Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[bermudashorts] 30/1/2018 17:23

Agema,

Of course criteria can be as wide or narrow as required but it can't be randomised! Big pharma want inclusion criteria that reflects the intention to treat patient population and beyond that it's the science that drives the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Scancell included both stage III and stage IV melanoma patients, right up to stage M1c in their trial. Bristol-Myers Squibb's Yervoy trial in the adjuvant setting restricted recruitment to just stage III melanoma so am not sure why you think Scancell had narrow selction criteria.

[tosh 123] 30/1/2018 17:13

Another pearl of wisdom from the " former " millionaire, GF123... He has lost an absolute fortune on this, if we're to believe all his tales !

I quote ... " Yes we know. But at 10p a share when will mr market understand? "

The market understands plenty GF, in fact it understands a lot more than you do.
The risks here are considerable, and they increase everyday when a deal isn't done, and therefore, funding isn't sorted.
Its very basic stuff... Risk vs Reward, and at the moment, risk is winning by a country mile.
Get funding in place, and mitigate the risk, then just watch the market come flooding back and invest.
Until the funding is sorted, the only real certainty, is that we will need to raise even more money later this year, otherwise, the lights will go out, or theres a fire sale for one or more of the platforms... its that simple !

[agema] 30/1/2018 16:04

Bermudashorts

The criteria for patient trial selection can be as wide or narrow as you wish. You set the criteria. Big Pharm wants a wider and more varied criteria.

[bermudashorts] 30/1/2018 15:26

agema

I just don't know what you mean by a 'more randomised criteria selection' - You can't have randomised selection criteria of patients in clinical trials. To my knowledge RG has never said anything like that and I wonder whether you may have misunderstood something that has been said in the past?

[agema] 30/1/2018 13:33

Bermudashorts

A more randomized patient criteria selection could have taken place. I remember RG giving two reasons why Big Pharma were reluctant to take matters further. Trial size and a more randomized patient criteria selection was given. The very two issues they are now trying to correct.

[bermudashorts] 30/1/2018 13:23

Agema,

Sorry, I have edited my previous post.

They couldn't, shouldn't and wouldn't have run the existing trial as a randomised study. That trial did exactly what it was meant to do - established the dose, safety and objective clinical responses. The great shame is that Scancell didn't have the funds to follow on quickly with a larger, randomised study.

So whilst I completely agree that a randomised trial in larger nos. is needed, I don't agree that the existing trial could or should have been run on that basis.

[agema] 30/1/2018 13:17

Bermudashorts

Yes of course. You are correct. As I said. The trial was too small and not Randomised. But I appreciate it was all Scancell could afford at the time.

But we are rather at square one again. Having to prove results in a fresh trial with much larger numbers and more randomised allocation of patients.

Great time delays again. More funding needed for day to day costs again. Hence the continued share price fall.

[tosh 123] 30/1/2018 13:12

Agema,
agreed, more money to keep the lights on will indeed create even further dilution later this year, so another £4mill odd will be raised by someone !

[bermudashorts] 30/1/2018 13:11

Agema,

I assume you are talking about standard randomised versus open-label trials and you mean randomised allocation of patients, not selection. No way should the SCIB1 phase I/II have been randomised - it was a dose escalation and safety study. Apart from anything else, from an ethical point of view, I don't think any of the regulators would allow a dose escalation to be randomised.

Randomised trials require much larger patient numbers and are the logical follow-on from a single arm phase I/IIa. It's the next step for SCIB1.

[agema] 30/1/2018 13:07

Tosh

I love the other bb. I can pull their chains by not even being on it. Lol.

[agema] 30/1/2018 13:04

Tosh

They are struggling to get the full funding they need.

More delays.

More dilution certain. Cash will be needed later in the year at the latest.

The share price will fall. Correct.

[tosh 123] 30/1/2018 12:50

There appears to be a bit of consternation and surprise over on the other place, that the share price has dropped another 5% on the back of the interims... I'm really not sure why though, although no bad news was contained in the release, what it did do was to reinforce the fact that we can pretty much forget about this share for about 2 years, so, in the eyes of most investors, its better to put their money elsewhere, and take another look in about 18 months.
The share price is stagnant, and will , I have no doubts, drop back into single figures, as foretold in numerous posts many months ago.
The BOD are pretty much stuck at the moment unless a deal is done...unfortunately.

£6 in a few months ! Pah, what a cretin.

[agema] 30/1/2018 12:45

Patient selection for clinical trials are either randomized or selected. Randomized carries the greater risk. But offers The truer reading. Selected still leaves doubts, even if a trial appears successful. Especially in smaller trials.

[the real lozan] 30/1/2018 12:44

Am I right in thinking - The whole 'sector' seems to 'have gone off the boil' ???
Or
Was this/it 'over-HYPED' in the first place ???

[kreature] 30/1/2018 11:57

Still 10 times overvalued imo. I’m a buyer at 1p for the extremely long term potential

[bermudashorts] 30/1/2018 11:43

Agema,

Genuine question here. What do you mean by " the trial candidates were not randomly selected" ?

[oldnotwise] 30/1/2018 10:20

Loz
Hehe
:-)
ATB

[agema] 30/1/2018 10:13

rhatton

The trials were a bit small in size but the real drawback I Believe was that the trial candidates were not randomly selected. This kind of thing can distort results in a very small trial.

Funding is now the key.The share price hangs on it.

[oldnotwise] 30/1/2018 10:12

rHatton
Well I hope not, but who knows? I want this up around the 100p/sh + mark :-)
But who knows ? Hehe
ATB

[rhatton] 30/1/2018 10:02

ONW, fair comments. Sub 10p looking possible now.