Member Info for SandyR

I attended the AGM.

I specifically asked Chris a question about Phase 2 SGC.

The data they have recently presented has been pivotal. It demonstrates that pre|CISION works in FAP-low tumours. Its success, together with the development of the sustained release mechanism, has effectively resulted in AVA7100 becoming redundant, hence it being discontinued.

Some of the indications in Phase 1a were very heterogeneous. It has been important to build a consistent set of data in SGC. Not just for AVA6000, but for the platform.

The median PFS is taking some time. Good news, obviously, for patients, admittedly frustrating at times for investors. According to Chris, the median PFS will definitely be this year.

Gordon Gilad, the trial medic, is ready to go.

The pivotal Phase 2 trial design has been agreed.

“Importantly, this will only require a single trial and that primary endpoint will be PFS.” (BIO presentation)

No Phase 3.

The focus will be on the main subsets. Rare subsets will be excluded. The data has given them a clear path forward.

Lots going on in the background. I don’t know exactly when Phase 2 will commence. But it feels close.

Chris is held in high regard by investors, but it doesn’t stop questions being asked. Take, for example, the persistent questions regarding the CLN last year. Before moving on to other topics, Chris commented that we were “hitting all the appropriate questions”.

Obviously, Chris has to be careful in what she says. But she was very confident.

Apologies in advance if I don’t respond to any posts. My reason for posting this was in response to a post saying AVA6000 is “effectively dead”. I don’t agree at all.

In fairness to AVCT, rescheduling of dates and times can be out of their hands. We saw the timings for ESMO change as well, which was completely outside Avacta’s control.

As per the September interims Avacta still hold a 21% stake in AffyXell.

At last year’s ‘live’ AGM Chris described it as “an active partnership that we have” and said they continue to meet with them at partnering meetings.

She was candid that engineered cell therapy is technically very challenging and long-cycle. Her words were “they have a hard road in front of them”. I got the impression that it is very complex what they are undertaking.

Hi BV - I have also wondered about the ~65 overall.

The 42–84 looks like the theoretical range if every dose level in both schedules was reached and expanded. But under a BOIN design Chris mentioned at the ‘live’ AGM that it “allows us to skip dose levels”.

So my assumption is that ~65 is more of a planning estimate rather than the mathematical maximum, perhaps with some flexibility for targeted backfill under Project Optimus.

Just how I’ve been thinking about it anyway.

Not sure if it’s helpful for reference, but this is the transcript of the R&D Spotlight - the trial design slide is on page 20.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFVm2sm6fteVP13wbQsg6MMnvdf1Gw2F/view?usp=drivesdk

Hi D-G,

The question you mention was from the Turner Pope AACR presentation last May.

From the transcript, Chris’s main point was that lymphoma is by far the most common tumour in pets, particularly dogs, and that FAP isn’t expressed in haematologic malignancies. As a result, the largest veterinary cancer population wouldn’t really be addressable with a FAP-targeted approach.

Michelle added that, while veterinary applications could potentially be explored, Avacta aren’t veterinary medicine experts and it’s not an avenue they’re actively pursuing at the moment.

I’d also assume that, especially now, their priority is firmly on progressing the human programmes.

For context, here is the full transcript:

Question

With a technology that could clearly bridge human and veterinary oncology, and with pet owners desperate for real treatments and not just tests, what is holding Avacta back from using veterinary oncology to validate the platform?

Christina Coughlin

So let me answer this in a couple of different ways, and I’m going to actually ask our resident scientist to comment as well. Way back in the day, when I was at the University of Pennsylvania, I did something very similar to this, in that we had a new technology. We were looking at loaded B-cell vaccines, and we did do a companion animal trial. It was in the most frequent tumour that dogs get, which is canine lymphoma.

Believe it or not, solid tumours in animals — and specifically in dogs, so, you know, let’s take the canine variety — are much less frequent than lymphoma. We know that FAP is not expressed in haematologic malignancies, so really the patient population would be, you know, the main tumour that dogs get, would not be susceptible. But that brings up a whole level of new science.

Michelle, do you want to comment on this one as well?

