Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[ruckrover] 28/4/2024 06:34

"except we don't make antibodies ...that attack cancer with scib1"Who cares? The only things of relevance to an investor are:Does it work?What's it worth if it does work?

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 23:23

Ruck
""I thought your summary was very concise and accurate.""

except we don't make antibodies ...that attack cancer with scib1

ATB

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 23:19

you have cogs in gearbox's

little wheels with teeth ....

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 23:16

you best understand this first Ruck



HLA

vaccines are easy .... LOL

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 23:11

Serratia,I thought your summary was very concise and accurate. The iScib1+ version raising the target population from 40 to near 100% could be very significant.You should post here more often.

[serratia] 27/4/2024 23:08

Sorry to all - Not interested in your posts they just cog up the board so no comment.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 22:53

make it simple Moderna sample the tumour and normal cells sequenced it looks for difference and computers design the synthetic epitopes as a predication they then build them into RNA and vaccinate to produce T cells hopefully a few of the Predicted epitopes respond and activate T cells not antibodies, they have to predict because they cannot test ... as each epitope could take a year study

Scancell vector is a Mab loaded with epitopes discovered by others the 40% relates to HLA so your loading multiple types of HLA giving u 100% with the same epitope this MAB cross presents to dendritic cells via transfection of a plasmid into the dendritic cell and the plasmid transfected into muscle generates the MAB this cross presents to the same Dendritic cell so that it gets two signals this is what generates the potent t cells

Human leukocyte antigens (HLA) are genes in major histocompatibility complexes (MHC) that help code for proteins that differentiate between self and non-self. They play a significant role in disease and immune defense. They are beneficial to the immune system but can also have detrimental effects. google

[serratia] 27/4/2024 22:40

You're correct, didn't read any.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 22:35

serratia - 26 Apr 2024 - 10:50:29 - 3509 of 3513 Mount Teide's Blog - MTB
There'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

[serratia] 27/4/2024 22:01

Jeez, checked in tonight and 80 posts inanaco going on and on and on. Must be a nightmare to work with or live next door to.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 21:51

Bermuda

even if you used your "variable" between 40% and 60% on the randomised arm that is still below the 70% target .....

the control arm and the vaccine arm use a prescribed drug its authorisation is how it is used, dosing time scales etc that element is paid by the NHS not Scancell so that is fixed both arms

which leaves patients

the probability is only about efficacy it does not matter what you call the trial the only parameter that matters is the dosing structure of scib1 and iscb1 everything else is noise

it relates only to ORR and scans

the longer patients continue on the trial with constant shrinkage with no new lesions the better PFS and OS will be ...

so you have many hits on goal to achieve success first being ORR at 6 months second PFS at 12 months finally OS at 2 years starting to appear as statistically significant over the control arm

because both arms receive the same treatment ie checkpoints you can crossover the random arm

that gives you absolute proof its the vaccine if it works on check point failed patients

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 20:52

Roger,"Could we agree on a score draw?"Are you kidding it's like a conference team losing 20 nil to Man City.Can we go to VAR?

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 20:44

1) You can't predict the probability of success for the forthcoming phase II/III based on the probability of success of a completely different trial.

completely different trial in name only

2) Your statement that the probability of success of future trials will always be higher than the objective response rate from the current trial is simply not true.

show us the maths then

You say that all you're trying to do is 'give investors some sort of head light going forward' You are suggesting probabilites of success of 90% in a future phase II/III trial - that's not giving a heads up, it's raising expectations to a completely unreasonable level. I don't care how popular or unpopular these posts are but if anyone is managing to follow any of this debate and believes that Scancell's next trial has a 90% probability of success - it doesn't. Even if the current trial reaches that 70% or even 85% threshold - it still doesn't.

------------------------------------------------------

my probabilities are lower than 90% but above the ORR rate as long as there is a wide differential currently 15 then the probability will be higher than the ORR
which is below what scancell has stated, you don't have any alternative to show other than changing the parameters of an approved drugs phase 3 trial data readouts which scancell and a serious amount of trial investigators intelligence have signed up to 55% which means the target is 70% which the MHRA clearly have signed up to

so unless you can prove that the trial is changing the current treatment regime on both arms from the approved use then the registrational trial will follow the same treatment of patients as what has been shown already to work if Lindy thought something different might work they would run a another cohort to prove the change not leave it

we await Iscib1 ....

