion, being as there is no standard of care for Salivary Gland Cancer, we're already in that very situation for AVA6000 in that indication. Who on this board would take whatever else they're offering for that if any of us were unfortunate enough to be so diagnosed, or would we prefer AVA6000. In my view that is a no brainer and yet 3.5 years to wait!

B2 I hear what you're saying but isn't the same situation Avacta is already in with AVA6000, where we're using Dox which is already approved and it still is going to take another three and a half years from now according to last weeks presentation? I mean that's about as simply as it gets. It's two completely harmless and inert amino acids with Dox. My understanding is even if the actual payload is already approved you can't get approval just for the conjugate on it's own I think because the payload increases and they want to see what can be safely delivered.

Hmmmm. What's that stuff you need to be able to buy back your own shares?

A lot to digest from the meeting. One of the strong positives is CC saying "We are setting ourselves the goal of a deal and the long term financing of the company all of which are coming together in the background right now"

'Accelerated approval' another 3 and a half years from now at the earliest. This what's wrong with these processes, they're glacial. With all the data and excellent safety data. That's nuts.

Sort of yes. You can sense her frustration that she can't say anything

More than ten other undisclosed future drugs!

Waiting for news is always a frustrating experience. The problem I am having with Avacta is even when presented with an opportunity to provide us with an update of some actual usefulness they always seem to miss the open goal and we all have to guess as to why. STS does not seem to be part of the future so why is that? Is it the results in are not as good as hoped? Or is it they most probably have a taker for that? If it's market sensitive it should have an RNS. So either way it would have an RNS. The delay in an RNS would not happen if it didn't come up to scratch in the trial so my guess is they have a deal. This BB has been asking that question for some time and yet they omit any commentary on it specifically. They say they're taking forward two indications was the way I read it, but you could have taken it another way, poorly worded and a little ambiguous. If they're not taking forward STS who is? If it's dropped why?

"Opening of the Phase 1b expansion cohorts in salivary gland cancers, triple negative breast cancer and high-grade soft tissue sarcoma

Anticipate releasing the initial data in salivary gland cancer in late 2025 and in triple negative breast cancer in H1 2026.

Phase 2 trials in these indications planned for H1 2026"

Which indications? The first three or the last two? I read it as the last two. So what is happening with STS? My guess is they must have a taker for it because if the results in human were so poor as to not pursue it that would warrant an RNS and because of how it works there is no reason for it not to work in STS. But as ever clarity is not their strong point and why no comment on the possibility of a deal specifically relating to that. I guess that's commercially sensitive so still a reason for no further information until deal is complete. As I said frustrating but guess what you will.

I think the most you can hope for is that there are on-going discussions and they expect to be able to do a deal with the interest they have. If they had a deal to announce they would have already. Remember they said partnering opportunity is last quarter because that is when they'll have the best data in humans from the P1b and that is what is going to drive the most value from the deal. There's no hurry to strike a less than optimal deal.