Member Info for Wmsjames

For me, today is really about whether you come away feeling you understand the company better and whether the abstract gives you more confidence in the direction of travel. It does for me

. The safety and PK data are strong, the 2 partial responses plus 25 stable disease cases in salivary gland cancer are encouraging, and overall it feels like evidence that the platform is doing what management has been saying it should do.

Of course, some investors will always want more, especially on deeper response data and longer follow up, and that is fair. But I do not think this reads like a reason to lose interest or look elsewhere. To me it reads more like a very good step forward that strengthens the case . Well done CC and team

RAH is one of the best posters of AVCT, he is a very informed , well researched professional investor. i would encourage everyone to jump on X and check out his posts. I have learnt a lot from him

Good morning all.

After last week, I think it is worth stepping back and looking at the potential news flow over the next month or so.

We have a number of possible needles movers now lining up:

Fast Track remains one to watch. It has not been confirmed, but the breadcrumbs around the cardiac safety data, the health authority discussions and the earlier interview comments make it very difficult to ignore.

Then we have the expected AVA6000 clinical updates, with the first believed by some to be focused on salivary gland cancer and the second likely to broaden the picture further.

On top of that, we now have the bigger strategic picture. Talk of expanding trial locations towards 20 sites, further development work on AVA6103, and the progression of AVA6207 all cost money. A company does not usually set out that level of ambition unless it has a clear funding or partnering route in mind.

That is why I remain very positive that a partner deal is close. Maybe not tomorrow , late June or early July , but the logic feels increasingly clear to me.

Strong data strengthens the hand. Fast Track, if it lands, strengthens it further. A staged clinical update keeps the story in front of the clinical and commercial world. And a partner deal would be the cleanest way to fund the next stage without putting unnecessary pressure back on shareholders.

I actually think splitting the clinical update into two separate updates is a very good idea, especially if the company is serious about maximising the value of any potential partner discussions.

Often one large data dump can easily get lost in the noise, whereas two updates let the company build the story in stages.

The first update can establish the headline message, most likely around the lead indication and the clearest efficacy signal. The second can then deepen the case with broader cohort detail, more safety context, durability, and next step thinking.

From a partner perspective that makes a lot of sense. It gives counterparties more than one chance to review strengthening data, rerun their assumptions, and move closer to a deal. It also helps Avacta negotiate from a position of rising confidence rather than trying to monetise everything off one single event.

It is also better for the market. Two updates keep attention on the story for longer, reduce the risk of one important part being overlooked, and can help the share price build in stages rather than spike once and fade.

So to me, two updates is not a weakness. It looks like a smart and potentially very strategic way to maximise its value .. also when you add fast track into the mix , three big news headlines in the pipeline for 6000.

For me, this week has been a game changer.

Science Day exceeded expectations, and the share price showed real strength yesterday afternoon to finish at 82.5p on the close. I am no chartist, but this area looks like one that has been rejected several times before, so it was encouraging to see AVCT hold up as well as it did, especially after Friday sellers.

Since mid March we have had a very strong run of communications, and I would not be surprised to see something again next week.

I am still hopeful on Fast Track. Christina Coughlin’s interview gave me the impression that it is in the pipeline, and from what I am hearing out of Science Day, we are due one clinical update at the end of May and another in June.

I have written before about the breadcrumbs, and I still expect a partner deal in June, or July at the latest.

So to summarise, the share price performed very well, sentiment continues to build, and I believe these levels could be a distant memory over the next few weeks.

Have a great weekend all

Monster sell just appeared:

12:35:05

82.031

325,000 shares

Sell

~£266.6k

The share price has held up considerably well given the size of that print.

I can only assume it is one of the placing shares being worked through, and possibly one of the last larger bits of stock still clearing.

If that is the case, the way AVCT is absorbing this sort of selling is actually really encouraging .

I took a few weeks off this board because the sentiment had turned so negative for no real reason, and I felt like I would have been pushing treacle uphill.

But now the facts are becoming clearer, and people can finally see what many long term investors have been saying for months and even years, which I should add I am not.

What an amazing time to be involved in this share. In five or ten years’ time, you may look back and remind yourself that you were part of a transformative story that helped humanity as well as rewarding shareholders.

That is what makes AVCT feel so special right now, thank you CC and team

Yesterday was an amazing day.

The pipeline and news flow now look even stronger, and it is a great feeling to be in this share, both from a humanity point of view and as a shareholder.

What makes AVCT so compelling is that this is not just about a chart move , it is about the possibility that the company is building something genuinely important in targeted oncology, and that the next stages of the story could be much bigger than many still appreciate.

I honestly wish I could fast forward five years and see what Avacta has achieved by then.

