Tony van Reijn

@tom_the_bomb__ Asking a question(s) to avoid confirmation bias Was the enrollment question not always in the plan? Can we know? Could it be that current 2 sites are just not recruiting enough patients so the's need to expand? Meaning P1 not progressing quick enough?

A new site has been opened for the #AVCT AVA6103 trial. When you already have ~7 weeks of clinical data, expanding site activity is a VERY positive sign. For P1A, that’s what you’d expect if: 1. Activation timelines are progressing properly. 2. Enrolment is expanding. 3. They're prepping to move through escalation cohorts efficiently. A HUGE update just before the weekend 👌 clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07454…

AI: Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit.

@JFK8 What is the technical chart difference between “fair value” versus “support”

#AVCT the market has moved from a balanced VWAP range into a lower re-priced value area, with 0.882 is now acting as the new “fair value” level rather than support.

@BigBiteNow @Decscfc1990 What strikes me, 'upon the earlier of (i) the date of AVA6000 publication in TNBC and (ii) 30 June 2026, the Bondholder will have the right to accelerate the satisfaction'. Correct me if I'm wrong, as of today May 13th, neither has been met?

The original #AVCT convertible bond agreement places no limit on the amount convertible. So they could have converted more than £1.2m if they wished. At a 6.5% intererst rate and a 75p strike price, one could argue that converting at +10-15% is a sensible call. The following text is from the 29th Aug 2025 "Amendments to Convertible Bond" RNS. "Upon the earlier of (i) the date on which the Company publishes the data readouts of its Phase 1b trials of FAP-Dox (AVA6000) in triple negative breast cancer and (ii) 30 June 2026, the Bondholder will have the right to accelerate the satisfaction (in cash or shares) of one of both the Deferred Repayments and in addition, from 1 October 2026, at any time accelerate the satisfaction of the quarterly repayments on the Convertible Bond, subject to a maximum of one acceleration per quarter." It is fascinating that the much-talked-about 30th June 2026 date for the Phase 1b trial readout was included as far back as August 2025. The acceleration of Deferred Repayments post that read out also gets the mind wondering why.

This #AVCT share conversion (which I assume has been sold down) potentially acts as a temporary drag on the share price, but as things stand, that is all it is. It also gradually removes the debt burden, which is no bad thing. The conversion price was always known, so it is not new news. I remain convinced that the pending data drop on AVA6000, plus the growing time served by AVA6103, will be the biggest driver, so temporary is the keyword here. londonstockexchange.com/news-article/A…

@bloodstockstats @Gemmapr21951797 To be honest, last year the results for FY24 were presented June 6th. So yes, we are earlier this year plus they are unaudited. Would love to read more into this, but might be wishful thinking

@Gemmapr21951797 An interim results presentation is novel I think and results quicker than last year when delayed. The total voting rights figure adds up which it often didn't pre-Brian. Good job Brian. Heights were obviously selling ahead of this so unlikely to be a drag on share price. #AVCT

#avct someone help me out, do we think these RNS’ s this morning are good?!

Did #Anthropic just wipe out the entire #secondary market? Or at least destroy private investor confidence in the platforms (#Hiive, #Forge, #UpMarket) by declaring all transactions via these platforms as void?

@tom_the_bomb__ Which scale up are you referring to @tom_the_bom

A huge planned scale up in 2027.

#AVCT ⏰ 👀

@jivetur88775834 Can't disagree. But analyzing this, at face value and in between the lines, is fun. But the strategy doesn't disclose what's going on in the BD team obviously

@Anthony__VR To play devil's advocate, you may be reading too much into this. The 2026-2030 is extremely near term. A company wouldn't include a technology to form a significant part of their income in this time window that isn't already in house and nearly fully developed.

1/ Daiichi Sankyo just unveiled its 2026-2030 plan. $14.7bn oncology revenue by 2030. 20 indications, 5 medicines. Mostly built on existing DXd assets. Read carefully for the FAP-PDC implications. #AVCT

10/ All for discussion & entertainment purposes, as wait for more data and can speculate who takes home #AVCT's awesome platform and assets.

9/ Net: Daiichi's plan doesn't kill the Avacta thesis. It reshuffles partner probabilities, Merck as the more likely buyer, and tells you urgency beats headline-value-optimization. The bidder we might have hoped would be loudest is choosing a different breakthrough class.

8/ Strategic message for Avacta: run faster. The Daiichi BGT framework locks in. Merck's internal ADC chemistry advances each quarter. CC is pushing, we know that!

7/ Who rises if Daiichi falls? Merck. Patent cliff (Keytruda 2028), published exatecan ADC chemistry, stated oncology expansion ambition.

6/ The lung cancer angle is the one tactical opening. Daiichi plans 10+ lung indications by 2030. AVA6103 is enrolling in SCLC. If Phase 1 data delivers, tactical SCLC acquisition by Daiichi window opens

5/ Steelman the bull case: 20 indications across 5 medicines is tight. Miss 2-3, target slips. That creates in-licensing pressure. AVA6000 at mature SGC stage could fit. And Daiichi's R&D head explicitly emphasized biomarker patient selection, which is what FAP enables.

4/ Trying to read into this, for the sake of argumentation. For the AVCT-Daiichi deal thesis this is negative. Daiichi as the specific lead bidder, probability should decrease. The bidder some hoped would be loudest is going to be quieter than expected.

3/ That omission is not accidental. Documents of this weight don't accidentally leave out adjacent technologies. Daiichi's internal view: DXd plus biomarker selection captures the payload-delivery opportunity adequately. They don't need a FAP-PDC platform.

2/ The new framework is "Breakthrough Generating Technologies." Daiichi explicitly names three: multi-specific antibodies, targeted protein degradation, siRNA. Conspicuous absence: PDCs, FAP-targeting, alternative payload delivery.

@tom_the_bomb__ Got it, thanks!

@tom_the_bomb__ Why are we not mentioned? Neither in pre-clinical or clinical data examples? Any clue?

Independent peer reviewed (University of Copenhagen) review published last week confirming FAP is expressed across ~90% of epithelial cancers at 10-100x normal tissue levels. sciencedirect.com/science/articl… FAP as a target independently validated. #AVCT