Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[ruckrover] 02/4/2024 07:00

Inan,"like chalk and cheese i really cannot see the point of the comparison other than to waste a lot of money"But surely that is what research is all about, trying to get answers to the unknown?If we knew what exactly what accounted for the difference, maybe it could be used to develop more effective treatments.

[inanaco] 02/4/2024 05:58

you will always have a difference between men and women we are not the same

Breast cancer and Prostate cancer is an example

hormones ........

like chalk and cheese i really cannot see the point of the comparison other than to waste a lot of money

and as for melanoma

"Besides having facial hair, there are structural differences between men's skin and women's skin. Androgen (testosterone) stimulation causes an increase in skin thickness, which accounts for why a man's skin is about 25% thicker than a woman's. In addition to being thicker, a man's skin texture is tougher."


Google

[torquayfan] 01/4/2024 07:59

Inan if you started regularly posting again using this thread, perhaps the conversations would continue here, (hopefully without Lozan).

Did you see Super's post 30/3 on LF, about a melanoma vaccine developed by Slingluff at UVA Health and UoV ?

[marcusl2] 28/3/2024 14:24

ImmunoBody vaccines activate DCs through two distinctly different and complementary mechanisms that maximise T cell activation and avidity: direct- and indirect/cross-presentation. There are various pathways by which DCs can process antigens, and the highest avidity T cell response are generated if more than one pathway is used to present the same epitope.

Primarily, the DNA element is taken up directly by the DCs, via transfection, and the resulting protein is processed in the APC. This direct presentation produces the appropriate immune response but generates only moderate T cell avidity and the anti-tumour response is too weak in the typical immunosuppressed TME. However, an identical protein component is secreted by muscle cells (which is produced at the site of the injection from the DNA) that binds to the Fc receptors on DCs leading to the cross presentation (Exhibit 9). This dual approach generates both a cytotoxic CD8 cell response and a Th CD4 response that, importantly, is up to 100 times greater than either presentation alone with potent high avidity T cells generated. This amplified immune response is now sufficient to generate the required broad anti-tumour response in the TME.

Preclinical work suggests that clinical benefits (in performance, efficacy, and administration) of iSCIB1+ are a significant advance over SCIB1

[marcusl2] 28/3/2024 08:33

During chronic infection or cancer, antigens or inflammatory factors of pathogens or tumor cells stimulate T cells for a prolonged period, resulting in the gradual loss of the function of memory and effector T cells. This process is called T-cell exhaustion.



An important hallmark of CAR T cell exhaustion was the up-regulation of multiple inhibitory receptors such as PD1, CTLA4, and LAG3. Their binding to corresponding ligands on tumor cells promoted the dysfunction of exhausted T cells and led to tumor immune escape


Most of these treatments should work better in early disease when your immune system is in better shape.

[marcusl2] 28/3/2024 08:19

SC2811 (uses Avidimab) A T Cell check point inhibitor.


It could improve Car Ts because most Car T cells suffer from exhaustion. They get switched off quickly.


With SC2811 30-40% remain active and potent.


Could SC2811 be another Avidimab type opportunity?

Many experts believe CAR T cells can work for solid tumours as well. However, one of the main obstacles to clinical success is T-cell exhaustion.

“Exhaustion is triggered in T cells when they have been exposed for too long — in the order of weeks — to their target antigen, as they typically are in the case of solid tumours,”



SC2811, is a checkpoint modulator undergoing target validation for glycolipid stage-specific embryonic antigen 4 (SSEA4) on human and mouse T stem memory cells. It could have clinical value in many solid tumours.




Scancell is developing SC134 as a Bispecific.

It could be the holy grail of a completely cancer specific antibody.

E.G. BMS` Fucosyl antibody is not specific.


SC134 is undergoing functional analysis and targets fucosyl GM1, with an initial focus on small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Fucosyl-GM1 is known to be expressed in up to 90% of SCLC and, unlike many other lung cancer antigens, has little or no expression in normal tissues.

[sci102] 27/3/2024 13:12

Hopefully they will still update with SCIB1. They should have data already.
Before anyone gets triggered and start moaning about what they are legally obligated to do and what not, my point of view is always of an investor, not of an effing regulator.

Edit: with that said, because of that delay with iscib1+, at least we'll get the full data on SCIB1 for sure at some point.

