Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Really? I can copy and paste on an I -phone. We would like to read it.
200,000 in the first 3 min!
I will too.
I don't see that anywhere.
This is an article that looks like it was published today by our very own Adil Daud, MD. It would be nice if someone with the ability to copy and paste the whole article would do so. This is the abstract:
Combinatorial approach to treatment of melanoma.
Ashworth MT1, Daud AI2.
Author information
Abstract
There are multiple effective and well-tolerated systemic therapy treatments for the treatment of advanced melanoma, as well as new immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents in clinical trials. Traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted BRAF inhibitors can increase antigen presentation and can rebalance the intratumoral immune milieu. The combination of pulsed cytotoxic therapy and immunotherapy is a logical next step in designing treatment regimens. Combination radiotherapy and immunotherapy also has experimental and clinical support. The standard of care for patients with advanced melanoma remains participation in clinical trials in order to enhance understanding of the effectiveness and toxicities of combination regimens.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
BRAF; Combination therapy; Immunotherapy; Melanoma; Mitogen-activated extracellular kinase; Targeted therapy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24880950
I would if I could.
I wish I had more money to spend right now. These prices are a gift.
I agree. There is something big brewing. It just doesn't make since to not announce data supporting your entire business plan unless you just can't. We will see. As punit has tweeted several times and Patrick confirmed for me on the phone: 2014 is on schedule. If that is true, they literally are going to hit it out if the park. "Stay tuned ."
At this point, who knows. I think when we find out though, its going to be really good.
Another one from patent man:
Family number: 32382376 (Priority: 1997 – 2001; Claims Expiring: 2017 – 2021; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US6516223, US7412284, US6014584, US6055453, US6068650, US6181964, US6233482, US6241701
Claims related to:
An electroporation therapy apparatus.
A method, system, electrode applicator, for automatically setting an electrode needle addressing scheme for an electroporation therapy apparatus.
A method, system, electrode applicator for automatically setting electrical treatment parameters for an electroporation therapy apparatus.
An electrode applicator for automatically setting needle array type parameters for an electroporation therapy apparatus.
An electrode applicator for providing applicator specific parameters for an electroporation therapy apparatus.
A method for selectively applying a plurality of electrode needle configurations.
A laparoscopic needle applicator for electroporation therapy.
A method for the therapeutic application of electroporation to a tissue.
A method for the in vivo electroporation therapy of a cell.
An electroporation device.
An electrode applicator device.
A method for the introduction of an agent into cells of a tissue using needle electrodes.
I might be able to re-post your sticky if you send it to me. It was quite good.
A few more patents to the list:
Family number: 29433528 (Priority: 1998 – 1999; Claims Expiring: 2018 – 2019; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US6009347, US6120493, US6208893
Claims related to:
An electrode template apparatus.
A needle electrode template apparatus.
A method for the introduction of an agent to a neoplastic cell for damaging the cell.
A method for the introduction of an agent to a tissue for damaging a cell in the tissue.
An electrode template apparatus for use in electroporation.
A needle electrode template apparatus for use in electroporation.
Family number: 28172047 (Priority: 1998 – 2001; Claims Expiring: 2018 – 2021; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US6347247, US6865416
Claims related to:
A method for inducing or increasing vasodilation of a vessel using electrical impulse.
A method far increasing flow of a fluid medium through a vessel using electrodes.
Family number: 32381517 (Priority: 1993 – 2002; Claims Expiring: 2013 – 2022; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US5439440, US5702359, US5810762 , US5993434, US6418341, US6451002, US6569149, US6567694, US6763264
Claims related to:
An apparatus and method for the therapeutic application of electroporation.
An electrode apparatus for the application of electric fields.
A method for the application of electric fields
A needle electrode assembly of needle electrodes for the application of electric fields.
A method for the in vivo electroporation-mediated therapy of a cell.
A method for in vivo delivery of a recombinant expression vector into cells using electrodes.