That is why it is so difficult not to be so bullish and not to get carried away by the excitement. I am trying to stay grounded, but when you look at the platform, the pipeline, the milestones already being hit, and the potential still ahead, it is hard not to feel very positive.. THANKS again to everyone who shared feedback from the science day

Thank you to everyone who have shared yesterdays feedback, im hearing from other investors , the day exceeded their expectations..

I remain very bullish on AVCT, but I am trying to stay disciplined and not get carried away.

My current timeline looks like this:

Science Day first, then I would expect clarity fairly soon after on which conference the AVA6000 data are going to be presented at.

I still think there is a reasonable chance of Fast Track news in between, although I fully accept that is still not publicly confirmed and should be treated as upside optionality rather than certainty.

If AVA6000 is presented at an end of May conference, then that becomes the next major valuation event. Assuming the data are strong, I think the market will start viewing AVA6000 in a very different light, especially given the significance of the earlier safety update and the removal of the historic dosing limit.

On that basis, I think early June would be the most logical window for partner or licensing news on 6000. To me, that would make strategic sense. Get the data out, strengthen the hand, then move from a position of much greater leverage. There are too many breadcrumbs saying a partner deal is nearly done ..

Some very good posts last night and, for me, they all point back to the same bigger picture. The AACR posters were not just filler. They strengthened the 6103 case, showed more clearly how broad the platform opportunity could be, and again reminded the market that Avacta is thinking well beyond just one asset.

I also thought Icecool made a very fair point. The more data they build, the stronger the terms of any deal and the better the regulatory buy in. That is exactly how it should be. I would much rather management stay disciplined and build proper value than rush into something just to satisfy the impatient.

The other thing that stands out to me now is that we are no longer looking at a company with only one talking point. We have 6000, we have 6103, we have the wider platform, we have dual payload progress, we have science day, and we have what looks like another 6000 conference update at the end of May. That is a lot going on for one small company, we must all remember this . Timelines might not always meet our own personal deadlines .

For me, the story keeps improving, the management look confident, and the communication has been far better. Plenty still to prove of course, but if someone cannot see the progress now, I am not sure what they are looking at.

This was one of the signs I was waiting for, so well done to whoever spotted and shared it.

My balanced view is that they would not be updating the pipeline like this and planning additional expansion cohorts unless what they are seeing so far is at least encouraging. I am not saying it proves everything on its own, but it is clearly a very positive step and another sign that 6103 is moving forward with confidence.

For me, this is a great step not just for 6103, but potentially for humanity as well if the platform continues to do what many of us now believe it can.. the sly is truly the limit

Great post. I think it really just comes back to the point a lot of us have been making, news genuinely can drop at any time now.

That is why I am finding it harder and harder to stay openly negative on this share. There are just too many moving parts, too many breadcrumbs, and too much sitting in the background for me to believe the market is fully grasping it yet

Let us be honest, a takeover is always possible and none of us can completely stop that if someone really wants to make a move.

I am not an expert on the takeover rules, so I do not want to overstate that side, but I would assume directors would have to inform the market if something serious was happening, and I also suspect the board would want shareholders to reject anything they felt materially undervalued the company.

My own view is that a takeover is unlikely before the AVA6000 results are out. That just feels too early. Any serious bidder would surely want the public data package on the table first, especially with all the focus on cardiac safety, regulatory progress and partnering potential.

I would also assume that any business already under an NDA or CDA would be very constrained in how it could act before the data they have seen privately becomes public. That is only my common sense view, not a legal one, but it would make sense.

For me, the more likely near term route is still:

AVA6000 results first, then partner discussions, then a proper rerating.

Like I have said before, I am very confident in the management now and also in the science.

We have plenty of news in the pipeline and, as others have said, some of it could drop at any time.

For me, once we are through 82p this is when things could get very interesting very quickly. At that point, the sky really is the limit.

Here is to another great week for Avacta

For any newer investors, I think it is worth setting out why AVA6000 matters so much, even beyond the value of the drug itself.

A lot of people understandably look at AVA6000 and think of it simply as the first asset in the clinic. But in my view, it is much more important than that.

AVA6000 uses doxorubicin, which is a very well known chemotherapy drug. That is important because doxorubicin is not some obscure experimental payload. It is a proven anti cancer drug, but one that has always been limited by toxicity, especially the risk of heart damage and wider normal tissue exposure.

So the AVA6000 story is not about inventing a new chemo from scratch. It is about taking a known effective drug and trying to deliver it in a much smarter way so that:

* more active drug is concentrated in the tumour

* less active drug damages healthy tissue

* and patients may be able to stay on treatment for longer with fewer of the usual toxicity problems

If AVA6000 continues to show:

* strong cardiac safety

* meaningful tumour exposure

* encouraging disease control and durability

* and a clear regulatory path forward then it is not just good news for AVA6000 itself.