Michelle Morrow

Yeah, no, it’s a really interesting question. I suppose, in theory, you know, many of the drugs we develop for humans could be applicable for animals and pets as well. We’re not veterinary medicine experts at Avacta, so it’s not something we’ve really explored. We haven’t particularly looked at any tumours from dogs to see if they’re FAP-positive at this stage.

It is something that could potentially be done, just not an avenue we’re actively exploring at this stage. So most of our animal models — all of our pre-clinical models — are in the mouse, and that’s because there are a lot of really well-characterised tools there that we understand, you know, some translatability for those. So it’s not something we’ve done right now, but I think it’s a very interesting question.

I don’t necessarily agree with your last comment, BV. I think Chris has consistently given great credit to her team - as shown by their inclusion in various R&D spotlights and webinars. She did so again in the dual-payload webinar: “Just to brag on our chemistry team again - what they’ve invented is really remarkable… We have an incredibly dedicated and, frankly, brilliant group of scientists and physicians.”

Morning BV,

I think AVA6103 was very much Chris’s brainchild, brilliantly executed by the team. She spoke at the live AGM about its ‘conception’, and it is remarkable how quickly the programme has progressed. Below is a transcript from her remarks:

“I think that it [exatecan] is one of the most exciting drugs that I have worked on. When I first joined the company full-time in February of 2024, I challenged the team to take a very potent topoisomerase 1 inhibitor and FAP-enable it. It took some time. They were able to do it. We started right away, and you’ll see that intellectual property wasn’t filed until late in 2024. So no one knew that that programme was ongoing. The IP hadn’t been filed yet…

Now, FAP-EXd has been worked on, as I mentioned, since February first of 2024. That’s when I put it to the scientists, specifically the chemists. Can you take this drug that has both a therapeutic index problem and a PK problem and turn it into a pre|CISION? Now, between February and October of that year, nobody knew we were doing that. We had to develop that sustained release mechanism that we’ve talked about…”

Wyn, of course William Tap will be compensated for his role with Avacta - that’s standard in clinical trials - but to describe him as a “hired gun” is misleading. He’s Chief of Sarcoma Medical Oncology at MSKCC and one of the leading global authorities in his field. As an oncologist, his first responsibility is to his patients, and his involvement in clinical trials comes from that duty of care. Oncologists like him are bound by professional ethics and wouldn’t back a trial they thought was unsafe or pointless for patients. I very much doubt he would support Avacta’s trial if he didn’t see genuine potential benefit for cancer patients.

Your comment implies he’s some sort of medical mercenary, which is borderline offensive. His involvement in the trial is a huge endorsement of AVA6000.

Hi BV,

I’m not sure where POINT now sits within Eli Lilly - I couldn’t find anything specific on their website.

POINT Biopharma wasn’t mentioned in either the prelims presentation or during the AGM.

It does appear briefly in the Annual Report, though without any material update. For example, under “Collaborations”, the following is noted:

“• A licensing agreement with POINT to provide access to preCISION® technology to develop radiopharmaceuticals that require cleavage by FAP to enable binding to their receptors. POINT’s acquisition by Eli Lilly has not affected the licensing arrangements.”

Panmure Liberum also touched on it in their March broker note:

POINT Biopharma (Eli Lilly)

“In 2021, Avacta signed a licensing agreement for the development of tumour-activated radiopharmaceuticals with POINT Biopharma. The agreement included development milestone payments for the first radiopharmaceutical FAP-activated drug totalling $9.5m, with subsequent drugs up to $8m each, and a royalty due on commercialisation.

POINT Biopharma was acquired by Eli Lilly in late 2023 for $1.4bn. Since the acquisition, there has been no update on the progress of the POINT Biopharma portfolio, although we believe development is ongoing.”

Evening BV,

Perhaps you are thinking of the prelims presentation? (Apologies in advance if LSE changes the formatting).

CC said this when discussing the Iceberg slide (approx 11 mins into the presentation):

“That sustained release mechanism is almost a plug and play, the cap and the linker can be adjusted, and we can dial in the exact kinetics that we want of different therapeutic classes. And so what we can see now, that tip of the iceberg, we have two cytotoxic drugs. What we now have in the pipeline are multiple therapeutic classes. This isn't just a delivery for cytotoxics - we can deliver targeted therapies as well”.