A method for in vivo delivery of a pharmaceutical agent into cells using electrodes
BTW, PUMA is another example of how big money can crush a stock before it goes on a huge run. Almost an identical time-line to ONCS.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PBYI+Interactive#symbol=PBYI;range=1y
Good summary over on yahoo on ONCS' patents:
I've been following the board for quite some time and because I work in Intellectual Property and deal with patents every day, I figured I would provide everyone with a list of patents and published pending patent applications assigned to Oncosec. In the posts to follow, I will include:
the different patent families,
patent numbers and patent application numbers within each family,
priority date ranges,
approximate expiration date ranges (barring patent term extensions),
assignor information,
status information, and
a brief description of claimed subject matter.
Family number: 29370979 (Priority: 1998 – 2003; Claims Expiring: 2018 – 2023; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US7181271
Claims related to:
A method for inhibiting cell growth or enhancing cell death using a pharmaceutical, electric pulse and light.
Family number: 28430108 (Priority: 1999 – 2003; Claims Expiring: 2019 – 2023; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US6520950, US7171264
Claims related to:
A method for introducing a biologically active agent into cells in a region of tissue using electroporation.
A method for intramuscular administration of a biologically active agent into cells in a region of muscle tissue using electroporation.
A method for administration of a biologically active agent into cells in an intramucosal region of tissue using electroporation.
Family number: 15021306 (Priority: 1999; Claims Expiring: 2019; Assigned by Inovio: 2011; granted/unexpired)
Patents: US6216034
A method for automatically setting an electrode needle addressing scheme for an electroporation therapy apparatus.
A method for automatically setting electrical treatment parameters for an electroporation therapy apparatus.
Family number: 36069571 (Priority: 2006 – 2011; Claims Expiring: 2026 – 2031; Assigned by Inovio: 2011 – 2012; pending)
Patent Applications: EP1991303, US20070239099, US20120143120
Claims related to:
A method of reducing recurrence of tumor cell growth in a mammalian tissue using electroporation.
A method of treating microscopic residual tumors remaining in a tissue following surgical resection of a tumor mass using electroporation.
A system for treating in a mammal tissue comprising cells located adjacent to and/or near to a tumor site using electroporation.
A device for treating in a mammal a bed of tissue surrounding a site of an excised tumor having electrodes used for electroporation.
Latest tweet from Punit:
"@Nicky_2008 We'll be updating milestones soon. Should also be an upcoming post about conference highlights."
You are indeed "Rad." Thanks for posting. You need to post more often. A few days ago I posted this quote from Punit's shareholder letter on 6/12. The only response that I got was from jbeam77 which I've also posted. I'd really appreciate your thoughts and other's explanation. The data the quote refers to is from their ASCO presentation:
"Correlative data were also presented for a subset of eight patients that supported the hypothesis that IL-12 electroporation leads to the induction of interferon-gamma and downstream interferon-gamma-inducible genes, including key modulators of antigen presentation and processing machinery and chemokines."
In your opinion, what was the significance for ONCS in this article?
Good article. Interesting note is that Dr. Bhatia is our MCC investigator.
You have to copy and paste it. We can't access it from your link.
This is the bio on Sznol:
http://www.yalecancercenter.org/research/people/mario_sznol.profile
This is the bio on Ribas:
http://www.cancer.ucla.edu/index.aspx?page=645&recordid=214
Ribas is also presenting. It looks like these two are associated with Merck:
MEDPAGE TODAY | JUN 5, 2014
ASCO: Targeting PD-1 Works in Advanced Melanoma
“Two studies indicate that using investigative immunotherapy drugs improves survival and response in patients with metastatic melanoma, researchers said here.
“In one study, the agent pembrolizumab (MK-3475) which targets the programmed death (PD-1) pathway produced a 1-year 69% survival rate, said Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.
“In a second study reported in a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Mario Sznol, MD, professor of medicine at the Yale Cancer Center, demonstrated that a combination of the investigative PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab in combination with another targeted agent ipilimumab (Yervoy) produced a 1-year survival rate of 85% and 2-year survival rate of 79% for advanced melanoma patients.”
