Member Info for RorkesDrift

To be fair if they pull finger out and go down the on-line route then it could be shorter. If you go for top journal then risk delay due to rejection or significant rewrite. However, if accepted you get max kudos. At this stage Avactas audience isn't the clinical community but potential investors and they will want the info as quick as possible and with ability to see the data files during due diligence. Avacta have most of that in place now and probably the phone numbers of who they need to speak to. A Nasdaq investors pack though........

Calm down....

Sorry.

Your friend should already be under the care of an oncologist. Could try going through them rather than GP to try and secure referal.

Once you submit a paper it needs to be reviewed and normally amended. It then normal joins the back of the list to be published. If data available in Jan and given c6 time that would be tight, paper has to be written and submitted. So looking at sometime in 2025 for high impact journal but if what they wantbisva reference still June 24. So decision to release key info in Q4 is driven by commercial rather than academic priority. My thinking is they will try and achieve both which is a change in emphasis to the AGM info.

Yep but my last paper took a year.

Did you see what I did there

My belief is we have a product that will get to market and be worth £Bs. Thats with a huge amount of faith rather than fact. Until we see data from the other 34 patients then we won't know what that market is or how ava6000 changes the approach. Pass me the calculator - looks like I found a piece with a steering wheel on it but cannot work out if its a Lotus or a mg metro badge

Market has been given some pieces of the jigsaw but cannot work out the bigger picture yet. Lets be honest and accept that AS has given us a couple of key corner pieces he is holding onto most of the info until xmas. Whilst twitter thinks it can see the whole picture the market will wait until AS reveals what's in the box when he publishes P1a - that approach has changed since last time he said formal publication. Suspect someone more commercially minded said nope - we are not a university and we need to sign up partners.

She hasn't put on the Brunhilda helmet and ginourmas basque but I think she might be tuning up for a New Year Special

Best one yet. This one comes with a free toy calculator, some graph paper and an enormous sense of desperation.

My view is the acquisitions were part of a strategy that leveraged the affimer IP.

However, someone screwed up and didn't check patent position before handing over the cheque. Therefore left with an expensive couple of assets and less cash.

Current measure of efficacy is progression free survival. Puts brakes on tumour. Ava6000 has found reverse for one patient.

My thinking is that STS is a diverse set of diseases and some will be more sensitive to Ava6000 than others - AS said something similar. Probably related to FAP levels in tumour. The less variable the response is the tighter the stats, the fewer patients you need, the quicker you complete the study, the sooner you receive approval. Hence I think the new study and the P2 will zero in on a very tight diagnosis and entry criteria. IF so we have gone from non-dox suitable patients to STS to specific patient group in a year. Licence could be any tumour with those FAP levels (Does FAP-PETI have a roll) because presumbly tolerability is readable across all tunour types and is also correlated with FAP expression.

Get in magic calculator 😬🤔🤫

P1a out at end of year. Why would they raise before that.

Did someone say Nasdaq and $multibillion

Thanks for posting. Makes Paul Hill sound positively coherent which is an achievement but suspect will have bigger impact. Could be interesting day. We need one of the Reverends welcome time Avacta posts

I keep quiet next time

On the way

Not sure if my interpretation is right but the new trial designs reflect an emerging and probably variable situation

1. Standard dox dropped in P1b at least? So we wont get to see dox tunour concentrations. Hopefully trumped by clinical response.

2. P2 probably 2 arns not 3. Several on here have talked about posology being led by pk but when you have good tolerability then increasing dosing frequency is a way of hitting tunour harder. Two arms improves stats, speeds up trial and is cheaper

3. No mtd but decision that increasing doses is not worth pursuing suggests therapeutic window comes into play. Add in comment about sts being more than one type and a very focused, best chance of success trial that enables straight jump to regulatory looks to have emerged. It is not possible to comment on rumours that AS rang PL75 to discuss.

4 I'm thinking PETI might form part of inclusion - higher FAP expression being an inclusion criteria.

Spillage in aisle 6. Can the house idiot make their way to aisle 6 along with their graph paper, crayons, self erected pedestal and magic calculator. Do not go via McDs especially that its September and we all know how much you have enjoyed a Sept rumour these last few years. Good to see you back and hopefully with some new, less self centred material this time. Stage exit is over there but you know that better than anyone else. Clip clop, clip clop (still the funniest thing posted on lse).

The amount if dox in the tumour would be significantly higher even if only 10% ava6000 dose was cleaved in the tumour. If 100% was cleaved then the tumour dose is so much higher. If no ava6000 cleaved then the dose is much lower. Truth lies in between which is why the equivalent dose thing smacks of nonsense. The dose is "administered dose x converted % x ratio of tumour to body size". The patient who is doing well might well have tumour conc exceeding that of the simple equivalent dose nonsense

I suspect RAH is Paul Hills alter ego. Same enthusiasmn hand in hand with super positive misinterpretation of everything. Whilst doing the cart wheels and shaking pom POM's actually miss the most impressive stuff.

Burning