Ann: CAN-003 INTERIM ANALYSIS PRESENTATION , page-22

Evaluating immunologic response is pretty tricky – because you want to see both a consistent effect across individuals (everyone has a response) but then also consistent across time (eg starts low and goes higher).

The second element which wasn’t presented is the correlation between improved immunologic response and your outcome. That is did those showing a response actually have better outcomes.

Just eyeballing this – the SOC group data looks pretty clean – indicating all the testing seems to be going well. Don’t expect this to move much and it didn’t. The Cvac group on the other hand is moving all around the shop – both pre and post stimulated (shown by the large se bars). And its not behaving that well over time – the effect is getting bigger and smaller across visits.

Don’t know quite what to make of it. On the plus side I think it does it show that for at least some people something does appear to be happening – which is better than nothing.

Usually immunologic response is tested in early phase studies to help with dosing – so maybe something might be useful might be gained in that area – and maybe this will help explain the variability here. And with a larger N the picture might clarify.

Other than that the presentation looked a bit rushed to me – a few points were just badly expressed. For example:
“In SOC patients who are not treated with Cvac showed a low level of T cell activity in some time”

Well none of the SOC patients received Cvac. And “in some time” I think means at some time points but not others.

Neither ramping or down ramping this thing – to be honest you would need to have a pretty good feel for data in this specific area to be able to say whether these early results were good or bad imo.

The company or the asx didnt think the presentation was price sensitive - which tends to make you think things are just bubbling along in the right direction as they should be.

GLTH