Media Thread, page-15720

Hi @Ragnarolf

I noted your comments around the MAST study and your view that it now has little to offer anymore. I would respectfully disagree on several grounds.

You note: I have held concerns that CF33 in the MAST trial thus far hasn't performed how we would have hoped (to be a treatment of all solid tumours).

I would suggest that its purpose, or role, was not to be a treatment of all solid tumours ... although that would be something wouldn’t it? The MAST study was/is something else.

I have stated a number of times that I believe it is performing as a ‘sandbox trial’, where the team can, ‘almost freely’ (there are limits), experiment with a wide range of variables. These may include, but are certainly not limited to ... dosing levels, cancer type, patient type, combos eg. with a CAR-T, possible issues with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), the monitoring of pseudoprogression related to immunotherapy and so on. I am only scratching the surface here.

The fact that the team welcomed any solid cancer type, has enabled the identification of ‘expansion trials’, for example cholangiocarcinoma, and others that may soon to be formally announced.

The hugely valuable MAST trial is ongoing, and I expect will continue for some time. It is still chasing what seems to be the illusive Optimum Biological Dose, even raised by Prof Fong in his recent video. We are currently sitting at 3X10⁸ in mono and 1X10⁸ in combo with Pembro so it seems they will use MAST to stretch this further.

Personally, I hope that the team continues to enrol further cohorts. The ‘golden goose’ may be revealed at any time. I do agree though, that it’s ‘onwards and upwards for onCARlytics and azer-cel’ as do many here on these threads. The future is both exciting and I hope profitable.

Again, just the opinion of one poster.