Member Info for SandyR

Sorry ‘justice’ not ‘ justify’ (an edit function would be handy).

Thorn, you need to listen to the AGM recording that was posted on twitter.

This is part of an answer CC gave. A transcript does not do justify to the excitement in CC’s voice.

“So, the half life of doxarubicin - straight dox, if we were to dose it, 75mg/m2 is what we give, the half life of standard dose doxarubicin is about 36 hours. So you still have some left in the plasma at that time. We didn't know exactly what the right time was to see that separation. Now, the animals would have told us that it was probably a little bit earlier, probably more like 12 to 24 hours that we would see that distinct separation. However, what we can't do is have a patient sit through, because it usually takes about four hours the first day when they're in the clinic. Then they get their drug, they get the PK samples, and they finally are able to go home about eight hours in. And so let's assume that they got there at 9:00. They're now able to go home around 5:00pm, asking them to come back at 3:00 in the morning for a biopsy it really wasn't in the card. So we asked them to come back the next day, and we take it at 24 hours. Now, we take a plasma sample at the exact same time.  So as the biopsy is taken, the plasma sample is taken. And the comparison is the concentration of released active warhead in the biopsy with the concentration of released active warhead in the plasma. The animals would have predicted that we would have tenfold. So, if we had, say, 10 nanograms per ml, we would have had 100 in the tumour, and it was a thousand in the tumour.

 

I can tell you a funny story. When we first looked at these data with our investigators, and I'm actually going to tell you who it was because he's one of my favourites, his name is Lee Cranmer, and he is at Fred Hutch. He's in California. And he leaned into the Zoom and he looked at me and he said, “Chris, we have vesicant levels of doxarubicin”. Now, vesicant just means it's killing everything in his path. We have vesicant levels of doxarubicin in these tumour biopsies. It was that remarkable.  Even to the clinicians who are tired of giving this drug. Now, it's not the perfect time. So if we can convince some patients to come in at 3:00 o’clock in the morning, that is probably the optimal time. But the animals didn't really predict that one for us…..”

 

Hi Gje, I have the same problem with not seeing your account unfortunately.

Gje, can you get in touch with me please.

I plan to attend the AGM. I have had my place confirmed by Consilium and my broker has posted me proof of holding.

Whatever is said at the AGM, I hope it manages to put a floor under the SP, repair sentiment and demonstrates a clear strategy going forward. CC said in the prelims they were working on a plan - the AGM is surely the time to outline it.

TG2D, in response to your comment “so only 39%, 70%, and 66% of cancers go undetected”, I think you may have misinterpreted what that means. I don’t think it means, for example, that in the case of the 10 ovarian samples 39% of cancer goes undetected. My understanding of the wording was that it meant that a higher % of mutations were detected (61% more with ovarian) than if CTC’s or CtDNA had been analysed separately. I.e. a more comprehensive analysis is achieved with a dual approach “demonstrating that both complementary and additional information can be obtained when investigating both sample types concurrently.”

TG2D if you see the use of the word “encouraging” as being a ramp, then that is your prerogative. But frankly your opinion means absolutely zero to me.

It is encouraging to see that Illumina are jointly promoting with AGL the advantages of CTC/ctDNA combined profiling at the EACR.

It is also good to see a reference to the poster that AGL are due to present - “Targeted sequencing of Circulating Tumor Cells captured by Parsortix® System

enables low frequency variant analysis with NuProbe VarMap™ Pan-Cancer NGS panel”.

The link is courtesy of 5oletrader on ADVN.

https://emea.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/emea/PDF_Files/Illumina%20EACR%2010-13%20June%202024%20Activity%20Promotion%20A4.pdf

Thorn, I think FAPI-PET imaging has been in the pipeline for a while. There was a question – “what is happening with FAPI-PET?” – asked during the September Interims presentation. The below is part of AS’s answer. (Look under the Investor Meet Q&A tab, question 4.)

“So FAPI-PET gives us a way of doing whole body imaging and and seeing where the FAP is within the body, if that makes sense, because the radio nucleotide binds through the small molecule to FAP.

So for us it's a really useful research tool. So one that we can use during drug development. It's potentially a companion diagnostic, although I would just sort of make the comment that it's a very expensive imaging system. So it's not widely available and I think that might be challenging in terms of companion diagnostic. But just to answer the question, what's happening with it? We are getting close to getting FAPI-PET working in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre. So that's the centre running the AVA6000 study in New York. So that should happen in the next few months. So that will be very important for research as I've said, but also for for the phase two study next year.

I mean, we've been talking about FAPI-PET for a while, so I think the question that is basically being asked is - why haven't we got it working yet? So to answer that, the challenge lies in manufacturing, because the radioactive label has to be manufactured right next to the site where it's going to be used because it's got a short half life. So basically, it's not very easy to implement in a hospital and you need specialist facilities and that's not worked in the UK in the way that we'd hoped. But we plan to have that in place in Sloan Kettering in the next few months.”

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/meetings/interim-results-209

TG2D, Miavoce has patiently explained how CLIA accredited labs can use Parsortix, as have others on the board. Yet you continue to spread malicious misinformation. If you are genuinely concerned, why don’t you email AN? Please do post his reply on here.

If it helps, here is yet another explanation. It is part of AN’s reply to a question asked in the January Proactive presentation.