There was also this answer in the Q&A:

“This is the sustained release mechanism where we implemented the cap and the linker, allowing us to essentially design in - to dial in - the exact kinetics that we want of the pre|CISION programme. It opens up a number of different therapeutic opportunities - not only cytotoxic, but, as I mentioned, targeted therapies. Multiple other types of therapies can now be used because we can implement multiple different linkers, multiple different capping groups, and dial in those exact kinetics that we would like”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajabya7WHQc

Thank you B2HS2L - I always appreciate your posts.

Hi Bella,

Apologies for not getting back to you yesterday.

No, Nasdaq wasn’t mentioned during the AGM or the Q&A. It may have come up informally over coffee with some of the board members, but it wasn’t something I asked. Perhaps the company has temporarily put it on the back burner until the short-term financing situation and the CLN are resolved? But that is speculation on my part and not something that was said at the AGM.

Yes, David Bryant was there and spoke briefly during the meeting, though the focus was very much on RH. I didn’t really form an opinion of him. In retrospect I wish I’d taken the opportunity to have a chat with him.

I completely agree with your comment, Gmcc: “Avacta just need to deliver temporary finance action.”

In the Q&A, Richard Hughes made it clear that the CLN doesn’t necessarily need to be resolved in one go - and, in his words, “it is eminently fixable.”

I know “optionality” became a dirty word after the AS raise debacle, but it’s one RH used when discussing future funding routes. He spoke with total conviction. Personally, I left the AGM with no doubt that his (long-overdue) appointment to the board is a significant and positive step forward for shareholders.

Morning Harrogate,

I spoke to Brian over coffee. He is personable and professional - a marked difference from the robotic impression that I got during the prelims presentation.

One of the reasons for rescheduling the results was the significant work involved in the restatements related to the CLN. He wanted to ensure everything was accurate going forward. If you look back at the results RNS, there are references to this: “An error arose from changes in the measurement of the convertible bond derivative valuation at inception and subsequent reporting date,” and so on. Brian mentioned he was working such long hours on it that his family had started to complain.

I also raised the topic of director share purchases. He said it’s something that will be discussed at the next board meeting, though of course there’s no certainty anything will come of it.

It was an interesting AGM - and there were some challenging questions asked around funding, as expected.

The BIG difference this time was the addition of Richard Hughes to the board. He’s very plain-speaking and doesn’t dodge a question. Refreshingly direct, candid, and blunt. I genuinely think he will galvanise the Board. He’s got the contacts, commercial experience, and force of personality to drive through the necessary changes.

He was clear in apportioning blame for the diagnostics debacle and the CLN overhang but equally, he won’t suffer fools gladly when it comes to sorting it out.

Importantly, he was just as clear in his praise and support for Chris: “We have an exceptional Chief Executive. We should all be very proud of that…..” Now, for the first time, she’s got the commercial backing around her that was previously missing.

I’m not saying RH can transform things overnight, but I don’t think it will take long before we see some positive action. The science is brilliant - especially now that the sustained release mechanism has been IP protected. What we’ve been missing is someone with the focus and drive to extract maximum value for shareholders - and now we have that.

Brian Hahn came across much better in person than he did in his wooden prelims presentation performance.

There were lots of positives to take away from the AGM, and most of them down to the RH factor. It could potentially have been a stormy AGM without his presence there. It’s not an exaggeration to say he completely transformed the tone of the meeting. Overall, there was a clear sense of a turning point, not so much in the science - which is progressing - but in the board’s ability to now properly support it.

BV, this is SC’s opening statement:

I think there’ll be a lot of questions around deals, financing, etc., so I’m going to read out a brief statement. Clearly, there will be time for questions, but it might make things more efficient.

As Chris will outline in her presentation, and as published in this morning’s RNS, Avacta is discussing FAP-Dox with a range of parties. This is both for separate indications and multiple indications.

We are also delighted to see initial signs of efficacy in both Phase 1b indications. You’re also aware we’re in discussions with the use of pre|CISION as a platform to put through other parties’ payloads.

