Fighting the beast withinby WMHB, Nov 18, 2023
Reading many of the posts this week from those well informed on these threads including but not limited to out1ander, Dave, tb, OvF and supertramp, one can quickly ascertain the value placed in Vaxinia’s recent results, by those who understand the science. For newbie investors lets be clear, at the minuscule doses imposed by the FDA as a condition to the initial cohorts dosed in both the current CF33 and Vaxinia(MAST) trials, no-one, in particular those monitoring and supervising the Vaxinia trial, were expecting signs of immune response at this early stage of the game. Hence the adulation felt by the drugs founder Professor Yuman Fong, together with the medical team at Imugene, when immune responses and disease stabilisation became apparent. The primary reason being, as cancer.gov notes, that treating metastatic cancer, especially when it has spread to several different locations in the body, is an enormous challenge. For all types of cancer, patients with metastatic tumors are often unresponsive to existing therapies, and achieving long-term remission in these patients is far less likely than it is for patients with localized cancer. That is just a given, but we don’t know why. It could possibly be due to the basic biology of metastatic tumors and the lack of treatments that target their biology. For example, the genetic characteristics of metastatic tumors may make them highly resistant to standard treatments. (See cancer.gov for more).
I guess prior to the Vaxinia Trial, despite his concerns relating to the oncolytic viruses toxicity in humans, Professor Fong may have felt somewhat confident his excellent pre - clinical results may have played out in humans, as researcher’s today are generating mice that have more human-like immune systems. But needless to say, giving mouse like doses of his virus to humans was never going to be enough as it were, given the state of late stage patients enrolling in his study, presenting with advanced cancer and immune suppression. So why have the in human results been so successful? In essence it has been the oncolytic viruses ability to halt the progression of cancer in these patients, through producing results known as disease stabilisation, as exemplified in 16 of the initial 25 patients tested. Stable disease is a medical term used to describe a tumor that is neither growing nor shrinking. Specifically, it means that there was neither an increase in size of more than 20% nor a decrease in size of more than 30% since the initial baseline measurement. Stable disease also means that no new tumors have developed and that cancer has not metastasized (spread) to other parts of the body. verywellhealth.com notes when discussing such a condition that Stable disease falls in the spectrum of treatment responses. And though people may be discouraged to hear that a tumor has not shrunk considerably, stable disease can sometimes be a good sign. For example, if a tumor was expected to grow and did not, stable disease may indicate that a therapy is, indeed, working. It goes without saying that if you present to hospital having failed on all treatment lines prior, at the pointy end in your cancer cycle, with multiple solid tumours present within your body, you would be more than grateful 2,3 or even 6 months down the track to find out your tumour(s) had not grown significantly in size, or for that matter spread.
Solid tumours are complicated beasts, hence the difficulty in treating them. Rosandra Kaplan, M.D. NCI Center for Cancer Research notes in her research how complex the interactions are between metastatic tumor cells and components of the tumor microenvironment. Kaplans research highlights the ability of cancer cells to change their phenotype, like an identify shift. We refer to this as cell plasticity, and cancer cells have remarkable plasticity. They take advantage of mechanisms that healthy cells use for development or wound healing, for example, and use them to adapt to their environment. This ability is essential for the tumor to successfully grow and spread.We also know that cells in the tumor microenvironment and in the pre-metastatic niche also have plasticity, and that, in some cases, their plasticity supports cancer growth. Hence the need to not only stimulate healthy cells in the body, but at the same attack the cancerous cells, in order to hinder if not destroy their eventual growth and progression. Recent results in the Vaxinia MAST Trial, wherein one patient has illustrated a complete response to treatment, another has exhibited a partial response, and a further 16 of 25 assessed have displayed signs of disease stabilisation, are therefore astonishing, taking all the aforementioned factors into consideration.
Therefore why is the share price not responding to such outstanding results? Surely the average investor can understand that at higher doses of the Vaxinia virus, the chances of stemming the growth of cancer in these patients is set to increase. If one Panadol does not eliminate your headache, take two. Surely most investors grasp the fundamentals behind the assumption that chances are Professor Fongs results are only going to get better, alongside higher and higher doses of Vaxinia. Maybe they fail to grasp such a notion. We have already seen how either ill informed or uneducated posters on these threads read the recent Vaxinia results as mathematically underwhelming. Of how the inherent lack of research undertaken by many is there for all to see. It could come back to the fact that although many are simply trading Imugene (IMU-ASX), a large proportion are newbie investors, who come, and indeed leave IMU, due to its low price point. nirmalbang.com may be onto something when they suggest low-priced stocks are generally more affordable to all newbies investors who just entered the stock market world.
The newbie investors prefer low-priced stocks to high-priced ones because they are easy to buy and manage. On the other hand, in the case of blue-chip stocks, there are certain restrictions on the entry of new investors. Many new investors do not have the opportunity to increase their investment in high-priced stocks because of their portfolio or any other major reason. Speaking to this point whilst many in the IMU investment community see consolidation as a negative, it could be suggested a share consolidation and much higher share price may reduce the incessant amount of back and forth trading on commsec and other platforms by individuals with no intention to either hold or invest in Imugene (IMU-ASX) long term.
Further reading of posts highlights other peoples views the shorting of IMU is contributing to ongoing share price devaluation. That indeed the excessive shares on offer through poorly constructed capital raises and share price plans has made it easier to acquire shares that can in turn be shorted. These factors may in of themselves be relevant, though I would take time to note that shorting figures are often reflective of protective measures adopted by a fund or institutions long holding or position in a stock. In other words its like taking out some insurance against the possibility of things not going to plan, ie., a trial failure. Either way some investors see opportunity in either shorting or selling IMU in between news cycles, as there would appear no sign of a product licensing agreement, sale or catalyst to propel the price upward. “The company has six weeks to go before the next Vaxinia results, Monil Shah doesn’t look like he can make anything happen on the commercial front, let’s sell IMU and put our money to work somewhere else for the next few months,” many may think.
Ceteris paribus, or all things being equal, in the context of Imugene’s overall value proposition, I hold my longstanding view Imugene (IMU-ASX) is largely undervalued when compared to comparable stocks in their space. Professor Fongs achievements with the drug Vaxinia have been incomparable in my opinion, as has Imugene’s ongoing prioritisation of this well crafted trial. Within months we shall visualise further trial results, and if current patient analysis is anything to go by, all auger’s well for patients either currently enrolled, or choosing to enrol in the Vaxinia (MAST) Trial, at higher dosage rates. For Professor Fong to have the courage to fight the complex beast that is solid tumour within cancer patients, to have the strength of mind to take on any type of cancer, is profound. And then at such late stages, at such low doses, to practically halt the wildebeest in its tracks, is bloody brilliant from where I sit.
GLTAH
DYOR Seek investment advice as and when required Opinions only
