Member Info for Thompi

Myles has made countless licencing/partnering deal predictions over the years and has been consistently wrong. We both attended the 2024 AGM and he seems a good bloke but he is no Mystic Myles that's for sure.

Nlgb, thanks for the context. But to anyone bobbing on or off this board to “prove a point” or otherwise - kindly feck off. This is an Avacta board, and I’m not remotely interested in what goes on in Hemo, especially if it’s just squabbling. Happy with my own disagreements on here, thanks.

I know what you mean, Tim. As soon as I read Aldebaran’s post, I thought of Thorn - just missing the attempted subtlety.

Aldebaran, you need to at least pretend to be concerned about something - you know, “worried about the half-life of AVA6000” or whatever. Instead, you have waded straight in with “will it turn out to be the greatest AIM scam ever?”

Subtlety factor: 0/10. Stupidity factor: 10/10.

Aldebaran, credibility gone, agenda showing. Try harder next time.

What a prize jerk. Idiot.

Thanks, BV, for the correction - yes, £16m was raised in the placing. The £13m refers to the amount that needed to be raised to “satisfy the remaining conditions to the Amendments to the Convertible Bond terms.” Box now ticked on that one.

Hope all is well with you.

Marquis22 - In reply to your question.

A poorly handled and leaked placing under AS & EF in February 2024 decimated the share price.

CEO, Chairman, and CFO all paid the price and exited.

CC took over - a brilliant and likeable scientist - but the CLN continued to weigh on sentiment, culminating in the 27p low.

AVA6000 continues to show excellent safety and tolerability. Focus has now shifted to SGC, with encouraging early signs of efficacy and PFS.

Company addressed the imbalance between scientific and commercial expertise by appointing RH and ZEUS.

RH impressed at the AGM, restoring conviction and confidence.

Mini-placings organised by RH/ZEUS repaying the CLN and breaking the cycle of share repayments.

CEO sounds very confident in the prelims: “The future is very bright.”

CLN terms amended.

The recent 13m placing stabilises the share price.

Exceptional scientific innovation continues - including the dual payload announcement in October.

The next chapter now awaited by investors.

Abstract

The proprietary pre|CISION® technology incorporates a peptidic substrate that is specifically cleaved by Fibroblast Activation Protein α (FAP). FAP is a post-proline protease that is overexpressed on the surface of cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs) in many solid tumors, and facilitates delivery of pre|CISION® medicines specifically to the tumor microenvironment (TME). Previously we have presented AVA6103, a pre|CISION® -enabled exatecan candidate in IND-enabling studies. AVA6103 consists of exatecan, a potent Topoisomerase I inhibitor, covalently linked to a dipeptide containing a cleaving sequence (D-Ala-L-Pro), which is susceptible to hydrolysis by FAP but is resistant to hydrolysis by other mammalian proteases. Exatecan has been investigated both as a single agent and as a warhead in ADC therapeutics in the clinic. However, clinical utility of this family of warheads is limited by dose-limiting toxicities, including severe neutropenia. The exquisite selectivity of the pre|CISION® substrate for FAP results in release of exatecan warhead in the TME, greatly increasing the therapeutic window and hence reducing systemic exposure and associated toxicities. Drug combinations are commonly used in cancer therapy to improve outcomes and overcome resistance, therefore we hypothesized that incorporating two complimentary warheads into a single pre|CISION® molecule may offer similar benefits whilst minimizing systemic toxicity. To create dual warhead pre|CISION® PDCs, a series of compounds have been engineered with modifications in the capping-group and linker portions. Using structure-based drug design, clear structure-activity relationships have been established for affinity to, and susceptibility of linker cleavage by FAP and subsequent warhead release. We now demonstrate how the use of the precision technology platform has been widened to selectively control the release of multiple warheads from a single molecular species via a FAP cleavable linker. Selective release has been demonstrated through the use of kinetics showing the ability to tune the individual release of each warhead and in cellular studies showing potent cytotoxicity and bystander activity in cell-based assays including tumor cell-fibroblast 3D co-culture models. Induction of downstream pharmacodynamic markers for each warhead have also been evaluated. We show the potential of the technology to deliver a therapeutically relevant combination of warheads specifically to the TME while reducing systemic dose-limiting toxicities. This broadens the utility of the pre|CISION® platform in the delivery of novel medicines.

https://aacrjournals.org/mct/article/24/10_Supplement/C123/766596/Abstract-C123-Discovery-and-characterization-of?searchresult=1

Sorry I meant ICR.

I’m not suggesting we bombard IRC or Karen Harrison with emails, but the one time I copied in Karen and one of the Zeus team, I received a very prompt reply.

I agree, Opti.