It becomes human proof that the pre|CISION platform may genuinely be working and that then has a huge read through to the rest of the pipeline, especially AVA6103, because management have already made clear that 6103 started from a better place using the learnings from 6000.

For me, AVA6000 is important for four reasons:

1. It has value in its own right

If the data remain strong, it looks increasingly partnerable.

2. It validates the science in humans

This is vital, because plenty of platforms look good preclinically. Far fewer begin to show real signs of working in patients.

3. It could help fund the wider business

If, as I expect, a partner deal for 6000 comes in June or July, that would not just validate the asset. It would also bring cash into the business and strengthen Avacta’s position as it pushes the rest of the pipeline forward.

4. It changes how the market may value what comes next

If 6000 works, then the market is far more likely to believe in 6103 and the wider platform.

So I do not see AVA6000 as just one drug. I see it as the first major human test of whether Avacta’s whole approach to targeted chemotherapy can work in the real world . I have complete faith in the management and the science , can’t wait for the next 8 weeks of news

Great Post Aldebaran, for people like me who are not technical (but learning). Could you expand on what you think we will get.

I do - apologises poor English on my behalf

Following on from the recent posts about a possible takeover, whilst I agree it is clearly something none of us can fully control, if someone wants to buy the company they can always try.

That said, I do think the route Christina appears to be taking is the right one.

She has mentioned multiple times that the company is looking for a partner, and if the breadcrumb trail proves broadly right, that could point to a June or July type announcement window. Let us also be honest, any serious potential partner is unlikely to be sitting on the sidelines blind. They will almost certainly already be under an NDA or CDA, and they are likely to have had sight of at least some of the data that management is prepared to share. On that basis, I can only assume those discussions are already in the pipeline and more advanced than the market can see.

That is why the timing of a conference announcement, and possibly even Fast Track if that angle proves right, matters so much. All of it helps maximise the value of AVA6000 before any formal deal is done.

And that is the key point for me. If, and of course it is still a big if, Avcta were to secure a partner agreement in June or July, then that would in my view inevitably strengthen the share price and materially improve the company’s position. It would either help fend off a takeover altogether, or at the very least force any bidder to come in at a much higher level than they otherwise might have hoped.

I have been trying to map out a possible Fast Track timeline for AVA6000

This is only my own interpretation, not a statement of fact, because Avacta has not confirmed that a Fast Track application has been filed. But from a business point of view, the timing logic does look interesting.

My own view is that, if Avacta did apply, the most logical point would have been after the 3 February AVA6000 update, because that was the moment the company publicly announced the key regulatory progress around the cardiac safety data and the clearer path forward on dose selection.

FDA says Fast Track decisions are generally made within 60 days, so if Avacta filed later in February, that would point roughly to a late April or early May response window.

What keeps drawing me back to this is Christina’s recent “stay tuned” comment, where she pointed people back toward the cardiac discussion and the path forward to defining dose. That interview was clearly before 31 March, which makes the breadcrumb more interesting rather than less.

The bigger point for me, though, is not just the timeline. It is the business logic.

We know Avacta is looking for a partner for AVA6000. So if there were any chance of getting a positive Fast Track outcome before the main AVA6000 conference update, surely that would make a lot of sense. It would strengthen the regulatory story, increase the perceived value of AVA6000, and help maximise the asset before deeper partner discussions move forward.

So, if we assume Avacta got an application in by the end of February, then in theory we should hear something by late April or early May.

As far as I am aware, there is no public record showing who has submitted a Fast Track application, so we are left with timing, breadcrumbs and business logic.

My last post on fast track but wanted to document my thought process .

I enjoy reading your posts , thank you !

A lot of people including myself are rightly focused on the AVA6000 read through into AVA6103, but the bigger picture is exactly as you say, the real game changing read through from AVA6103 is into AVA6207 and the wider pipeline.

For me, the key distinction is this:AVA6000 has already done the hugely important job of helping prove that the FAP targeting dipeptide works in humans. That alone is a major step, because if you can consistently target FAP and concentrate payload in tumour versus plasma, you already have something very valuable. But AVA6103 is the next level, it is really the first proper clinical test of the improved chemistry, namely the capping group and linker. And those are not just nice tweaks for one drug. They are potentially foundational tools for the whole future of pre|CISION.

I think your point on R&D Spotlight 13 is a very good one. If AVA6000 translated materially better in the clinic than the early in vivo work suggested, then it is not unreasonable to think AVA6103 may also have the potential to outperform preclinical expectations rather than merely match them.

Of course, we still need the human data, and none of this is guarantee

Dont make me daydream more about the possibilities.