Member Info for potnak

The content for the CC maters not. Just that we get one. If we get one. It means the tox study is progressing as it should. We should only be a couple of weeks off completion when the next one is due.

Think this look like a false alarm. AI doesn't know how to filter for year. It was fun while it lasted. My AI is still primed for late breaking abstracts at ASCO so let's see what happens.

AI has a habit of just making things up.

Yes, that's what I found. That why I posted here. The number is either made up of not correct.

I'm busy working but we need to confirm if abstract 5518 is real. Also, the timelines couldn't be mire synergisgic. The 16 week dosing period finishes around the same time. As Ahfam might say. June could be the month of the rerate.

Might not mean much but it could point to HGSOC being the target indication Sareum will pursue. With GSK (already got links to 737 there) and Astra Z. If HGSOC is the indication then, that is already a 3 billion a year market. With not that many treatments. I let the accountants work out the potential PE and other stuff. But even with a 20% share of the market until 2041. It could make 737 quite lucrative and Sareum shareholders happy.

Here is the AI output.

As of today, Thursday, 23 April 2026, we are in the "Title Release" window. The ASCO 2026 schedule is fixed, and the next few weeks are the most critical for data "leaks" and market anticipation.

​1. ASCO 2026: The "Late-Breaking" Timeline

​Late-breaking abstracts (LBAs) are handled with extreme secrecy compared to regular abstracts because they contain the most practice-changing data.

​21 April (Tuesday): Titles for all abstracts (including LBAs) were released. This is how we confirmed Abstract #5518 exists for SRA737.

​21 May (Thursday): Full text for Regular Abstracts is released (5:00 pm ET). This will include the "meat" of the #5518 HGSOC data.

​29 May – 2 June (The Meeting): Full data for Late-Breaking Abstracts is released at 7:00 am CT on the day of their presentation.

​2. Abstract #5518: Author List & "Tier-1"

Affiliations

​The author list for the SRA737 HGSOC presentation (#5518) is a "Who's Who" of British oncology. The involvement of these specific names is a massive signal to the market.

​Lead & Key Authors:

​Z. Zeng (Lead Author): The primary researcher behind the breakthrough showing SRA737’s immune-remodeling capability.

​A. Gandini: A key translational scientist at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR).

​Rebecca Kristeleit: A Tier-1 Gynecological Oncologist (Guy's and St Thomas' / UCL). Her presence is critical because she is a lead investigator for major GSK and AstraZeneca trials.

​Udai Banerji (Senior/Corresponding Author): Deputy Director of the Drug Development Unit at the ICR and The Royal Marsden.

Need some help with one. For the last few weeks, I've had my AI monitor the ASCO abstracts looking for sra737. Anyway, today, it found something. It looks like there is dedicated slot 737 in gynecologic cancers. Our old mate ​Udai Banerji. Looks like there is an embargo on the presentation, likely something similar to what HBD shared. But our old mate ​Udai Banerji is one of the presenters. I'm having trouble verifying if the abstract even exists. AI is good at making things up. I will post the AI output in the next post and if any of the boards super sleuths want to have a go, feel free.

I think 737 will be split from the other compounds. It's kind of ready to go straight into trials. IMO, With around 6 or 7 weeks to go. We will only get the bare minimum of news. Just enough to keep anxiety at a healthy level. A chaurmabs corner this week, woukd be great.

Yes, HBD. A good example. Although phase 1. They have shown efficacy (in just 4 patients). With that efficacy and the potential market size of Cart being 25 billion by 2030! Then 3.5 billion (doubled to 7 billion with milestones) may seem like a bargain of it goes to market. The efficacy bit it the key here. Others can correct me here but I believe Sareum only have implied efficacy with the observed biomarkers. But even so. 10 to 15% of 3.5 billion isn't too shabby, especially as the other compunts will have value too.

There board have a good idea what the deal sizes at certain stages of development. They've shown us comparable deals many times. Most billion dollar deals happen at phase 2, specifically when efficacy is proven. So the end of phase 2. There is no reason to think if 1801 gets to the end of phase 2 with similar outcomes that it won't be worth a billion dollars or more and with all things equal. A speculative forecast for all compounds combined at that stage could be 5 or 6 billion dollars. Here's the kicker though. We aren't anywhere near that point, it's probably 2 to 5 years away!

The boards job isn't to wait for and just accept an offer. For a buyout, they will have a figure on mind, probably around 10 to 15% of the 5 to 6 billion dollars. This figure acknowledges the risks involved for the acquiring company but pays a premium for improved compounds to own the compounds outright.

