We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scancell Holdings Plc | SCLP | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 9.60 | 08:00:21 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.60 | 9.38 | 9.60 | 9.60 | 9.60 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOTECHNOLOGY |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 27/4/2024 22:35 by inanaco serratia - 26 Apr 2024 - 10:50:29 - 3509 of 3513 Mount Teide's Blog - MTBThere's a uk company that's ahead of Moderna in Melanoma treatment - Scancell (SCLP). Moderna samples the tumour and develops an antibody to the persons epitopes on the tumour. Scancell has created a data bank of epitopes from multiple tumours. They sample the tumour and their first antibody is active against 40% of tumours. They now have a second one which recognises many more tumours possibly 100%. The big advantage is they don't have do go back to square one and develop an antibody for each patient. It's looking good in phase 2 trials. -------------------- its near enough as an advert .... but as a scientifically presented Representation of moderna and scancells Tech suggests you have not read the posts you counted |
Posted at 27/4/2024 17:40 by inanaco Bermudashorts - 27 Apr 2024 - 14:43:21 - 8082 of 8110 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLPThe reason I asked for clarification is that your posts aren't always easy to follow. This is what I understood you to be saying. Essentially Scancell have predicted a 90% probability of success for the current trial based on the 85% response rate from the first 13 Patients. You have then projected that 85% rate forwards to the end of the trial and assuming all 43 (you said 47 but assume you meant 43) patients respond have then factored that actross to a future randomised phase II/III trial. Please tell me if this is correct and then I will answer your point this is what you posted You have then projected that 85% rate forwards to the end of the trial and assuming all 43 (you said 47 but assume you meant 43) patients respond have then factored that actross to a future randomised phase II/III trial. clear gap between the 13 patient and the 43 patients "then" factored that result across from 43 to 150 ... stop trying to suggest otherwise |
Posted at 27/4/2024 16:48 by ivyspivey Inanaco can you please explain why it infers I have no shares as why would I want the share price to go up if I had no shares.There are plenty of positions between having a shed load of shares like yourself and having none and yes I do have a number of shares or else I would simply not post here but that is not a high enough of a number to worry too much about how much the share price May or may not move in either direction. I hope for all SH sake that it comes good here both for patients and SH benefit but there are other shares apart from SCLP |
Posted at 27/4/2024 15:10 by ivyspivey Fair post Ruck as you say we all have a motivation to be here to some extent but it dies amuse me when others portray us individually as belonging to a certain camp when only us know the truth.I frequent these boards as I am invested here and simply want to know as much as possible about my investment by watching the various inputs and making a judgement. I have absolutely no agenda in trying to drive the share price down for any reason despite others assertions. I want the share price to go up but equally am comfortable to wait or even if it went bust or went to £1 it would not impact me hence I don’t post that often Anyway most of the comment action on AIM shares has moved away from BBs to TG groups ( Although the SCLP one is extremely quiet). Anyways always nice to look in and touch base with folks |
Posted at 27/4/2024 14:54 by inanaco 4 th issue rude and obnoxiousinanaco - 22 Apr 2024 - 09:04:34 - 7899 of 8085 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP i will explain your problem 36 of 43 achieves 85% ORR we only need 70% so the probability of success in further trials will always be higher than the ORR rate achieved so far I don't think maths is Bermuda's strong point -------------------- Bermudas reply Bermudashorts - 22 Apr 2024 - 09:44:56 - 7902 of 8084 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP inanaco From your 7899:- ''so the probability of success in further trials will always be higher than the ORR rate achieved so far' This will be my last post to you and then I'll revert to the filter. Sometimes it's best to stop digging. This statement from you shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the clinical trial process. Moreover it's highly misleading to those who follow you blindly and you should delete it immediately. If you seriously believe it, no wonder you think there's no risk. -------------------- No Body since has proved otherwise and where is your maths Bermuda ? you make a statement with no backup at all i will explain your problem 36 of 43 achieves 85% ORR we only need 70% so the probability of success in further trials will always be higher than the ORR rate achieved so far -------------------- as an alternative can you show how it could be lower ? |
Posted at 27/4/2024 14:41 by inanaco second issueI then posted inanaco - 19 Apr 2024 - 19:47:19 - 7870 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP and if I really want to get clever .... it will not be just the 43 it will also include ISCIB1 patients increasing the accuracy of the probability indeed you could also include the adjuvant arm data as well as that involves long term data if the current trial shrinks all tumor to zero it effectively becomes an adjuvant trial thus data would be pfs and OS -------------------- Bermudashorts - 19 Apr 2024 - 21:14:32 - 7874 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP inanco lol- so in a randomised combination study you're going to ignore the control arm and give the treatment arm a 90% chance of success. How are you measuring success then? It doesn't matter whether it's 200, 400 or 2000 patients the point stands. You CANNOT take the 90% probability of success for the SCIB1 trial and apply that to the next trial. That 90% figure was simply the chance of an 85% response rate in 13 patients turning into a 70% response rate in 43 in that particular trial. Your adjuvant T cell comment is irrelevant - the next trial is in advanced unresectable melanoma. It cannot become an adjuvant trial. Your iscib1 comment shows that you're just not understanding that whist positive data from other SCIBs or from different settings is encouraging, it can't be extrapolated to give a possibility of success for a new trial in a completely different setting, with a different design, and completely different measures of success. Lindy would be a laughing stock if she tried to suggest a 90% probability of success for SCIB1's first ever randomised study. -------------------- so your first para Ignoring the control arm ... Randomization as a method of