A discount of 8.7% is relatively modest — it would have been much higher had the company continued paying Heights in shares (typically at around a 10% discount to VWAP), especially given the share-price drag we’d usually see. With funding secured through H2, it’s now time to let the science do the talking.

BV, in this instance I don’t think AVCT got it wrong. The ESMO site clearly states that timings are subject to change. Another poster queried the date with IRC and received this reply:

“The presentation time listed on the ESMO website differs from the time included in our press release. Congress organizers regularly update schedules after initial publication, and this is a normal part of the process. We will confirm the final presentation details once they are set by ESMO.”

Shortly afterwards, we got the RNS confirming the timing change. I’ll give AVCT comms the benefit of the doubt on this one.

The ESMO time slots are subject to change and outside of AVCT’s control. The company flagged the revised slot when they announced the date of the interim results (RNS, 15 September 2025):

“The Company confirms that the date, time and location of the abstract being presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, taking place from October 17-21, 2025, has changed. The updated details are included below:

 

Title: A Phase I trial of FAP-Dox (AVA6000), a Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP)-released and tumor microenvironment (TME)-targeted doxorubicin peptide drug conjugate in patients with FAP-positive solid tumors

Session Title: Developmental Therapeutics

Session Date and Time: 19 October, 12.00-12.45

Location: Hall 25

Abstract Presentation Number: 964P

Speaker: William D. Tap”

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AVCT/notice-of-interim-results-0o5n8rr03clkcm6.html

Good point thought on inflammation - there is some FAP activity linked to chronic inflammation and fibrotic diseases, but levels are usually much lower and more variable than in tumours. That’s why, I think, Avacta’s focus stays on oncology for now. Maybe in time, if a non-toxic or anti-fibrotic payload were developed, there could be scope to explore those settings…..

Thanks jmfw, an interesting post as was Bella’s. And yes, FAP can show up in wound healing or fibrosis, but it’s temporary and at much lower levels than in cancer. The big difference is that in tumours, FAP expression is sustained and concentrated, which is why the pre|CISION drugs activate there but stay mostly inactive elsewhere. That’s the key to their safety advantage.

Hi Bella - in response to your posts and “Hang on a minute....if the two drugs can be released separately in a controlled manner... could PreCision be used from DNA Inhibitors on their own for other ailments....now does this take us into the endless possibilities...or am I going right off piste and down a dark alley... “

Avacta’s pre|CISION is an oncology platform and needs FAP to cleave and release the drug. FAP’s mainly found in the tumour microenvironment, not in healthy tissue, so outside cancer there’s basically no FAP, no activation - which limits wider uses.

A useful reminder on X, that the first early Partial Response has been documented in the SGC expansion cohort.

https://x.com/sandyradders/status/1972241425417789686?s=46&t=5jsGB3TnSJHw9rQlovpHXg

Good post from Cumulus on X.

“In March, Chris spoke of a preCISION enabled pathway inhibitor coming to the clinic 'soon'. I don't think she was just busking. So don't discount some left field announcements this upcoming Q, not just 6k related developments.”

The exact quote from Chris (courtesy Sandy)

“One of the next medicines that we’re looking to make is a targeted therapy. It’s not just chemotherapy. I know the first two have been traditional chemotherapies, but pathway inhibitors, for example, have been very effective in a number of diseases. But they also can carry some very high toxicities, and so therapeutic index with pathway inhibitors is also a problem. We hope to see one of those coming soon to the clinic.” (CC Panmure Liberum podcast March 2025)

https://x.com/cumulus51896691/status/1970568494702801271?s=61&t=BBb2UcjLDTXOFIzJM-vM6A

Thanks BV for some great posts today.

That is my view as well, Harrogate. I don’t know what ICR’s fees are, but the current system clearly isn’t working and needs to be changed. I like the suggestion of having a named Avacta person to deal with shareholders’ enquiries. Alternatively, if the company continues to subcontract the function, it should at least be to a competent agency. Unlike ICR….

I agree Bella - ICR have been consistently poor. On the rare occasions they respond to investors, it’s usually with a generic, stock email. That would be acceptable if it at least addressed the query, but in my case, after an initial email and two follow-ups went unanswered, the eventual cut-and-paste reply had nothing whatsoever to do with what I had asked.

I did raise concerns with Shaun over coffee at the 2024 AGM, and the issue of their poor comms was highlighted again during the Q&A at July’s AGM. Shaun tried to make excuses, but it was politely and firmly pointed out by an attendee that, as shareholders, we are effectively paying for these services and should expect value for money.

To date, ICR have not proved themselves to be a reliable or effective interface between the company and its investors. They fail to provide even the most basic standard of investor engagement.