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 20:28

it can be more than an amicable relationship ... i have posted as such

but when you are proving with examples and exhaustive efforts to try and explain

together with proof that i did not say things i was accused of it gets a bit tedious to keep repeating the same posts ... expecting a different answer

its all there for anyone to look at ...

ATB

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 20:24

As usual you are fixating on detail to distract. For reasons that I've fully explained:-

1) You can't predict the probability of success for the forthcoming phase II/III based on the probability of success of a completely different trial.

2) Your statement that the probability of success of future trials will always be higher than the objective response rate from the current trial is simply not true.

You say that all you're trying to do is 'give investors some sort of head light going forward' You are suggesting probabilites of success of 90% in a future phase II/III trial - that's not giving a heads up, it's raising expectations to a completely unreasonable level. I don't care how popular or unpopular these posts are but if anyone is managing to follow any of this debate and believes that Scancell's next trial has a 90% probability of success - it doesn't. Even if the current trial reaches that 70% or even 85% threshold - it still doesn't.

[rogerbridge] 27/4/2024 20:17

Could we agree on a score draw?

Scancell over many years have promised deliver, long term investors are now sceptical after disapointments.

Scancell, are now poised to deliver on more than one front.

Personally, myself and some investors expect just that.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 19:51

I would point out that scancells probability is greater than

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 19:40

now you can take that to a coin flip


cars top speed 70 no wind

required 70

its now a coin flip .... tail wind or head wind

probability drops below the top speed now 50%

you have taken away the differential

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 19:31

""I have tried very hard to follow your posts and your logic and I don't feel you're reciprocating. I also have now read back over your previous posts and you're right we should leave it here.""

i am reciprocating Bermuda but you keep coming back to the same issue ...

you cant follow the maths ... tried to do it with a car

car top speed 85mph

thus the car on the motorway can hold 70Mph up and down hill

the probability of the car achieving 70mph is 100 per cent

because its top speed is higher than its required speed

so that differential between what you require 70 and 85 generates a probability higher than 85

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 19:23

i will repeat again assuming the results do show 85% that confirms the 43 number as a start point

so you can scale again


so lets say the 43

achieved 80% ORR the probability would fall from 95% ...... but it would still be significant above 80%

if your target is always below what you have achieved ie 70% vs ORR of 80% then the probability regardless of the maths has to be higher than 80% because you are achieving more than required

that just common sense

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 19:09

Inanaco

You scaled 13 to 47 and then 47 to 200. You scaled up on a 90% probability of success of reaching an 85% response rate in 43 patients. Even if you could scale up and use that probability of success in a brand new trial (which you can't for the reasons I've explained) you can't use the 90% probability of success figure. Scancell's probability of success was for an ORR of 70%. The probability of success for an 85% response rate would be much lower and I don't know why you just can't accept thatrather than accusing me of twisting your posts.


I have tried very hard to follow your posts and your logic and I don't feel you're reciprocating. I also have now read back over your previous posts and you're right we should leave it here.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 18:31

don't forget its also been in the clinic

In addition, the AvidiMab® modifications have also been incorporated into the ImmunoBody® products iSCIB1+ and iSCIB2, and have also been included in the COVIDITY vaccine. In every instance, the modifications have enhanced the preclinical efficacy of these products.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 18:27

why is iscib1 interesting

4mg was the best dose at adjuvant melanoma

8mg unresected gave the best result 2 injection sites

scib1 with new gun 4 injection sites

iscib1 huge boost in t cells things will happen even faster


SCIB1+ product was improved using the AvidiMab® technology, generating the iSCIB1+ DNA vector, to enhance the Fc targeting of the ImmunoBody® to dendritic cells resulting in the induction of higher frequency T cell responses.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 18:12

these time stamps are more critical to trials you can see that by comparing adjuvant keytruda mono to high dose unresected keytruda mono

the adjuvant is the easier trial to achieve high PFS