“So the the clearance is in metastatic breast, that's what FDA recommended. The credibility and the halo effect works across all the cancers, and you can see that in the peer reviewed publications for different types. And the users, if they're accredited clinical labs, they can adopt our system…..And what we've done, is we've created an identical system to the metastatic breast cancer cleared platform, which we're selling as a research use platform. But it's literally identical with a different label on, so it's up to the user to decide how they use it. If we sell it to them for breast then they can literally just turn the handle, if they're going to do lung etc, they've got to make sure that they are happy with the results under their accreditation.”

Thanks Gje, that is very helpful.

TG2D, the sun is finally shining and tbh I have had enough of engaging with you and your half truths. I suspect you are the same person who endlessly trolls on ADVFN. I responded to your post because William asked a genuine question and I then allowed myself to get dragged into a pointless discussion with you. I am using the filter button.

TG2D there are approximately 320,000 CLIA accredited labs in the US. Not all of these will be offering tests for oncology, and the ones that do may specialise in different areas.

You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I see the companies you mention offer a whole variety of tests including drug tests, covid tests, blood tests for glucose levels etc. I also note they offer some cancer screening/liquid biopsy tests but not in CTC’s. My advise to you is to stop speculating/doing ill informed and cursory Google research and contact AGL direct.

Oh, and could you please substantiate your previous claim. Have a good weekend.

TG2D, this is the second time you have deliberately misrepresented what I have said, you little tinker. I have said I don’t know what the split is between the 290 “installed bases”. Some will be free issue or subsidised, which is part of AGL’s strategy to get leveraged R&D. If I was concerned I would contact IG, he is very good at responding to genuine questions.

But, to show there is no hard feelings I’m going to dedicate this post to you 🙂and give you a round up of some of the research posted recently on ADVFN & TG. Not of all it’s to do with MBC, those naughty little researchers. Perhaps you could drop them a line and explain the error of their ways. Three of the clinical trials are very important research, the fourth study is a different one. Enjoy!

1. University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland Effect of Digoxin on Clusters of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) in Breast Cancer Patients; Clinical Trial Registration NCT03928210. (Courtesy of GJ) hTTps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03928210

2. Proof-of-concept Study of Blood Markers of Tumor Dissemination in Patients With Versus Without Intestinal Polyps (EARDIS) https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05648240?term=parsortix&draw=2&rank=6 (Courtesy of Mr K)

3. Prostate cancer trial being run by Barts Cancer Institute. The study is using Parsortix to investigate the value of CTCs in predicting treatment failure in patients undergoing a radical prostatectomy. So trying to predict which patients are likely to have recurrence of their cancer who presumably can be flagged for closer monitoring and possibly any suitable adjuvant therapy. (Courtesy Bermudashorts) Https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05533515?term=Yong-Jie+Lu&draw=2&rank=1

4. “A whole-food, plant-based randomized controlled trial in metastatic breast cancer: weight, cardiometabolic, and hormonal outcomes” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10549-024-07266-1

Under ‘Funding’ - Angle, PLC provided Parsortix testing kits at no charge as well as services related to result analysis.

AGL have updated their events calendar, including the AACR.

AGL is presenting a poster. And there are two independent research posters using Parsortix. Shock, horror…. the two studies are not in MBC…. I hope they checked first with TG2D that it was okay to use Parsortix.

https://angleplc.com/about-us/events/

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/1906

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/2384

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/20272/presentation/1909

TG2D, I will repost my reply to you on the 27th January. If you are that interested contact the company or wait for the Preliminary results (presumably next month) for an update.

From my post to you 27th January:

We know that the “Installed base of Parsortix® systems increased to over 290 with cumulative samples processed of 192,000 as at 30 June 2023” (Interim results RNS). 

What we don’t know is how many of these installations are research related and how many are pharma customers. Some of these systems will be free issue for research purposes & to KOL’s. However, it is important to remember that part of AGL’s approach is to “get the leverage R&D”. So it is a symbiotic relationship. The benefit to AGL is that it provides an independent source of R&D and further validation of Parsortix in multiple different cancer types.

TG2D are you invested in AGL? What are your motives for posting? Please provide evidence for your post at 18:21 14th March.

I agree Thompi. I too would like to see a source for TwoGood’s claim.

William, just to add a little more information. The below is part of an emailed reply from AN which provides a further explanation.

“A third-party laboratory could adopt the system [Parsortix] on a research use only basis (RUO) and then develop tests for alternative cancer types. To then offer the tests to clinicians for patient management, the laboratory would need to be CLIA accredited (or equivalent in their country) and then validate the test in its own laboratories before offering it as a lab developed test (LDT). This is common practice in the US and elsewhere. There are approximately 320,000 CLIA accredited labs in the US.”

You will also note that two of AGL customer’s - Crescendo (prostate) & Artios (DDR assay breast/ovarian/prostate) - are using Parsortix for cancers that are not MBC.

William, what TG2D has posted is misinformation. Parsortix has been widely used in multiple different cancer types. 



As Jelenko posted recently on ADVFN: “FDA is not required if the company using it does so in a lab that has certain accreditation…..”



AN gave this explanation in last April’s Investor Meet presentation:

“….the customer, if they are an accredited clinical lab, which in the United States, they pretty much all are, then they have the ability to validate their tests, their assays, in their own laboratory under their regulatory clearance. And it's perfectly acceptable for them to acquire our system and use it for prostate or lung or any other cancer that they feel they can verify and validate an appropriate test for in their lab. And so we are actually seeing strong interest in multiple cancer types. So we can sell the system for research use in any cancer type. If we want to make a claim in clinical we're limited to metastatic breast, BUT it does NOT stop our customer base implementing across multiple different cancers. And of course we've got the large number of peer reviewed publications in multiple cancers showing the value of it”