[inanaco] 27/3/2024 07:16

spotted him last year LOL the Dictator Wannabee Scientist

[marcusl2] 26/3/2024 15:05

Excellent. Now looking forward to Modi-1 with doublet in RCC.

Dr L S Prasad Kellati, Consultant Medical Oncologist from the Royal Preston Hospital, UK commented: "We are very excited to have dosed our patient in the iSCIB1+ in combination with doublet checkpoint cohort of the SCOPE trial. With its potentially increased potency and applicability to a broader patient profile, we believe iSCIB1+ represents a major step forward in providing more metastatic melanoma patients the potential benefits of combining standard of care checkpoint therapy with Scancell' s innovative cancer vaccines."



iSCIB1+ is a modified version of SCIB1 developed using Scancell's AvidiMab® platform to enhance its potency compared to SCIB1. iSCIB1+ also includes additional melanoma-specific epitopes so it has the potential to be effective in a broader patient population beyond the 40% of patients with the tissue type treatable with SCIB1, where treatment is human leukocyte antigen (HLA) dependent.



As iSCIB1+ is very similar to SCIB1 it is anticipated that it should show the same exceptional results as SCIB1 with an objective response rate of 85% but in a broader range of melanoma patients. Recruitment into the iSCIB1+ cohort is expected to be complete by the end of Q3 2024. Early data from this cohort is expected in Q4 2024.


Modi-1
Similar to SCIB1 monotherapy in metastatic disease, one patient achieved a partial response and 60% of patients showed stable disease in response to Modi-1 monotherapy.



· Modi-1 to be assessed in renal cell carcinoma in combination with double CPI therapy in the ModiFY study pending protocol amendment by the MHRA.

[miavoce] 26/3/2024 13:29

Good updates on SCIB1+ effectiveness should boost the share price as 3Q progresses. In the meantime we have SCIB1 updates to look forward to soon and hopefully some more Modi updates.

[small crow] 26/3/2024 13:20

Good news.

[octopus100] 26/3/2024 13:20

iScib getting into action at last. Though looks like 2 years before getting anything out of this.

[sci102] 26/3/2024 11:57

That's fair enough Ruck.

[ruckrover] 26/3/2024 11:12

"Your ban on MT is harsh - perhaps reconsider?"Or we just use one of the other threads that is not controlled by a one-sided propagandist with no desire to actually debate the facts.

[sci102] 26/3/2024 09:44

I never said anything about legal requirements though, did I?

I said they should show they respect investors. I made it very clesr the fca would not take any action on this.I also never said that it should be RNSed. It is markingtime that turned it into a court hesring. The link says all new info is inside info. That's one thing and another what should be released via official channels.

[bermudashorts] 26/3/2024 09:39

Sci102

I'm sorry but MarkingTime is correct, Scancell is only obligated to disseminate information if it would likely have an impact on the Company's share price. The link you've posted confirms that! They don't have to publish every single poster, paper, research report, presentation etc. etc.

Having said that, I'm sure at some stage those posters will appear on their website but keeping their site updated has never been one of Scancell's strengths.

Your ban on MT is harsh - perhaps reconsider?

[markingtime] 26/3/2024 08:47

Nonsense.The lack of any release of info to the public is itself evidence that there was nothing new released at the conferences.You are making an overly-hopeful, evidence-free guess....but the only actual evidence is that nothing new was said.

[sci102] 26/3/2024 08:38

No. That concerns only what should be RNSed. That is info that is expected to affect the pps. Obviously, it is not the case with these posters. However, all new data is insider info until released, just not always necessary to release via RNS.

[markingtime] 26/3/2024 08:36

Factually incorrect.There is a test for materiality re any new information - this is monitored by the NOMAD.

[sci102] 26/3/2024 08:26

All information that is made public for the first time (including behind a paywall) is inside information according to FCA. In this case, inside information that is lawfully released at a relevant conference. It does not need to include groundbreaking or very significant results. Anything new released for the first time is inside info.

The only way it is not is if at those conferences there is not a single data point that has not been comunicated before. Of course I'm not saying that the FCA should (or would) take any action for a couple of posters. That's not the point. To me it is all about respecting your investors.

[markingtime] 26/3/2024 08:07

From their absence, therefore, one can conclude that there was no material new information!There is absolutely no obligation on any company to release all presentations.