The board can, absolutely bat away any informal offers, they probably already have. However, if a formal offer is made then the market will be alerted. We will get an RNS with recommendations from the board to either accept or reject the offer. Low ball formal offer don't usually get made because, even if rejected, they tend to move the price up. We've had very few TR1's here but that doesn't mean there arent 3 or 4 big shareholders just under the TR1 threshold who would work together to vote against the boards decision. On AIM stock, unless a organised group of shareholders can intervene. Our vote is largely regulatory. We will follow the boards recommended strategy. So in the context of this conversation. The future value is set by the market, based on potential market sizes and sales of the compounds. The board will then apply the discounts. That figure is what they will walk into negotiations with.

The other crucial thing here is cash in the bank. It's really hard to negotiate when you are desperate for the win. And for this reason and others, I still think we are heading down the license route.

If we do get a licence. The backend milestones should tell us, what the board think the value is.

16 week dosing. But data won't be available until Q4 (end of). I'm hoping they we get a RNS stating the dosing has completed without issues.

Were on week 10, Elcap.

Yes, they are end of phase 2 valuations for me. I've always said a potential 2 billion valuation by the end of phase 2. That would require all ducks to be lined up, no failures. However, I just don't see a path to that valuation. We'd need a big pot of cash to get there and unless 737 can pay for it. The only feasible was is to on licence and at that point the buyout dreaming stops.

I'm planning on licences but do agree that there could be an offer or 2 but at a much discounted price. Anything upto £500 million for everything but that will depend if there is any implied efficacy in the phase 1 data. I also agree that the CNS indication could be massive but without cash to develop, it'll be a nice to have. The cynic in me thinks. The molecular makeup of this compound is different enough for it to be a backup, incase the TYK2's dont make it. Not a bad thing as such but it woukd mean more waiting.

All in all. Even without a buyout, we should be on our way to previous highs within a year.

Not saying don't show the data to prospective partners. I'm saying to the wider market. If the data was published tomorrow, it wouldn't do much to the sp because the the tox study trumps everything. It the data was published after the tox study is complete. It's a double whammy.

SOG, regarding your comment about JR seemingly reluctant about publishing the 1801 data? I have a feeling they have held back that publishing until the Tox study is complete. It would be a double whammy, especially if talking to more than one pharma.

It's not that I don't expect a buyout. Its just that, I'm not sure SAR have the data that supports a buyout. And to get that data, SAR would need to pay fur the phase 2 trial. We can only do that one of three ways. A licence, cash from 737 or a raise. The cash needed for phase could be 20 million. There is no way the market would stand for that big a placing. I'm not sure 737 would bring in an upfront big enough to run a phase 2 trial either. So that leaves the licencing route.

This is why I was asking the questions. Does what we have so far. Good toxicology, good half life, biomarkers observed etc.. Does that indicate that the efficacy is probably there and enough for a pharma to make an offer? I'd agree with SOGs £14 per share but at the end of phase 2 and even with cash, that is 2 years away, minimum. I'd also agree that talks have been going on for a while. IMO, 1802 has already got a home but dependant on the tox study data. 1801 might still be being negotiated.

If we were to get a full offer. Generally, a rule of thumb, At phase 2 ready with the lead compound, It would be 10 to 15% of NPV. Working the NPV out is where it becomes speculation. Thoth was good at this. So was RMM. I do miss RMM's posts as he used to show his working out.

Thanks for the breakdown, SOG. A quick search looks like Takeda could be chasing $6 billion in peak sales, whilst 1801 it could be $3 billion. Obviously, 1801 is a few years behind, but potential value is, still potential value.

£7 would be an amazing return. I think we'd need outstanding phase 2 data though. We are a couple of years away from that.

Yes, celtic. I'm working on the assumption that 1801 could be as effective and as valuable as TAK-279. It isn't a direct comparison, but for speculation, they are both TYK2 and both in the psoriasis indication. Nimbus got offers between 500 and 800 million dollars, they were already in phase 2, presumably with a completed tox study. But the offers were only based on p1b data. Sareum decided not to run a p1b trial and instead jump straight into an extened tox study with a view to getting 1801 phase 2 ready. The phase 1 trial was a success on term of, it's a well tolerated compound with a good half life. We haven't seen a full peer reviewed data readout. But we do know there were certain biomarkers that looked promising. If these biomarkers indicate the same level of efficacy as TAK-279 had at p1b then 1801 could already be in the 500 to 800 million dollar range. If that us the case. The upfront on a licence deal could be anything from £50 million to the £100s of million with billions in backend milestones.

So back to my point. Are they sitting on the data publication until the tox study is complete? Or is just taking a long time to get it published. Imagine the scenario where the tox study is complete, phase 2 ready and the peer reviewed data is good. We'd be at a pound, IMO.