Yes, no place for being "vague", Dalts. Lol
Thanks for following up with your view.... because it makes me want to delve into PTX's history with 200 since it sure is interesting. As you have highlighted, PTX200 has not (thus far) been trialed as a monotherapy. It has been combined with chemo for particular types of ovarian and breast cancer and AML where patients have no other therapies available to them other than chemo (the SOC) presently. My understanding is that side effects did arise in the ovarian and breast cancer trials but were possibly due to that particular chemo drug and PTX200 interacting adversely due to the close cycle of dosing. The trial for AML was designed differently whereby the interval between chemo and 200 administration was optimised... effectively ensuring maximal safety.
The following is an article written at the time that PTX200 for HER2-negative breast cancer concluded:-
https://disallowed link/articles/ptx-breast-cancer-trial-results-exceed-industry-expectations/And, the following is an exceprt from an article about the PTX200 in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer:-
Clinical options
Prescient chief executive officer Steven Yatomi-Clarke said there are currently very few clinical options for patients who become resistant to carboplatin.
“At this stage of disease, there are few options for these patients … [there is] a severe gap in the market for new drugs for these sort of cancers,” he said.
“Overcoming platinum resistance would be a huge development in the field of ovarian cancer, and PTX-200 is showing early promise as a candidate for achieving this objective.”
It is known that abnormally-high levels of protein kinase B (or Akt) can contribute to a cancer patient’s platinum resistance.
“Our study is attempting to inhibit Akt, and thereby re-sensitise these patients to platinum therapies, effectively reversing and overcoming resistance of the tumour to chemotherapy,” Mr Yatomi-Clarke said.
“To see disease control at an early stage of the study is encouraging, especially given that we are yet to reach what we believe to be an optimal dose of PTX-200.”
Prescient will seek to continue studying PTX-200 in ovarian cancer within Australia or as an investigator-sponsored study backed by non-dilutive funding.
Perhaps the last statement is the short (less vague) answer from the horse's mouth to
@Wasabibarako's question "Why farm-out PTX200?"
I reckon Steven knows precisely what he is doing. Use the assets we have for max ROI. The fact they we have created our CellPryme Adjuvant from PTX200, proven the molecule's mechanism of action in trials and established it can work in combination with SOC to extend patient's lives, lets put it out there for a chemo-pharma co to develop it further. They may choose to develop it further in any or all three indications I don't think we need the financial burden of developing it further. We have a multi-weaponised trial against AML coming up this year that will likely incorporate CP-A (200 in camouflague) anyway. The focus needs to be on PTX100 and OmniCAR. CellPryme just needs marketing (and not much else now).
Thanks, Wasa, btw for complimenting me on my previous post... I'm having to keep up with the Joneses here!
To wait avail, I really don't know! Keeping myself informed at least.
