Member Info for RorkesDrift

If AS tells market mid summer and it becomes apparent to the company it is not going to be mid summer are they obliged to tell the market.

I'm not overly worried about timeline but SP might be more stable if he were a bit more communicative and realistic about timeliness.

Next step AACA which is a thought that seems ti be adopted by twiterrati. Presented as own thoughts - yeah right

Then kick sing

Maybe TD thinks nothing has fundamentally changed. They disagree with us on that but I think they might move once all P1 data available. I'd rather see that cause a significant leap then rather than a much smaller one now.

End of day I haven't based my investment on TD or others although I like the thought they all provoke - my hope is that we end up on something much higher than they have ever proposed. So let's wait for AACA and / or the inevitable licensing deal and see what they come up with. Top slice then and wait for TO

Thought the lady from TD seemed to know her stuff - questions she asked implied she has a better understanding of the therapeutic area and clinical practice than many other more active commentators who were there.

I'm guessing they haven't updated guidance because it's in the schedule and the SD hasn't really changed their view very much. Given most of the P1a data wasn't presented then perhaps they are waiting to have full visibility before they begin cartwheeling down the corridor. The decision to release this is with Avacta but AACA would seem a logical choice if an interim is acceptable.

SD not aimed at the press. Published slides and video not in a format a journalist can understand. Target audience for Avacta are a select group - we don't get to see most of the comms. AS was regularly going to the States to get Sequoia Flooring on board (although they had no plans for a raise). The last fully paid up round didn't appear on Newsround either.

Could do a PR campaign but to what effect. Appear in the news for a day and then what?

Hence save money, effort etc until it makes a difference to something other than just warm feelings

Red neckerchief ready.

I think when AACA is on then we will see greater interest especially if they can get 12trees to present. I think the subdued interest is due to AIM - too many companies have over claimed and AS not immune from that. If it were a rugby match I'd say we are winning by more than I thought at half time and by the aim of the game we will have a big influx of "been a supporter all my life" types.

Until then continue to hold.

Without any price premium for a better drug you just trebled the value of the market especially in segments where dox used first line.

Then older patients can tolerate it better so expand use further - indeed signifucant threat to alternatives. Big pharma watch out.

I think whatever RAH has, its contagious. Suddenly got very frustrated at the market. Off for a lie down.

The p1b study is proposed to have three treatment arms. The two ava6000 will be up to 18 cycles compared to 6 of standard dox.

Then there are two different doses proposed. However, I think we need to twist our thinking a little bit from administered dose to think more about tumour dose.

I would hope that the "lower" ava6000 dose is hitting the tumour with at least the same dose each time as standard dose. I know we have limited biopsy data but the pk of the leaving group will enable that calc to be more precise. Then the lower dose group is benefiting from the extended treatment offered by ava6000 - patients stop responding when you stop treating - dox seems to act as a brake on the disease rather than a reverse gear. The PFS should increase if the above hypothesis works out. My thinking is the 200mg group is close to the tumour max concentrations of normal dox but uncertain of the duration (AUC). I can see data where systemic dox is higher in some trials and we could use that as a surrogate for tumour conc so maybe still need higher dose to get tumour conc parity each cycle?

The second ava6000 arm is also up to 18 cycles. I assume therefore that each dose is bigger than the other arm as opposed to being same dose just given on different posology. I think this arm is what the next DE is about. Whilst MTD is about safety they still need to identify a dose of ava6000 that results in highest tumour concentration. Biopsy concs were progressively higher with each DE - presumably that will continue with next dose. Might be aiming for the higher concentrations outlined in the slides and hopefully the current safety data means this is a big step up.

At end of trial can compare all sorts of variables for 18 cycles vs 6 cycles. If tumour conc the same that's almost certainly a huge leap in PFS and OS.

Then can compare lower dose vs higher dose. Interestingly both regimes are 18 cycles suggesting cumulative systemic exposure is modelled off the higher dose rather than the lower or they expect more drop out in that arm. If the first then perhaps there is some hope treatment can extend to greater than 18 weeks.

To be honest my heart says 100% chance of success but I recognise I'm biased. I'm lucky enough to not need the investment cash or the return so can wait. I haven't gone to the effort of building a model - even if I could make it precise I cannot make it accurate. Lot of effort just to be wrong

Then my head says I'm more tolerant of the risks than the average market. I also don't know as much. Ergo I'm taking a bit of a punt.

