Member Info for opti_mystic

@yeboha I boxed them all months ago but unfortunately I read it second hand because others quote them, it just reminds me why I blocked them in the first place.

The purpose of the FUD brigade is unsurprisingly to spread as much FUD as possible. To do that they need engagement, it puts their FUD front and centre and by engagement you are assisting them in their goal because the topics they raise end up becoming the topics most discussed by said engagement in the back and to. If it is YOUR intention to assist them in their objective, then by all means engage. You're not helping quash their utter drivel if you continue to take the bait. If you were a fish you'd be getting hooked 20 times a day! You're giving them exactly what they want, your attention and engagement on non-issues masquerading as actual problems, problems that have been discussed on here over and over again and their nonsense has been disproved usually by statements from the CEO or in other presentations by other senior Avacta figures. They're using you to achieve their objectives. Think carefully if that's what YOU want.

No it won't become obsolete. Some cancers are topo1 resistant so topo 2 still needed.

Why do we get this nonsense over and over? Let's be actually clear, AVA6000 works and it does have efficacy, and it will have efficacy in the chosen indications, what it doesn't yet have, but will in the fullness of time, is efficacy proven in a bigger cohort of people( ie a P2 trial actually designed to asses efficacy). What we're embarking upon is a safety trial. This may come a surprise to some but the purpose of the safety trial is to prove safety. The removal of the lifetime cumulative dose would seem to any sane person as a pretty spectacular endorsement of said safety. What we do have is a clear indication, in terms of trial endpoints that will be surrogate end points in a P2/registrational trial, of efficacy, those being more than doubling the PFS as well as DCR of 90% in a supposedly chemo refractory disease setting. The posters who think that AVA6000/Faridox has not demonstrated clear efficacy have to wait for the data in TNBC, have forgotten about the early data in STS (and what Dr Tapp expert in STS said about it) and are ignoring the data in SGC, which somewhat undermines your position.

In view of the fact that Dox on its own is efficacious and is still used today, I'd like those posters who think that efficacy is in question to ponder how a drug that is still used today untargeted (because it has efficacy), would somehow perform worse or no better if it were able to be better targeted at a ratio of 100-1 in the tumour? How could it be worse? The beauty of how Avacta is approaching both AVA6000 and 6103 is that if we are able to target the tumour and keep the drug in there for longer then efficacy is a given, the safety part gives you the efficacy part, if it is safe it will be efficacious because we know the chemo works already. We know AVA6000 is very safe and therefore we know it will be efficacious the P2 trial is significantly de-risked for any prospective partner.

I agree Ice broadly, in essence the time to market has reduced. That's the bit that is exciting for Avacta.

The value of Avacta is very large and is significantly de-risked compared to the usual 10-15% chance of success (CoS) usually suggested for new drugs. Why? There are two main reasons drugs fail; efficacy and safety. These two reasons account for 80% of failures. On a 10-15% chance of success if you can solve these issues you're on at least an 80% CoS. Let's take efficacy. Our payload in both cases of 6k and 6103 is not some newly invented chemo the efficacy of which is unknown. These are Dox and Exatecan. We know they're efficacious beyond any doubt. Efficacy is 50% of the reason for failure and because we're repurposing drugs we know work we're literally half way there! The second reason for failure is safety. The whole point of Avacta's drug is essentially safer drugs. "Silent in the blood stream. Active in the tumour" That's not some marketing gimmick that is how the science is designed. If it works as intended delivering the payload with great specificity to the tumour micro-environment is the entire point of the science, and we know for a fact that it does work how it's designed. 100-1 tumour plasma ratios tell you there is not much in the blood and an awful lot in the tumour. So now we're 80% of the way there. That is going to be true for both 6k and 6103. The only part we do not know for sure works in humans is the slow release mechanism in 6103, the FAP seeking part is already proven by the path finder 6k.

LEK consulting for two indications TNBC and SGC relevant to 6k have said the market is $1.75 billion peak sales. Avacta expect this to be available from late 2028 or early 2029. Three years maximum. There is literally no way BP are going to let us start booking revenue, therefore the company gets sold way before then, that means this year or next. So what is the price?

Typically 3-5 times expected peak revenue. Let us assume only 3 times. For for 6k that equates to £1.3 X 3 = £3.9 billion. For 6103 the calculation is much bigger but I have been more cautious in terms of the numbers. I've screened the four 6103 indications (Ovarian, gastric, pancreatic and SCLC) for FAP and reduced that number by the incidence of Schlafen 11 (even though it'll work fine absent the presence of Schlafen 11 and long story short I came to sales of £9 billion p.a. Crucially, this does not include any element of breast cancer. As we now all know, Avacta are pretty confident of eating Enhertu's lunch where that drug targets HER2. Of course we can target a much broader target in FAP. HER2 breast cancer patients only account for 15-20% of breast cancer patients, we could potentially target 90%. I have not included this potential market in my numbers.

