Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 10:23

Finally, 42% of companies that went public in 2018 were in Phase 2 and 32% were in Phase 1. The average IPO post-money was $754M and the median was $501M. These valuations are in line with the higher-end of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 valuations in our model. Most of these companies were cancer or rare disease companies, where you can often get approval on just Phase 2 data. So these Phase 2 companies may be more like Phase 3 companies, which would make their valuations a bit more in line with our model.

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 10:20

if you put the probability of approval at scancells 90%


wow !

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 10:14

making a few adjustments ie to 60,000 patients cost of phase 2 at £20m and phase 3 at 100m

patent life left as default

Value at start of Phase 3
$3,298M
Probability of FDA approval: 56%

Investment required for approval: $155M

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 10:05

whats most striking "default"

Value at ""start"" of Phase 3
$1,248M

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 10:02

Ruck you will enjoy this

a Drug value calculator

as scancell has mentioned 60000 patients for scib's

the default is not far off you can press "calculate" yourself





Assumptions table: explore different scenarios

The default case models a drug that treats 50,000 patients a year. The model assumes a price of $45,759 per year of treatment. This drug price yields an NPV of 0 at the start of the project, and thus is the minimum drug price that would attract investment, given our assumptions about the cost of development.

Our default assumptions for R&D costs come from DiMasi et al, Journal of Health Economics 2016. Below, you can change these assumptions and see how they impact valuation at each stage, and read more about our methodology.

The most challenging part of valuing drugs is figuring out which assumptions are the right ones. This model is only as good as the underlying assumptions.

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 09:46

Bristol-Myers Squibb has priced its ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy at $256,000 per year.

which means 45% of that cash spent is wasted ............ if that ratio of patient don't respond

if they have used the adjuvant dosage prior plus surgery and braf inhibitors the costs per patient is enormous ............

we already know in the adjuvant setting SCIB1 works really well as a stand alone Iscib1 should be even better

so what is the Value to any deal .... ? if T vec is valued at $65k a treatment and its not that good compared to SCIB1



this adjuvant area must be explored again in any deal scancell does ...

my own opinion is a partnership why

The statistics from 13 patients gave us a probability of 90% success with 47 patients

if we have the data from ISCIB1 that gives us 90 patients in total plus the original trial in the adjuvant setting

do the maths ............ what is the probability of success at phase 3 ?

I think we can address the entire melanoma market in time and for the industry a very long patent making this highly valuable

just remember the manufacturing cost is similar to an MRNA vaccine which sells for £40 per two dose ..... approx

[inanaco] 10/4/2024 09:19

some interesting numbers



In 2015, the FDA approved the first therapy combining two of these immunotherapies, ipilimumab and nivolumab, for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The FDA based its approval of the combination treatment on findings from a clinical trial that showed the regimen significantly shrank tumors in 60% of melanoma patients vs 11% of patients receiving ipilimumab alone. Additionally, the regimen reduced the risk of disease progression by nearly 60%.



Balancing Efficacy with Toxicity and High Costs

Pembrolizumab and nivolumab each have list prices of about $150,000 per year. Bristol-Myers Squibb has priced its ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy at $256,000 per year.

All of these treatment options are associated with different adverse events and, in some instances, considerable toxicity. A study presented by Neil T Mason, MD (H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL) and colleagues at the ASCO 2016 Annual Meeting used a model to estimate the total cost of treatment with ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, including the cost of managing toxicities. They showed that all three drugs had similar estimated costs of managing toxicities, with nivolumab estimated to be the most costly. Ipilimumab was estimated to cost the most per patient, driven by the cost of the drug. However, toxicities made up a much larger proportion of the cost of care for nivolumab and pembrolizumab.

In a study published in the American Journal of Managed Care, researchers led by Daniel A Goldstein, MD (Candlewood Women Health Center, Danbury, CT) estimated the monthly cost of different immunotherapies for advanced melanoma (2015;21:S234-S241). Their analysis estimated an average sale price of $44,919.60 per month per patient for ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks); $12,498.76 per month per patient for nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks); $47,697.10 per month per patient for nivolumab/ipilimumab (1 mg/kg every 3 weeks of nivolumab plus 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks of ipilimumab); and $991.32 or $74,934.88 per month per patient for pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, respectively).

Another study by Simon A Zeichner, DO (Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA) et al comparing the cost effectiveness of different immunotherapies for melanoma concluded that single-agent nivolumab or pembrolizumab, followed by ipilimumab, are the most cost-effective immunotherapy-based treatment strategies in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(suppl):abstr 6607).



Other immunotherapies

Aside from checkpoint inhibitors, cytokines, including alpha-interferon (IFN-alpha) and interleukin-2 (IL-2), are another type of immunotherapy that has been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Because generic versions of these treatments are available, they are much less costly than newer immunotherapies. However, these treatments are associated with lower response rates as well as a number of serious toxicities.

The oncolytic virus Imlygic (talimogene laherparepvec; Amgen), also known as T-VEC, is approved by the FDA to treat melanomas in the skin or lymph nodes that cannot be removed with surgery. The virus is injected directly into the tumors, typically every 2 weeks. This treatment can sometimes shrink these tumors, but it has not been shown to shrink tumors in other parts of the body. It is also not clear whether this treatment extends survival. Side effects can include flu-like symptoms and pain at the injection site. The makers of T-VEC have estimated the treatment will cost on average $65,000.