I am hoping rather than believing that avacta will get bought. The more data (time) the higher the price. SD for me just made a licensing deal more likely but I get the market especially with Aim stocks doesn't believe e it until it happens. The fact the SP bounces around doesn't phase me - was it worth £2.80, was it worth 40p. I don't care cause my focus is the TO which I believe will be a multiple of whatever the SP is at the time. Until then relax and don't worry about the market - you have your shares so why get bothered that others don't see it as you do. One day you will be able to say "see, I was right"

Just not today

Product risk. It may fail in clinical development. Could use success rates of other drugs but need to adjust for dox being a proven agent. Not sure if market does.

Market risk. Competitors, new entrants etc. It a competitive developing marker. Think this is high up for IIs.

Environmental risks. Health spending, population etc. Ava6000 looks well placed to be cost effective. CoGs irrelevant.

Business risks. Cash on hand, etc. Cannot ignore but should be sorted with licensing deal.

Value of deal. Not aware of a deal where originator gets to keep 50%. The partner has to spend significant amounts on support, logistics and promotion. Avacta quote 5-10% which I think is low. Milestone payments will offset.

We have positive views on all the above. We are biased. We are here.

Where is groot.

AACA

Missed that- what was it?

To be honest I think (even hope) Ava6000 will be licensed out. A deal providing cash now and a runway to more would derisk the rest of the pipeline.

As importantly you would have the muscle of big pharmato establish the Precision tech in the minds of Dr's.

Might also whip up a bit of a bidding war.

AS likes to hold onto the tech but it looks like he did that with affimers - not sure he extracted full value there. On other hand the other partnerships look spot on.

I think the majority of LTH believe the SP could arrive at a point much much higher than today. Slightly fewer accept the risk that it may be within a range below today's and much much higher. It could be the normal bell shaped curve but I suspect it is probably two peaks. Traders and top slicers at one end and believers at the other. The main point is there is a range of risk people will accept and a point where they start taking a return. Any individual is just a single data point in those continuumn. Take an average of all share holders and you arrive at a market price - not a perfect reflection on value but without that imperfection you may as well stick pins in copies of the FT.

I suspect one reason why people don't engage on discussing valuations / models is it is a bit like inviting the JW in for a cup of tea. They are only happy when you accept they are perfectly right.

For the next foreseeable there will be a disconnect. If you don't understand why accept that the misunderstanding may be with you or that it creates an opportunity. The SP will not rocket to the amount suggested- either accept thar or stay frustrated.

In terms of the valuation we would have made more assumptions and tested them than you realise.

As an example i suggest build a model that looks at potential competitors- yes avacta may be better than dox but so may other things. Its an unknown, its a risk, it is reflected in the SP.

That is just one - there are more. I know others have done a lot of work and made it freely available. They even state some of the assumptions they are making including the risk. Model looks to go on to ignore them but appreciate it is better than a blank sheet.

As I say most here believe the market has got it wrong - me included. That's a good thing unless you want to sell now, don't have the b4lls to handle the risk or like one of those children offered a sweetie now rather than two tomorrow you don't have patients.

https://youtu.be/S_OX2HwWy-o

Apologies Neutronic. Spool chucker at work

Difficult for a CEO. The longer it takes to ink a deal the more data is available - the data could support a higher price being paid.

As a shareholder I'd rather see no more dilution especially at £1.20. Suspect the IIs feel the same. Hence cash position cannot be ignored no matter how excited individuals are by SD. Wait until AACA if you want to get really excited :-). Other affimer programs appear to be in limbo until cash in although son of velcade looks to be moving and JVs are funded

Hence a licensing deal needed going forwards - can see why there isn't one in place now because data only just in.

Whether AS is good or bad I think most people would have waited until P1a data in so not sure he can be judged on that. Hence we may have to wait six months longer. Hopefully in that time a continuing stream of positive news will arrive

Neutrons it sounds has if his calculations have enabled him to arrive at the same conclusions as everyone else on here then....

If by nicer you mean tolerant then it makes more sense.

1. AACR presentation particularly the pK of the leaving group

2. RNS that a licensing deal with initial milestone payment of £100M+

3. Until the above happens a series of tweets at hourly intervals that the poster doesn't understand why the market just doesn't agree

I'm struggling to see how they can do enough cohorts to get anywhere close to MTD before summer. That's not to say they won't just that I think a simple DE of the size done previously won't be enough.

Bein's first post here was enough.

Patients in P1a have been enrolled because their cancers are not normally responsive to dox. This stage is about demonstrating safety and precision. Been said before but these patients are helping drive the science forward without a likelihood of significant benefit to themselves.

Regulators need an amount of data that gives them confidence in their conclusions. Companies try to provide that and design trials to achieve it. Therefore likely that any step forward will need completion of P1b.

Interesting to see two different dose Arms in the proposed study. I wonder if the thing that varies will be freq or total dose - to me shows Avacta are trying to accelerate progress