Member Info for RorkesDrift

Looks like Tx will be sustainable seperate from Dx - cash runway, milestones and potential partners. Precision not reliant on affimers - see latest presentation talking about Fc fragments.

Dx was more precarious until last year. However, acquisitions have made a sustainable company more attainable. Profits from the two new arms can fund the Avacta activity. Affimer tech might unlock more potential and new structure / leadership may result in shift in progress which to date looks minimal for at least a decade.

Therefore ebabling a future split into two companies may have been the idea all along - avacta Dx not viable on its own but has jam tomorrow promise.

Plus could reduce tolerability.

More likely is to add another agent in.

I get the short half life argument. Even if true the

1. Ava6000 enables more frequent dosing - dox does not

2. Normal dox holds disease at bay. Even with a short half life ava6000 may have a greater effect

3. At highest doses ava6000 results in auc very similar to normal dox. However, nearly all of this dox originates in tumour not the infusion site.

Simples

Obsession with ROCE would be more accurate. Both mine and Avactas. At moment some of the decisions hold real promise of excellent numbers. However, they are compromised by other decisions. Discuss.

Oh hang on.....

Not sure how the current situation can be positioned as more positive than negative. If CEO and chairman are delivering such a great strategy how does that genuinely align with the value of your shares now despite what can only be considered great Tx results.

If one way of raising money is better than another why has avacta done both whilst all the time saying no need to raise.

Happy to be here based on science. Not the management.

Im thinking a simole IRR calculation between the invest in Tx or Dx would provide the answer. So yes, cash coming in was needed, the choice of spend was a poor choice. I know this because we now have an SP of 50p and a shed load of dilution. Dont think that looks strategic genius to me esoecislly when they already had insight on Tx results and knew the costs of going alone.

I know what you mean. Hopefully AS will provide update next week on how actuals compare to forecast when they decided to go on a buying spree whilst short of cash.

Someone who attended the tea and stickies AGM event reported it. From what i remember AS promised a major update on diagnostics which was suddenly dropped on the day. Would seem odd a CEO avoiding a topic he promised to cover in detail - however given his inclination to only communicate with a chosen few i wouldnt be surprised if stuff got changed in translation.

On that note did McPumpy have another 1:1 not happen. Bit of a theme emerging.

My undetstanding albeit from third hand is that diagnostic division was bought to launch affimer diagnostics.

The company failed to do due diligence and had to cancel launch due to infringement of others IP. At same time as this was happening our uber strap of a Chairman was publically stating funding wasnt an issue whilst arranging a mega share option scheme for himself.

Eventually Avacta left with a diagnostic white elephant, a huge hole in the finances and a financial commitment to someone who appears to either live in fantasy land or has no regard for the truth.

Patients in 2 week study will all have high Fap, high dox sensitive tumours. STS would appear to be selected target and is the vechicle to reach commercialisation using the money from recent raise. Hence refering to cash runway.

Everything else requires either postponing or a licensing deal. That includes any other indication.

Simple.

AS founded the company along time ago based on affimers.

So far all that avenue has succeeded in doing in blowing cash. Yesterday he highlighted the use of Fc rather than affimers. If past performance is an indicator of future performance then Precisuion is on shakey ground. However, the clinical trial team goes from strength ti strengtg.

My own thoughts are why are we paying a chairman who to date sats very littke and delivers even less. AS has a day job at least.

Needs to be asked about his and chairmans options. They laugh all the way to bank if SP climbs. Laugh all the way to the bank if it doesnt.

No options should be available below £1.20 and id suggest ATH

There is an alternative way of looking at the data. Avacta chose mid and high FAP. However, the data suggets that conversion is still occuring in those patients. However, those tumours are known to be unresponsive to dox. To quote the pom pom shakers - dox will be dox although there is an argument everythung respond (even normal cells) if local dose is high enough.

Might be a mis-step by avacta to include mid fap in a trial that absolutely relies on fap conversion to achieve primary objective. However the results in dox sensitive patients, coupled with the more frequent dosing enabled by low Cmax and AUC at the mid dosing point had accelerated commercialusation. This will not move faster even if we cut and paste the poster several times a day. Timeline us 2 years, SP responds to licensing deal for extreamly toxic warhead that cannot be used systemically and is targeted at non dox sensitive, high incidence tunour type. Novartis pull your finger out.

Good point. Well made.

As posted last week and i think quoted in yesterdays presentation

From

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647653/#SD1

Note W Tap study with normal dox.

Disease control rate was 62% with normal dox. Not sure of time point. Lots of other data points but read across requires standard warnings.

Not sure i understand comments about data only being a small step.

Company conducted a pK study. Results are

A tighter definituin of the type of patients that respond to treatment. This is a smaller group than the pom pom shakers cure for cancer team have banged on about but they represent a signufucant number of difficult to treat cancers.

In this group they are reporting response rates similar to standard dox but with far lower AEs

They are reporting that these results have been obtained with a sub optimal dosing strategy. Data indicate that changing regimine will improve results. Obviously great for high fao and suggests mid fap look again in the future

The platfirm is now akso open to very toxic drugs. Take a mid fap patient and give them precision linked warhead that is too toxic for systemic administration and suddenly you have local delivery at therapeutic dose and much lower systemic exposure.

Hope that helps.

What BV said. Big study. Difficult to get full release of data into a single poster. Also interpretation of results at varying doses requires detail not a one sentence summary. For example id 100% is converted as an equivilent dose then why mention high fap patients. Conclusion is % conversion varies between patients and therefore so does response. Try explaining that in a poster.

Maybe paper already with publishers using words "interim analysis" in title.

He still confuses dose of ava6000 with standard dox. So doesnt get the concept of local conversion leading to high doses at tumour. Avacta have stated it isbt all converted. Magic calculator meets pom poms and ignores the actual mode of action and therefore why ava6000 promises efficacy with lower side effects. After so long you would think he understands the basics at least but suspect itscall a bit too sciency for him.

Two possibilities.

Rapidly converted to dox hence lowering conc

Or eliminated from body

Hence we need pK of leaving group