Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 21:46

Nigel he just twists everything

if you dissect the post correctly most of what he is saying is an argument against his own fabrication

and again if you feel you can defend him .

post the relevant bits that you agree with and why rather than making mutterings from the sidelines

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 21:42

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

which was about 80% in the original trial ...

funny how these numbers came about

80% in one trial 85% in another

pattern forming

May be its because you never accepted NO RISK .......... or understood the power of High Avidity ...

hence you sold down

actual data

Progression free survival is 78% and 72% for stage III and IV respectively and overall survival is 100% for both groups. Only 4 patients have relapsed at 4, 14, 18 and 18 months, since the last relapse there have been no further recurrences for 23 months. Conclusions: These results suggest that SCIB1 may confer protection from recurrence of melanoma with little associated toxicity. This vaccine deserves further evaluation as an adjuvant therapy.

"""These results suggest that SCIB1 may confer protection from recurrence of melanoma with little associated toxicity"""

which is just what a stage 4 patient with a CR wants to hear

[nigelpm] 19/4/2024 21:35

As ever Bermuda's logic wins hands down.

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 21:28

your problem is Bermuda you twist the posts .........

the adjuvant trial gives weight to the probability of success as stated in my post

so this is YOU just making STUFF UP i have reprinted the post to remind you that if you stick to what is written you then cant argue with yourself


""""Your adjuvant T cell comment is irrelevant - the next trial is in advanced unresectable melanoma. It cannot become an adjuvant trial.""""




inanaco19 Apr '24 - 19:47 - 7870 of 7874 Edit
0 0 0
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] 19/4/2024 21:14

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.

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 20:29

i said 200 patients .......... 400 with the random arm

my words NOT YOURS the random arm does not get the vaccine !! so its not part of any basis for the maths around SCIB1 why do you think it should be ???

best stick to 200 scib1 or iscib1

with all due respect the adjuvant trial T cells are doing exactly the same job in advanced melanoma

stopping Mets

its ok Bermuda i do know the difference !!

and iscib1 is not starting a phase 1 trial is it ....so its not looked at as a brand new drug

but a modified scib1

[bermudashorts] 19/4/2024 20:20

Inanco,

These are your words:-

'so lets say FDA/mhra wants to see a further 200 patients (400 with random arm) in trial apply the same factor of 4 gives you a probability of 90% from 47 patients

Now that was based on SCIB1

Iscib1 is even more powerful so probability may even increase.'


1) In your example the trial has 400 patients - your words not mine

2) You can't take data from an adjuvant trial and use it to predict the possibility of success in advanced inoperable melanoma, nor can you take the data from a completely different drug (iSCIB1+)

3)Even if every patient had a complete response and their tumours shrunk to zero it could never become an adjuvant trial and if Scancell wanted to go for approval in the adjuvant setting they would need to run a completely different trial.

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 20:19

Uniform scaling


A scale factor is usually a decimal which scales, or multiplies, some quantity. In the equation y = Cx, C is the scale factor for x. C is also the coefficient of x, and may be called the constant of proportionality of y to x. For example, doubling distances corresponds to a scale factor of two for distance, while cutting a cake in half results in pieces with a scale factor for volume of one half. The basic equation for it is image over preimage.

In the field of measurements, the scale factor of an instrument is sometimes referred to as sensitivity. The ratio of any two corresponding lengths in two similar geometric figures is also called a scale.

so as long as you know the scale factor its linear thus it comes down to the 11 of 13 and 36 of 43 number because 11 of 13 = 85% and to match that we need 36 of 43

how folks in scancell calculated the 90% is not relevant in this case unless you do not agree with the 90%

as the 90% can only be calculated on 11 of 13 = 84.61% AS PER jan update all facts are known so a linear scale applies

they have to be as you can just run enough 13 patients trials giving the same answer and adding them up ........to create 200 patients

the 90% only represents the risk of being wrong because of the smaller numbers

but the more patients confirm 85% Orr the more accurate the chance of success in bigger numbers gets

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 19:47

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

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 19:40

i did not do that did I .........

we need to prove the full cohort first ........ NOT 13

so stop twisting my posts to try and give yourself an angle ...

this is utter fabrication

"""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."""

============================================================

and its 200 ... we already know approx the result of the check point arm its approx 55%
or are you going to question that as well ?

[bermudashorts] 19/4/2024 19:34

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.

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 18:05

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

[bermudashorts] 19/4/2024 17:58

inanaco,

I'm trying to understand your 7850 - can you explain the logic/calculations behind this sentence:-

'so lets say FDA/mhra wants to see a further 200 patients (400 with random arm) in trial apply the same factor of 4 gives you a probability of 90% from 47 patients'

Thanks

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 16:25

well Nigel, i am sure you know what you are talking about, even if you cannot explain why

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 16:24

this is the vital bit
Multiple studies have demonstrated that TCR-p:MHCII signaling is one of the most important factors influencing the generation of robust CD4 memory.22,46–48 TCR signaling not only exerts the greatest influence during T-cell priming and polarization but also impacts secondary responses. In the primary response, the unique character of the TCR signaling in each cell differentially affects its selection from the naïve CD4 T-cell pool and helps determine which selected clones may preferentially mount primary and/or memory responses. It also helps drive the progressive increase in functional avidity exhibited by memory CD4 T cells throughout the course of primary and subsequent challenges.35

"""progressive increase in functional avidity"""

over time the t cells get more and more potent .....

its like the natural selection of the immune system Darwin

[nigelpm] 19/4/2024 16:22

I can see a path to a £500m business but even that won't be easy.

[nigelpm] 19/4/2024 16:19

That's pure fantasy Inanaco. It really is.

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 16:14

we have data that is conclusive from SCIB1 thus is far easier to place valuations

we are about to get some indication i hope of the potential of Modi1 t cells

if Lindy proves the t cells .......... it applies to all CD4 killer t cells derived from moditope

the difference between them is avidity ..........

Avidity relies on the availability of, and affinity by which the antigen is bound to the MHC molecule, combined with the affinity of the TCR for the MHC-peptide complex. An increase in one, or both, of these factors will increase the avidity of the interaction and thereby the T cell's sensitivity for activation.

now this is way more complicated with CD4 t cells and its the whole point of this trial

SCIB1 high Avidity CD8 t cell .... it works

Lindy has indicated modi1 has the same sort of potential

do we have high avidity or does avidity increase with clonal expansion ?

there are so many questions that i would love answered however i also know that the full potency may not appear for a year ... which is why scancell treat for 2 years

some want information in a hurry .....


moonparty

Posts: 809

Price: 9.60

Strong Buy

RE: A reminder from Inanaco 7839 . . .Today 14:32
"Thanks Inan for a nice reminder. Just asking the question, just for fun, if success should be 100%, does that mean a potential MCap of $6 billion?"

I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I'm answering anyway!

No, it means a market cap way in excess of $6 billion, maybe 5 - 10x (depending on how much of that $6B gets to the bottom line). So potentially $30 - $60 Billion.

I think that's more than £8 a share though - maybe my maths is wrong :)

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 15:50

we get stage payments ... to a max 624

Gemnmab only benefits from the MAX payout to us ie approved

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 15:48

Genmab

The company has 8 approved antibodies (monoclonal and bispecific) used in 8 marketed products, covering cancer indications and autoimmune diseases.[6]

[nigelpm] 19/4/2024 15:46

It's a maximum Inanaco.

[inanaco] 19/4/2024 15:45

Genmab clearly think it might ... are you better positioned than they are to evaluate?