You sure know how to make a complex subject more complex for a baby yoda! Lol Its clearly not complex to you!
Definitely, the so-called "elephant in the room" for both conventional and immunotherpy treatment for cancer is solid tumors. That is why (perhaps) the FDA is focused on targeted therapies. Those immunotherapies, such as the checkpoint-inhibitors that we see in combo-trials that are owned by the likes of Merck, Brisot-Meyer, etc seem to get all the attention. But, as mentioned in the recent discussion panel that Dan Shelly was part of, the FDA are watching the space of targeted therapies.
Where my thoughts don't align 100% with yours is with regards to CellPryme-A. I'm still inclined to think that CP-A could be specific to the "Activation" stage of the manufacturing process - a non-viral vector form of transduction. And, where the "various platform extensions" come into play under the CarT OmniCAR and CP platforms is with our Thermo Fisher partnership (and that's where "Augmentation" could play a big role).
Augmentation could even be the Expansion stage of the process. But that, to me, is not earth-shattering enough! Lol.
I get the impression now (thanks to your insightful post) that the augmentation part relates to Thermo FIsher's role in applying our CellPryme IP to, not just an OmniCAR system of instrumentation, but several software and hardware systems. One specific to the treatment of non-solid tumors (the basic system) and another for the treatment of solid tumors, whereby not just T-cells are manufactured but NK-cells and Macrophages are also manufactured. Whether that means one hardware system of instruments with different software applications or a modularised hardware system where different machines can be incorporated into the basic OmniCAR system of machinery along with the applicable software, its hard to say.
I came across this article (among others) which highlights the difference between the innate and adaptive immune system: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279396/Natural killer cells: Searching for changed body cells
The natural killer cells are the third major part of the innate immune system. They specialize in identifying cells that are infected by a virus or that have become tumorous. To do this, they search for cells that have changes in their surface, and then destroy the cell surface using cell toxins.
So, yeah, solid tumors is a different ball game that is slowly becoming less alusive to tackle as your articles suggest. What we do know is that we have a barage of world-renowned expertise behind our techonolgy and a Science Advisory Board based on the best expertise out there. And, now we have TFS partnering with us to make our IP even more tangible... and make it a physical reality.
Its incredible how, all of a sudden, OmniCAR (the potential "Universal Fix for Immunotherapy") is now beginning to materialise beyond just a concept, just a dream.... beyond the lab, heading into clinical trials and into the application design/s. The $8 mil CR is so worth it!
The way SYC is steering this ship is quite remarkable. Going after the lowest hanging fruit is smart when it comes to clinical trials. Get early score on the board (proof of concept) for the least amount of time and money. Let the mob fight it out in the most competitive areas of oncology (ie in the treatment of the most prevalent form of cancers) whilst we focus our resources on the lowest SOC where we can derive Govt support, aim to get a monotherpy to market or be chosen as a suitable combo therapy by Big Pharma... whilst we focus on the most important, most significant aspect of our pipeline (at this stage), our CarT therapy platforms.
Getting back to solid tumors with respect to CellPryme and OmniCAR, yes, you are right to investigate CP-A in context of this, @hottod. I'm sure you know why exactly why PTX recruited the likes of DR Donald O'Rourke (designated as one of America's Top Doctors and Top Doctors for Cancer by Castle Connolly and by US News & World Report) to our SAB... and why he chose to accept the position. Its easy to forget that we are carrying out much R&D in the space of solid tumors. We are likely to get results more readily and cheaper going after blood cancers than solid tumors, and that will assist us to get funding and collaborations needed to tackle the tougher beast, solid tumors. Its clear that we are progressing extremely well in the background - in the pre-clinical and corporate developments and that this is only the beginning.
Thanks, hottod, for posting your deep dive DD. Its much appreciated. I find I gain a better grasp of this stuff if I thrash it on the keyboard than just read. A lot of it is just thrashing out thoughts that I would otherwise grapple with, give up on and then become detached from. I don't know if that makes much sense but there is a need for me to remain engaged, I guess, especially when I have so much money on the line.