Doing the sums is easy to see why we could go for tens of billions. Yes there will be sum discounting for time to market but also there are going to be an awful lot of BP looking to plug massive patent cliff holes in their income. Add to that we can target 90% of all solid tumours and the room for off label

It dumps ten times the amount of drug into the tumour within minutes that Enhertu can achieve at any point. It then broadly tracks the amount of drug when compared to Enhertu for an extended period of time, but crucially the free drug in blood plasma falls away very, very rapidly such that within hours (4-6) it is not detectable. Much smaller amounts of the drug in the blood plasma and for only a very short duration means less severe and fewer side effects, (16% of Enhertu patients had to come off drug due to side effects). It uses the bystander effect and does not need to be taken up into the tumour like Enhertu does. It does not attack and reduce the very bio-marker it is targeting like Enhertu sometimes does, FAP in our case stays around undamaged, whereas in Enhertu's case HER2 can be destroyed which reduces the targeting of the drug for future doses. 6103 is effective even in tumours with low FAP expression, Enhertu is less effective with low HER2 expression.

Avacta just said to Astra Zeneca, when Enhertu's patent expires in 2033/5 and you're selling about $14 billion dollars a year, here is the perfect replacement. You have a patent cliff problem, we have a patent cliff solution for you. AZN is the perfect partner for lots of reasons and I think CC knows this which is why this spotlight focus is comparing 6103 to Enhertu, this was not necessary, she could just have said we think the market for 6103 is in excess of $14 billion dollars per year and left it at that. All we need is for it to replicate what it does in the mouse models. It's possible it does even better.

My apologies your talking right now maximum of 84 patients maximum minimum of 42.

If I understand the question, you're asking about the trials for 6103? There will be 15 patients in each cohort. 60 in total.

Looking at December 2025 1b update. In view of the removal of the cumulative lifetime dose (CLD) those swimmer plots for endpoint PFS should start to look even better when those swimmer lanes can stay dark blue for a lot longer, patient on drug for as long as necessary. There are five patients in the waterfall plot reaching maximum cycles, they can now stay on drug in the future. It can only help the patients and the trial.

B2, the point of the partner for 6k phase 2 is that they the partner fund the trial, we won't be paying for it that is for sure. So they won't care about our finances. Presumably there will also be some sort of upfront payment too helping our finances. No partner no phase 2.

The problem I see is that before BP spend a ton of cash they will want lots of data. They will have it with 6k by the end of June when TNBC data is released and it seems likely a deal for at least the three indications we know about would be the focus of that deal. Avacta has strongly signalled a deal for that to fund 6103. However at a similar sort of time July/August they should have a very good idea on 6103 too with early data. Would waiting a little bit longer and buying the whole kit caboodle really make that much difference to BP who we all know have massive patent cliffs? Deal(s) are on the way for sure, the timing and size is the only uncertainty.

Keytruda is out of Patent in 2028 when the immunology drug becomes an out of patent generic drug. Avacta could use it like we have Dox and Exatecan and we'd have chemo and immunology options.

Possibly a rebranding of the same programme then. I can find no FAP targeting tech or patent application to Lilly

I'm pretty sure that is based upon the tech Point licenced from Avacta. It's a different warhead with our FAP technology.

The problem I see with that option is we won't want to licence out our technology to A N Other whose more toxic chemo could potential outperform 6103 and eat our lunch stealing our potential market which is huge. Another reason I think 6207 makes some sense. Other options are available.

You could be right BV, but the close proximity of the announcement of 6207 seems to fit. We're 8 months later now which isn't really "in the not too distant future".

No I don't think so. CC communicates from a place knowing things we don't know. It's perfectly in line with everything to say that thinking it would be say Exatecan and a PARPi and an ATRi. She had already hinted at 6207 earlier in the year saying something along the lines of "potentially licencing the technology to a partner working together collaborating on the development of a new medicine. It would be based on a partners proprietary payload and our precision technology. More to come here in the not too distant future." That was in June 2025. Then in October I think it was they announced 6207.

She then referred to the iceberg analogy and said there's a lot going on under the surface that we can't disclose. That was before 6207 was announced.

That's 6207 B2. Looking at a PARPi and or an ATRi for that possibly MMAE. Not many pharmas have these in development or approved to a limited number of companies and really an even smaller number of tier 1 bp

Every chance 6207 is the first deal.