[marcusl2] 09/4/2024 22:45

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH ANNUAL MEETING
SCIB1 Vaccine May Synergize With Nivo-Ipi Against Melanoma
Bryant Furlow | April 9, 2024

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 14:57

another point ASCO

MARCH 11, 2024 at 12:00 PM ET
Late-breaking Submission Deadline (Abstract placeholder is required by the February 6 deadline)

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 14:32

I have to comment ....... scancell hopes to complete enrollment by q1

13 week scan = June ... 25 week scan = September

scancell have stated results q3

part one of 15 patients has completed we know of the 9 confirmed because of that 25 week confirmation which took part one into "success" and has been reported like all trials

scancell reported that


what they did not do was report at 8 patients or 9 patients

so what makes this "titan of industry" think they will and "before" the first scan

so when Milestones are reached scancell has updated the market





"""· SCOPE trial surpasses its first milestone with an 82% response rate""

To our knowledge no other combination has achieved this response rate with doublet checkpoint inhibitors in unresectable metastatic melanoma

and its continued to inform on this group

so WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE BELOW

Sci1029 Apr '24 - 12:27 - 339 of 339
0 0 0
I don't know but my gut feeling says no. It is not very likely they went below the target of 70%. I'm hoping instead that they are waiting for ASCO, as it is the most appropriate conference for significant announcements on clinical trial data. I just don't know why in the RNS for AACR they said "previously we presented...". Were they planning to announce at AACR and then changed their mind? Just poor wording? But around end of May if we don't have the data already or if they have not communicated that they are presenting at ASCO I'll have to think carefully about my investment here.

Edit: They might even have all required SCIB1 patients treated and scanned twice by end of May.

[marcusl2] 09/4/2024 14:24

Brad Loncar

@bradloncar
·
36m
Later this month, BiotechTV will be visiting London, Oxford, and Cambridge. If you are a local company that has news, or know of cool science that is happening in the area, reach out.

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 13:56

what it has done thou is focused the mind just how bad the market is at valuations

mentioned this before

got shot down

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 13:53

the same disadvantages would also apply to directors and staff share schemes

[bermudashorts] 09/4/2024 13:50

Inanaco,

I'm keeping my Redx stock because I don't need access to the cash and can afford to leave it there until it either comes good or fades into obscurity. They have a big name as CEO, deals in the bag and one of their drugs has already been taken through to FDA approval with Eli Lilly. So it has all the right ingredients to succeed and there's a chance that they'll IPO onto NASDAQ when the time is right or they'll get bought out for their ROCK inhibitor programmes. The alternative would have been to sell but by the time I'd have managed to get a trade through it just wouldn't have been worth it (to me). I'd rather take a punt and keep holding.

Having said all of that, once they delist there's a whole load of disadvantages which folk need to be fully aware of before they decide to hold.

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 13:43

i was trying to give examples regarding Scancell rather than being specific to C4x etc

[bermudashorts] 09/4/2024 13:42

Inanaco,

Your 7687 applies if a party/group is making an offer for a majority of stock and then delisting to run as a private company but that's not what's happening with Redx and C4X.

As for how to retain your shares, it very much depends on what each company is offering and your own broker.

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 13:38

are you going to retain them Bermuda in the private company in the hope that they IPO in the US ?

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 13:37

example here of retaining your shares and how its done

[bermudashorts] 09/4/2024 13:36

Inanaco,

No you can't hold stock in a private company in an ISA. My Redx stock will automatically be moved out of my ISA into my sharedealing account when they delist.

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 13:24

anyway before any of that happens .......

Ovarian cancer with modi1 needs an unapproved check point or two in this cancer

which of the majors are going to play with us ?

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 12:50

How Does Privatization Work?
Taking a public company private is relatively straightforward and typically involves fewer regulatory hurdles than private-to-public transitions.

A private group will tender an offer for a company's shares and stipulate the price it is willing to pay. Typically, it's a premium over the current market price. If a majority of voting shareholders accept, the bidder pays the consenting shareholders the purchase price for every share they own.

For example, if a shareholder owns 100 shares and the buyer offers $26 per share, the shareholder receives $2,600 for relinquishing their position and ownership in the company. This situation often favors shareholders due to the aforementioned premium.

[inanaco] 09/4/2024 12:41

Ref Bermuda on the LSE thread ... I am pretty sure you cannot hold scancell in an ISA and retain them if they go private and off the exchange

otherwise we would all have our private companies shielded

I am not sure how they would get around this

[sci102] 09/4/2024 12:27

I don't know but my gut feeling says no. It is not very likely they went below the target of 70%. I'm hoping instead that they are waiting for ASCO, as it is the most appropriate conference for significant announcements on clinical trial data. I just don't know why in the RNS for AACR they said "previously we presented...". Were they planning to announce at AACR and then changed their mind? Just poor wording? But around end of May if we don't have the data already or if they have not communicated that they are presenting at ASCO I'll have to think carefully about my investment here.

Edit: They might even have all required SCIB1 patients treated and scanned twice by end of May.

[willoicc] 09/4/2024 12:23

Maybe they do not update because there is no good news?