Member Info for Wigwammer

Indeed crumbs. A good chance of hitting the tumours, and perhaps an even better chance of delivering the primary endpoint - cellular immune response.

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.

I’m sure we can. So I’m struggling to see why you believe it appropriate to omit it from the report. Anyways, GLA.

Can we agree the positive DTH data has a positive impact on the chance of success?

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?

As stated yesterday - with 23+ patients, and scans running at circa one per patient per month, that is getting toward a scan a day…. Next news could simply be “We have another partial response”… GLA

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

Thanks crumbs

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.

My understanding is that the cancer immunology space has been beset with disappointments historically, and as LD stated at the AGM, this has slowed progress/interest in their pipeline. So I suppose I’m just wondering what the DTH responses were like in those (ultimately disappointing) trials? … if the DTH responses there were also 100% positive then it would suggest DTH it isn’t much of a yardstick, given that they ultimately failed… But if - as the example Marcus (ADVFN) gave suggests - positive DTH responses have historically been hard to achieve, then the Moditope trial already sounds like a breakthrough of sorts.

The DTH figures do seem encouraging. 23 out of 23. Has anyone seen any figures detailing what proportion of equivalent procedures see a reaction suggestive of DTH? Then we may have a better idea of just how unusual it is.

Hi Ivyspivey… Your trade became public business when you chose to post it on a public chat board, like advfn. I have little doubt that if the trade had gone your way and risen from 22p, then we would all be hearing about what a great trader you are. So when you aren’t surprised to see the shares fall on recent positive news, why did you buy the shares at 22p? Genuine question.