Media Thread, page-17976

I am not a doctor or oncologist. As a tax accountant and biotech investor without a medical or oncology background, I’ve reviewed the poster titled "Treatment of Cholangiocarcinoma with the Oncolytic Virus C33-his" from Imugene’s trial. Below are my observations based on the limited information provided, my logical thinking and limited understanding of the biotech industry. Given my lack of expertise in oncology, these points may contain inaccuracies or biases and should be interpreted with caution.

1.Phase 1 Dose Escalation Results
The trial is in Phase 1, focusing on dose escalation. The results appear acceptable but not particularly striking. They seem to align with or slightly improve upon the current standard of care, suggesting that CF33 is functional but may not be meeting the high expectations set for it as a novel oncolytic virus therapy.

2. Combination with Pembrolizumab (Pembro)
The combination of CF33 with pembrolizumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor) does not appear to deliver the anticipated efficacy. The absence of updates on dose escalation for either intravenous (IV) or intratumoral (IT) administration with this combination could indicate underwhelming progress. This might explain the company’s shift toward exploring IV administration with an alternative regimen, such as FOLFOX (a chemotherapy combination).

3. IV vs. IT Administration
The intravenous (IV) delivery of CF33 seems less effective than hoped, which could be why the company has opted for intratumoral (IT) administration in the Cholangiocarcinoma expansion study. This pivot might reflect a strategic focus on optimizing efficacy through direct tumor targeting rather than systemic delivery.

4. Toxicity Profile
The toxicity profile of CF33 remains favorable, which is a positive aspect of the trial. This suggests the therapy is generally well-tolerated, a key factor for advancing through clinical stages.

5. Prospects for Registrational Trial
Unless the ongoing expansion study yields exceptional results, it seems less likely that the Phase 1 (or Phase 1b) data alone will support approval for a registrational trial. The current outcomes do not appear robust enough to justify immediate progression to a pivotal study.

6. Company Focus and Budget Constraints
Given Imugene’s limited budget and the time invested in the Cholangiocarcinoma trial, the company appears committed to this indication. There seems to be an effort to explore whether OnCarlytics could outperform CF33-his monotherapy, indicating a strategic shift or diversification within their oncology pipeline.

7. Expansion to Other Indications
With constrained resources and the trial results to date, it may be challenging for Imugene to initiate expansion studies for additional cancer indications in the near term. The company might need stronger data or more funding to justify branching out.

8. Lack of Public Announcement
The trial results are not bad but not impressive enough to warrant a public announcement, especially in the context of a volatile stock market and Imugene’s share price hitting a 52-week low. The decision to withhold updates could be an attempt to avoid further depressing the stock price.

9. Strategic Recommendations
If I were part of Imugene’s management, I would prioritize Azer-cel (their allogeneic CAR-T therapy) as the primary focus, followed by OnCarlytics. Azer-cel seems to hold the most promise for delivering near-term value and boosting investor confidence, while OnCarlytics could serve as a longer-term growth driver.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the science and genuinely hope Imugene succeeds in oncology. However, as an investor, I must confront the realities of the data and the company’s current position.