Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[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

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 18:08

you say that ... but second scan could be the trigger to expand to a phase 3

i will explain why

in the patients interest on the control arm at week 10 they could be left behind (reviewed 60% approx. had achieved PR with vaccine )

you may find they require more time to achieve PR to the same level

the checkpoints are reinvigorating t cells ...

scancell is adding fresh High avidity as well

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 18:03

Re. If it is double blinded, if necessary Scancell will schedule interim reviews at certain trigger points. So for example if they feel that after 50 patients have been dosed on each arm of the trial they will be able to assess with accuracy the likelihood of success they can schedule an interim review after the first 100 patients have been dosed. It would obviously be easier and more exciting for shareholders if it was open label but if not, it really doesn't matter.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 18:01

No bermuda

its based on achieving 85% in 43 then having that data you can scale again

show me any post that i have said 13 scaled to 200

the scale was 47 to 200

should be 43 my error ... but does not affect the principle

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 17:57

as for saying things i have not said

the posts are very clear on this Bermuda ... you did

i will leave it there ...

my advice to u don't do it read my posts very carefully and if your not sure ask don't surmise a meaning

ATB

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 17:55

Inanaco,

This whole 13 patients thing. The point is you are using Scancell's probability of success of 90% and that was based on data from 13 patients so all of your predictions although calculated at different stages are based on the results of those 13 patients.

Do you accept now that you did project through an 85% response rate in 43 (47) patients?

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 17:54

i will wait to see what they can do ... scancell ref blinded etc

but if the doublet control requires 1 year for ORR ..... to be seen

things will get very interesting quickly

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 17:45

Your 8102

Sorry, should be clear - I'm not suggesting for one moment Scancell will have to run two phase III trials. Just using the fact that the FDA until very recently used to insist upon it to highlight how results between trials can vary. It's great that Scancell are confident the FDA will accept one adaptive phase II/III.

Finally, just wanted to clear up one other point. I don't know whether the forthcoming trial will be double blind - it may or it may not. You'll notice that Moderna's phase III is but their phase II wasn't. What I do know is that Scancell will design the trial that is most likely to satisfy the regulators and lead to approval. If that's double blinded then it's really not a problem and won't involve this vast additional expense that you seem to think.