Ann: CHECKVacc Data Presented at the 2022 SABC Symposium, page-134

Hi @coeusthinks

Thank you for post, it seems you have given some thought to what IMU are attempting with the Phase 1 CHECKvacc trial.

Having said that, I am confused with a couple of your points.

You state – “I do find it strange that Imugene targeted metastatic triple negative breast cancer.”

Why exactly is that? Is it that TNBC is so challenging to treat?

Obviously, Imugene would want to target a cancer that doesn’t currently have a successful treatment. It doesn’t make sense, at least to me, to go for a cancer where there are already strong treatments. There is no ‘market’ left for IMU, if Big Pharma already ‘has it covered’.

You also state that “Metastatic disease is extremely difficult to treat”.

Well, I would have to agree with you on that one. Again, this makes is a good target for a biotech like IMU, one that has such an impressive and innovative IP suite.

You go on to say “the responses or lack therefore in CheckVacc (kind of) don't surprise me”.

I’m not sure what ‘response level’ you were expecting to see in the first 6 patients, who by the way, are on such a low dose it is amazing that a response, other safety, was seen at all. Four of the six patients showed ‘enhancement’ (ie. replication) of hNIS. A fifth patient showed ‘significant enhancement’ ... at low, low dosing.

They even saw ‘immune activation’, again, at very, very low dose.

If you are suggesting that nodal disease is not a sign of the metastatic process then I am confused, as it is clearly a sign that the lymph nodes have been infected by cancer from elsewhere in the body (ie. metastatic). Perhaps you are only considering such, if it only spreads to the skin. I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you.

Perhaps the point you are trying to make revolves around the challenges of metastatic cancer, and I think everyone on these threads would agree with that, but this is the whole point of the IMU trial isn’t it? Imugene is looking to beat a cancer that no other team has been able to treat successfully.

As you say, you are “neutral at the moment”, which is of course is fine. Many would say it is the most sensible view to hold, certainly at such an early stage of the trial.

But for me, the results are already staggering, particularly on such a low dose. I can’t wait to see what comes with further cohorts and dose escalation. With any luck, we will have less people thinking ‘neutral’ and more thinking ‘WOW’!

Thank you again for your comments – it did get me thinking.