experimental control has been extensively used in human clinical trials and other biological experiments. It prevents the selection bias and insures against the accidental bias. It produces the comparable groups and eliminates the source of bias in treatment assignments. Google absolutely the probability is predicting the vaccine arm and has nothing to do with the control arm what the control arm is doing is making sure no bias because in this instance we have extremely accurate data because the checkpoints are approved -------------------- next points ... who mentioned turning the trial into an adjuvant trial ? adjuvant melanoma is treating secondary cancer circulating cells before they seed or have seeded but cant be measured which is melanoma after surgical removal of the cancer and maybe lymph nodes unresected is the same cancer that's grown as such data is relevant not to try and get approval but adding weight to your Probability again this is you making claims that i have just not said .... and what has Lindy got to do with this ... and who is laughing ? -------------------- Your adjuvant T cell comment is irrelevant - the next trial is in advanced unresectable melanoma. It cannot become an adjuvant trial. Your iscib1 comment shows that you're just not understanding that whist positive data from other SCIBs or from different settings is encouraging, it can't be extrapolated to give a possibility of success for a new trial in a completely different setting, with a different design, and completely different measures of success. Lindy would be a laughing stock if she tried to suggest a 90% probability of success for SCIB1's first ever randomised study. |
Posted at 27/4/2024 14:07 by inanaco ok Bermuda i am a fair guystarted with this and it clearly states that if 47 achieve 85 % then you can scale again be it 3 or 4 x inanaco - 19 Apr 2024 - 18:05:56 - 7867 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP 13 patients lindy gives a probability of 90% success with 47 based on OR of 85% thus = a factor of 4 approx 47 x 4 = 200 approx with the same probability as 13 to 47 -------------------- you then followed with this complete miss representing my post with your last para. if your statement was correct my maths would not be 4 x 47 but 15 x 13 Bermudashorts - 19 Apr 2024 - 19:34:07 - 7868 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP Thanks, I think it's a total of 43 not 47 patients so closer to a factor of 3 but in any case isn't the 90% figure simply the mathematical probability of achieving a 70% response rate from 43 patients based on having achieved an 85% response in from the first 13 patients? Lindy said she had no idea how it was calculated and I certainly haven't either but seems a bit more complicated. Honestly Inanaco, predicting a 90% probability of success for a 400 patient randomised study based on the results of 13 patients from a different single arm study just isn't realistic. |
Posted at 26/4/2024 12:38 by ivyspivey As you say Octopus there are challenges to SCLP.However to some All in the garden is Rosy and SCLP cannot do anything wrong. Must admit some of us questioned that mantra which has been prophesied for at least 10 years and have benefited from that decision. |
Posted at 25/4/2024 07:39 by inanaco but this is your Nemesis Ruck ................ its yourself------------- ""My job involves working with probabilities."" RuckRover Posted in: SCLP Posts: 5,369 Price: 9.60 No Opinion RE: Onclive23 Apr 2024 10:21 Bermuda, Moonparty, Many thanks for the response and clarification. Even so, regardless of whether success is 85% or 70%, where does the 90% confidence come from? My job involves working with probabilities. To achieve a 90% confidence level (assuming a normal distribution), you would need 1.28 standard deviations. But deviation from what. I guess if we had the %responses for each individual patient in the 13 measured to date, we could work out the standard deviation and apply 1.28 times this to the arithmetic mean. We could then classify the results and work out the numbers for complete response and partial response and see if this is over 70%. But I don't think we are privy to enough data to see how 90% confidence was arrived at. |
Posted at 07/3/2024 23:24 by supernumerary Bermudayes - you just can't get good placebos these days :¬( When you say 'sadly' I'm not so sure - from a patient's point of view it's good to have the losers winnowed, and in a way, nothing much has changed - all small biotechs spend their lives clambering up the north face of the Eiger - ulti just has to adapt to a steeper slope. I'd guess they're still funded further ahead than sclp? But what happens now is an interesting question. They talk about sub-group analysis, but that would take probably 6 months or so to produce reliable results; then say 12 months to design and obtain approval for a more focused trial; then another 18 months minimum to run the trial and process results. A minimum total of 3 years which is well beyond their cash horizon, long after they've had other significant results, and meanwhile competitors will have raised the bar even further. So unless something really dramatic emerges, I think it's the end of the road for them with melanoma. Of the remaining trials, I'm not a fan of head and neck - too heterogeneous, too distorted by other side-effects of the cancer (but I accept that's a personal view) - and nsclc and ovarian are not only hard, but face that ever-rising bar, which leaves mesothelioma. A very difficult cancer, but it's a decent size market and there's not a lot of competition, so maybe that's the best option? They do have some results from NIPU, which was another ipi+nivo trial, but again they missed the primary (also pfs), however the secondaries didn't look too bad and I think were regarded as encouraging so they do have a chance. Glad to be watching not holding - another bullet missed.... 3n - I'm sure you're right and BMS is happy to see these results (putting aside minor questions of morality of course!), although it won't (I don't think) change their commercial position at all. I also agree that comparisons with historical data mean little - one of the reasons sclp has been untouchable for me for many years now. As ever the problem is that the signals are so small, which is why the trials need to be so large and go on so long. We've reached a stage where progress is almost invariably made in tiny steps - the great leaps forward have gone until such time as a completely new model of cancer is achieved. Your comments on pfs are interesting, thank you. It's really just a poignant illustration of the previous point - ipo and nivo have achieved a certain plateau, and climbing over that is necessarily a long and arduous process. It's also a reminder that sclp is far from out of the woods yet. Anyway, assuming you're still holding, I wish you luck. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
