Member Info for opti_mystic

Saint68 Yes precision.

Ah, I must've missed that! Exciting times!

I see the RNSs as good news all around. The company does not think it needs to raise cash that is why it has paid cash out. I see that as a good thing not a bad thing. The longer time frame for release of phase 1b data I also think is a good sign.

For those who haven't read the documents from Avacta currently available, the news about Exatecan is not really new. It has been provided to patients before but it is highly toxic, bad if you're a cancer tumour unfortunately also bad if you're a patient. What the science does is make it much, much more tolerable if you're a patient, because combining it with 6000 means the side effects are drastically reduced. This means that it's a win win. High toxicity, low side effects.

Touk,

Have they announced a fund raise? This company is getting sold this year before it needs capital.

If big pharma are talking there could be an NDA.

I don't understand some of the people on here. This is sale of the century time and many people are navel gazing. Questioning irrelevancies and filling the void with an opinion invented out of thin air that at the very least is at odds with the stated position of the company but with no reason for that other than.......whatever. Not just looking a gift horse in the mouth but criticising it's dental work.

The technology works. It just needs to be proven up in a larger cohort which is what is happening right now. Results will be in the late spring early summer. That is just a part of a set out process by both regulators and the company itself confirmed in and RNS. There is a faster route to FDA approval is a drug can show any of these: better efficacy, better safety, it meets a currently unmet need. Avacta with it's pipeline ticks literally all three boxes.

Some people wondering why CC isn't communicating at all. Why do you think that is? Big pharma are going to be circling this like vultures. These drugs are going to revolutionise cancer treatments and we are all lucky to be in a position to invest in it at these prices and to make the gains when they arrive. IMHO that is just a matter of when.

Icecool, I really appreciate the research, thanks!

Good idea COLDWATER, sell off the crown jewels and hope you get something EVEN better later.

Amen to that!

I see what you're saying Thompi, but when I look around a the other deals they seem to support what Ice is saying. It seems to be about when you sell. If you sell pre-clinical human evidence, it's millions, if proven clinical data in humans even if quite early it's billions. My view of that is big pharma want something transformative but don't want to go too early or too late. Buying Avacta after stage 3 trials and FDA approval is most likely going to cost a lot more than when it's sort of pretty sure it works and they just get it over the line. Selling now would be a mistake in terms of maximising the value for shareholders and presumably the people that work in this business would quite like a share of that too. So not too soon and not too late. The rights to Enhertu were sold in part for $6.9 billion and was later valued at $22 billion. It took a further 5 years to get FDA. Interestingly AZ paid $6.9 billion to "work with Daiichi" (assuming certain milestones were hit) but not for worldwide sales. "The upfront payment is particularly large. It's a sign that AstraZeneca assumes the drug will become mainstream in the next generation". However Daiichi retained the rights to book sales in the USA, many European countries and Japan. If the trials go well I think Avacta has to be worth more because the efficacy is better than existing drugs (unlike Enhertu) and the side effects better too. The initial findings in phase 1 look very encouraging indeed. I've read a lot of the information from Avacta and the science is compelling.

Here's the link to the Reuters article: It's from 2019.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/astrazeneca-pays-up-to-69-billion-in-daiichi-sankyo-cancer-deal-idUSKCN1RA04O/

Thompi,

That kind of an odd way of looking at it though because those deals would have been sealed AFTER the human clinical data and so at that point this share price will seem a distant memory.

I'm with Icecool on this one in terms of the value inherent in the business. The drug is less toxic, attacks the cancer cells for much longer, has far fewer side effects and additionally has a delivery system that can deliver Avacta's own drugs or other already approved drugs directly to the site of the cancer with very little damage to surrounding healthy cells. The patient can tolerate much higher maximum doses and those more powerful doses are delivered with accuracy at the cellular level. So that's one thing.

Separately people are worried about the company running out of money. With the sale of the other part of the business and quite a bit of cash I don't see why people are concerned about running out of money inside two months. What am I missing?

There is no evidence that it hasn't started either but there was an RNS that said it was starting imminently but you choose to believe it hasn't started, rather than it started shortly thereafter, why?

Touk,

I'm referring to the RNS of Jan 16th 2025 and it says this

"Based on this favorable efficacy and safety data observed in the Phase 1a trial, Avacta has initiated three Phase 1b expansion cohorts in triple negative breast cancer, soft tissue sarcoma and salivary gland cancer in the first and second line setting. Patients are screening and the first patients to be treated in these expansions are expected imminently in the US."

I take that to mean they are imminently, at the time of release of the RNS, running three separate phase 1b trials into those three cancers; triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), Salivary Gland cancer (SGC) and soft tissue sarcoma (STS)

Touk,

because they didn't have it in time. They put out lots of information but the trial information commencement would have gone with the RNS to which you refer had it started but it had not. They therefore stated it was starting very soon 'imminently'. They did not say they would put out another RNS when it has started. It has started. Which part of 'imminently' are you struggling with?

Touk, they told the market they were going to start dosing imminently. Unless they have not they are. I'd expect a RNS if they had not started I would not expect one if they have.

T-moon. Your quote doesn't mean necessarily what you think it means. It could simply mean they had intended to release that with the RNS but couldn't get it done in time but it is imminent. It doesn't mean that there will be another RNS to confirm what they have already informed you of, that being it is imminent and by the tone of those words I take that to mean it would have started very soon after that RNS.

B2HS2L

Agreed. But some cancers like pancreatic have very low survival rates because you cannot deliver the chemo to the site and it is difficult to operate there too. This is a game changer was really my point, because it targets only the tumour.

No it's much better than that imho. It delivers the warhead directly to the site of the tumour. This has several advantages. Chemo to date has been a poisoning of the human to shrink the tumour but you have to be able to tolerate the effective dose, but healthy tissues are adversely affected because it does not directly hit the tumour and only the tumour. This does. That means you can deliver many times the dose. That means it should be more effective. Even when they have delivered much higher than standard doses, the negative side effects have been way, way better, than normal. What is more impressive, 24 hours after a dose with this method the warhead is found in biopsy tissues even for cancers where that warhead would not have been the usual drug of choice to deal with it. This also has benefits. It means cancers that are typically very hard to treat because they are at difficult sites like pancreatic of salivary glands can be treated very effectively all you have to do is select the correct payload for the type of cancer and site it is in. I agree with CC I don't think people have cottoned on to what all this really means. It's revolutionary. In other words this treatment may well be effective for cancers they were not even thinking it would work for. All with considerable less/fewer side effects and all much more safely too. There are two lines, the delivery system and the new drugs to treat the cancer. Just because the market hasn't cottoned on or wants to see more evidence I don't think the contextualisation as CC puts it is new information. If you're paying attention it is already available. There is information and then there is what that information really means commercially.