We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Valuation is all about the chance of success. Who remembers LD’s rousing AGM presentation? The confidently handled Q&A? The love for Moditope!! … now imagine she steps up to conclude this momentous event with.. “Ladies and Gentlemen. I can confidently tell you today that Moditope has a 12.5% chance of success! .. Yes… an unbelievably low 87.5% chance of failure!”…. TD vs LD…. Take your pick :)
Bermuda - TD are the go-to contributor, paid for by Scancell. They didn’t mention DTH. Not only that, several posters here including yourself concluded that was fair game. As stated earlier, rather than encourage people down this path, better just get on with your day.
Bermuda - with due respect, some posters just don’t agree with you. In terms of the TD note, DTH wasn’t even a sideshow, it just wasn’t mentioned. Not impressive. But rather than encourage people down this path, perhaps better just to get on with your day. ATB
Hi raypointer… bear in mind the primary endpoint of the trial is cellular immune response, using an ELIspot assay (and safety)… The DTH responses may be one of several steps required to achieve efficacy at the tumour site, but represent a much larger step in terms of proving a cellular immune response - the primary goal of the trial… GLA
Bojo2020 - the decision to pay for third party analysis is taken by Lindy and the board, not me. And presumably the reasoning is to add colour and credibility to the investment story. I think most of us agree the DTH responses were a material part of the last RNS. Do you think - having entirely ignored the DTH data - that TD did a good job adding colour and credibility there?
"So FWIW from my layman view - DHT is a very good sign that at least one of the primary end points is being met ..Cheers"…. Bang on, GMS… and it would be useful for us laymen to get more colour on it from a third party expert, one who is not the chief Investigator on the trial…… But TD - the paid for third party - fail to even mention it. Bonkers, lazy analysis… IMO.
Well first Bermuda, can we establish that the CEO/CSO and Chief Investigator including the DTH data in the RNS means it is the company that is suggesting the data is significant, not speculating punters? Can we also agree that by virtue of his personal investment in the trial, the expert opinion of the Chief Investigator may not be perceived as the most independent and credible by the market? Can we also agree therefore, that the opinion and perspective of an expert third party are important to give the story broader credibility? With regard to how they input the value of the DTH news, well they could start by mentioning it! Of course it is clinical efficacy and safety that will shift the possibility of success, though bear in mind the primary outcome measure in this trial is cellular immune response. I imagine the reason they included the DTH data - an indication of a robust T Cell response - is precisely because they believe it will translate into a positive primary readout, and ultimately clinical efficacy.
Thanks Roses. Yes, I agree. The Chief Investigator of the trial gave his expert opinion, and the Scancell RNS mentions the DTH data twice. It is significant. Strange therefore, that the update note from Trinity Delta - the company tasked to tell the story to the wider world - makes no mention of it whatsoever. Nor do they offer any independent and expert perspective on its merit. Nor do they apply any obvious expertise when reflecting its significance in their valuation model. Is the work of this paid for third party adding a lot of expert perspective for you?
I suspect you are correct AB124. Best practice will be to release the information by RNS as quickly as practicable. Clearly the DTH information was considered significant, and thanks to those who contributed positively to the discussion. GLA
With respect EE, it is Scancell’s duty to RNS facts they believe are price sensitive and non public. I made no reference to when they do it. If they wanted to release the trial information this week rather than last week, so be it.
It is Scancell’s duty to RNS facts they believe are price sensitive and non public. So when the DTH figures appear (twice) in the update RNS, is is Scancell and not speculating members of the public who are suggesting the information is significant. With regard to the Trinity Delta note, they describe the new data as “particularly promising” without providing any colour as to why they think this, and fail to mention the DTH responses - mentioned by Scancell twice - anywhere in their update. I’ll leave readers to decide whether the change in their success probability reflects the result of expertly and carefully crafted analysis, or simply sticking a finger in the air. Scancell gave some interesting information, the experts at TD did very little with it. IMO
I agree with Bermuda. i think the PR from Scancell has been fine, and that if/when the time comes to escalate the message, they have the people/resource/contacts to do so. I wasn’t impressed by the last Trinity Delta update. Some more perspective around the trial update would have been welcome - such as an expert opinion on the relevance of the 23 DTH responses, and how that ties in with the primary target of the trial. Simply regurgitating the RNS and adding a couple of pence to a price target is not value adding research. GLA
Hi Chester/Crumbs. Interesting thoughts on the 4 steps to moditope. Looking at the primary outcome measures, it is interesting that beyond AE, the only other primary measure is Cellular Immune response using an ELISpot assay. Imaging response (which I guess relates to your step 3) is a secondary outcome. Given that LD has indicated that the 23 DTH responses are indicative of a robust T cell response, and the primary outcome of the trial relates to the cellular immune response, it may well be that DTH responses are highly indicative of success in the primary outcome - the key one… My guess is that cellular immune response has been selected as the primary outcome because it may be more indicative of likely overall survival (the ultimate goal), including circulating tumour and so on, than tumour size.
So with at least 23 people on the trial, and scans proceeding at around one per patient per month, they are likely approaching a scan per day. That’s a lot of data. We just need one of them to tip in the right direction to relight interest here. ATB
Just read the latest Trinity Delta update. Surely investigating the importance - or otherwise - of the 23 positive DTH responses should be an integral part of their role? It is mentioned more than once in the RNS… Has 100% DTH type response happened in previous trials? If not, what does it suggest about the outlook for this trial? How does it feed into their probability of success number?….. Hard to see what perspective or value they added here, beyond regurgitating the RNS.