There’s an incredible amount of interest in AVA6103, or FAP-EXd as we now call it, although the company’s strategy at this point is to protect this asset until we have sight of the initial human data, such is its value.

In respect of the bond, the Board is acutely aware of the impact the bond has on shareholder sentiment. We do not believe, though, the share price reflects the incredible progress pre|CISION has made in the clinic over the last four years.

You’re aware of the additions to our Board, management team, and broker advisors in the last few days and weeks. Attracting these individuals demonstrates the intrinsic value of pre|CISION.

Taking all of that into consideration, we remain confident the market’s attention will soon return to the excellent progress pre|CISION continues to make in the clinic.

I’d like to thank you for your attendance today. I know it was early, and I appreciate you all getting here — and also for your patience over the last year. I know the journey has not been easy, but we remain incredibly excited about the second half of 2025 and early 2026.

Sorry about the line spacings, the copy and paste changed the formatting.

If it’s of interest, here’s what the March Panmure Liberum research note said about AffyXell:

“AffyXell is a joint venture with Daewoong Pharmaceutical in South Korea based on the Affimer technology. The JV was formed in 2020. AffyXell is developing engineered stem cells to secrete affimers, with the aim of treating autoimmune diseases. The first two products are targeted at treatment for Graft vs Host Disease (GvHD) in organ transplantation (AFX001), multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes (AFX002). Currently, both are at the discovery

stage, with AFX001 in pre-IND trials for GvHD.

AffyXell raised additional funding in 2024 to continue development of the programmes; this reduced the Avacta shareholding to 21%. Avacta has received two milestones since the formation of the JV, which result in an increase in its shareholding in the JV.

The agreement commenced in 2021 and GenScript ProBio took an equity stake in AffyXell in 2022. AffyXell has a strategic partnership with GenScript ProBio, a subsidiary of GenScript Biotech, which provides end-to-end CDMO

services, from drug discovery to commercialisation.”

At last year’s AGM, Chris was asked about AffyXell and said they had recently met with the team, and that such meetings were happening “a bit more frequently.” She also noted:

“They are approximately - and I hate doing someone else’s timelines - but they are approximately a year from their IND. If I put my cell therapy hat on, it may be longer than that…”

Thorn - yesterday you posted:

“At the last stage/raise Avacta defaulted on their payment and consequently their share of the eventual joint development was reduced.”

That’s not accurate. Avacta has never “defaulted” on any payments - and with respect, that wording is misleading.

Their shareholding in AffyXell was diluted in line with the agreed arrangement: Avacta does not contribute cash in AffyXell’s external funding rounds, so its ownership percentage naturally decreases when other parties contribute capital. That’s not a default - it’s how the joint venture was structured.

As the Annual Report states:

“Increases in the investment in AffyXell arise through the settlement of amounts receivable, for achievements of milestones under the collaboration agreement, in additional equity in the entity.” (Page 76)

AS explained this clearly back in 2023:

“The way our relationship from an equity perspective works with AffyXell is, we don’t put cash in at their funding rounds. So, they raise capital with regional VCs – Samsung Ventures and others – and of course, we get diluted at that point because we don’t put cash into that JV.”

If a milestone is achieved, Avacta’s stake in AffyXell will increase again, as the payment is made in the form of equity rather than cash.

Ref the prelim results earlier this month, Avacta’s share in Affyxell is 21%.

“The Group investment decreased from 25% to 21% at 31 December 2024 as a result of a dilution in shares”.

VS, you may find this interesting. It is an explanation from AS during the September 2023 interims on how the “relationship” with Affyxell works:

“The way our relationship from an equity perspective works with AffyXell is, we don’t put cash in at their funding rounds. So, they raise capital with regional VCs - Samsung Ventures and others - and of course, we get diluted at that point because we don’t put cash into that JV.

But when we put the Affimer to a target in, and we transfer the IP - so the patent ownership - into AffyXell, then we regain an equity share. We’ve just gone through one of those processes. We are going through a formal process in South Korea as to exactly what the increase in our ownership will be, but it’s going to rise from about 19% to about 25%”.