I would just add to this the comment that the research staff who initiated this - the actual
people behind the study - are senior academic researchers.
Dr Tony Dhillon from the University of Surrey. You can read about him here:
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/people/tony-dhillonNote that his research interests are in liver cancer. On another site it specifically mentions Biliary Cancer as part of that - so I'm sure he will also be following the MAST trial closely. His other research is around "resistance mechanisms to ant-cancer treatments" and "Biomarkers."
The other "Chief Investigator" is Australia's own Prof Tim Price. Prof Tim is about as high profile as you can get in research and academia. You can read Prof Tim's profile here: https://www.aoah.com.au/meet-our-team/prof-tim-price#:~:text=About%20Professor%20Tim%20Price&text=He%20is%20a%20Clinical%20Professor,postgraduate%20education%20and%20clinical%20research.
I am not from the University sector myself, but I have known quite a few people who are. Success in academic research requires a lot of intelligence - and over time it all becomes closely tied up with career achievements and professional reputation. These guys will not be shooting in the dark or just grabbing at anything they see which "might" be useful. They don't have a commercial investment in PD1-vaxx, but this study
will represent a very large investment of something
far more precious for them - research time and research resources. Research time and resources are always limited and in high demand. There will be many many many potential projects competing for their time - and they have chosen PD1-vaxx to invest it in. The researchers approached IMU - not the other way round.
That tells me a lot.
The other huge investment will be their professional reputations. Sure - you can't always "pick a winner" in academic research - but you don't want to appear foolish. They will have looked very hard at the whole B-cell vaccine technology - including the results for PD1-vaxx and Her-vaxx to date. Prof Tim in particular has huge knowledge of gastro-intestinal cancer and treatment; he is the Chair of the NHMRC Guidelines Committee for Colorectal Cancer.
And they have chosen PD1-vaxx...... That tells me a lot too.
So - when you ask "what is the incentive for the funder?" there is more than one answer. If by "Funder" you mean the actual organisations involved - then the answer is "better treatments for cancer." It also means "Enhanced organisational reputation" and that brings with it "ability to attract even more funding and become a larger and more high profile organisation."
If you look at the actual
people involved - then I'm sure better treatments for cancer" is still a very large part of the answer, but along with that comes:
- personal excitement and satisfaction
- enhancement of professional reputation
- expansion of career achievements
- enhanced ability attract funding and resources
- pathways to future career opportunities
So all of this makes me very excited myself about the NeoPOLEM study.
I'm also excited because the NeoPOLEM study will be administering PD1-vaxx
beforesurgery (this is what they mean when they say it is "Neo-adjuvant") - so this time (for the first time) we are seeing a B cell vaccine used in patients who have not already had their immune system beaten up by several other courses of prior therapy. That is huge for IMU, and for the patients, because it definitely increases the likelihood of success. The B-cell vaccines can only work if the patient has a reasonably well functioning immune system that can respond to the vaccine.
The study will investigate patient response rates and overall survival data - to find out what percentage of patients have their cancer stabilise, shrink significantly or (hopefully) disappear, and the effect on patient survival - but they are also studying the "pathological response rate." This will be another first for the B-cell vaccines!
The patient "response rate" data we have been seeing from other IMU trials has been all about measuring tumours in the patient's body - using scanning technology. Tumour size is measured, and scans can give some indication of tumour consistency, but a scan can't tell you exactly what is happening in those cancer cells.
The
pathological response rate involves directly examining cancer tissue in the lab, after the cancer has been surgically removed from the patient. This will give the researchers (and IMU) a far better idea of what is actually happening with the cancer. In a perfect outcome we will see "Pathological complete response" with zero living cancer cells in the removed tissue.
Anyway - time will tell, and nothing is certain, but two very intelligent and highly experienced senior researchers, who have no vested interest in Imugene, are investing a large amount of their highly precious time, research resources and reputation into the Neo-POLEM study of PD1-vaxx.
People say "follow the money" and Leslie Chong loves to say "follow the science" - but I say "follow the brains."
Cheers
Dave
(20min delay)