http://www.cancercommons.org/news/page/6/?rtag=melanoma&ctag=pc
This is the session pazzo is referring to:
Session VII: Immunomodulation: Checkpoint Blockade for Melanoma Therapy
Moderator: John M. Kirkwood, MD
8:35
Pre-session audience response survey
8:40
Antigen recognition in melanoma immunotherapy
Christian Blank, MD
9:00
Immunotherapy with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 inhibition
Mario Sznol, MD
9:20
Adoptive cell transfer therapy for melanoma
John B.A.G Haanen, MD, PhD
9:40
Adaptive immune resistance limiting cancer immunotherapy
Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD
http://imedex.com/perspectives-melanoma-conference/agenda.asp
I will readily admit that I was very frustrated that I was not able to receive what those scientists heard from Dr. Pierce yesterday through a PR. That data (mentioned in the abstract and never been released to the public) supporting that hypothesis of converting non-responders into responders could literally change the way the field of oncology is practiced. However, I will take solace in this: I can't imagine that Dr. Pierce and ONCS would go to the effort of being a major sponcer of a conferance in which they are prominantly featured only to present data to their to their peers data that isn't revolutionary. I highly doubt it. We just don't know yet. Have to wait for the story to unfold. I hate waiting. :)
Well, there you go. Hope you are right. As anyone contacted ir today?
Maybe that's the reason why they didn't webcast the conference. They were scared about the market reaction to pierce's clothing choices. :)
Sals back!!!!! Who hoo!
That's good to know. I couldn't recall when they have ever waited that long. Can you remember when that happened?
Have they waited 2-4 days in the past?
Your back!!!! Nice.
Ok, I talked to Patrick yesterday. Someone else's turn to call IR and find out why there is no PR.
Go to press releases for earlier this year. Should be there.
Yes, they are and it serves zero purpose. I encourage you to contact IR. Patrick is a good guy and is helpful. I'm very encouraged as well. Go read the 2014 strategic update. They have pretty much nailed it so for, except for the MCC. And, as he mentioned, they have added to it through their work in the Seattle/San Diego labs. Good stuff.
I think that message is implied from every investor that has ever contacted ONCS IR.
I hope so. It just makes good business sense to get a regular plan to inform your clients. I have that in my law practice. All customers appreciate that. Lay all the events out for the month so people can plan, then remind them when the event gets closer. Pretty basic really.
He said that actually he hadn't seen the presentation for today. I think they restrict him from seeing certain things.
Just got off the phone with Patrick. This was the substance of our conversation:
1. I mentioned to him that it is irritating that events will be in the public domain such as today's conference and ONCS has not PR'd the fact that they are either participating/sponsoring, etc. until 2-3 days before the conference. My suggestion was to issue a PR at the end of each month outlining what events are coming up in the following month and then issue a more detailed PR 2-3 days before the conference. I told him that I think this approach would lessen the phone calls/e-mails/complaints that investors have because news would be released in a consistent way. He agreed completely and is taking this suggestion to the powers at be. I don't him at the very least, they could send out a newsletter to shareholders about the events in the following month and then PR the event 2-3 days before.
2. I asked about the goals laid out in the 2014 strategic update and he said that they are hitting all of their goals and have added some throughout this year.
3. I asked about the catalysts for the rest of the year. He said that the second half of the year is stacked with catalysts and that in his opinion will add significant shareholder value.
4. I asked about the new indication trial. He wouldn't comment on which indication is was but said the natural choice would be breast or head and neck. He did say though that the trial parameters are already set, it is funded with and has the infrastructure already in place.
5. I asked about future studies coming out of Old Dominion with Dr. Heller. He said that yes that the research agreement is still alive and well and to expect future releases.
6. I asked about the R & D in Seattle and San Diego. He just said that they had a slew of research going on right now and that their goal is to be the premier intra-tumorial company in the world.
7. I asked about the P2B trial and he said that ONCS is right on schedule for the start of that trial. Of course, he wouldn't and couldn't comment on any potential partnership etc.
8. He said several times that he really thought that ONCS data and plan going forward would work and he was excited about the prospects.
Just an overall pleasant conversation with the overall presentation that ONCS is doing something really special.
I agree. This combination of new mouse data plus data already known from the myriad of ASCO presentations will not only drive the partnership price up (if they go that way) but would be required to execute a quality p2b study to avoid phase 3.
By the way, does anyone notice that the ask is constantly being slapped above the current price with a small share amount. It's like there is an attempt to walk thus up. Any one agree?
Below is jbeam77 interpretation (he is currently banned from IHUB). I'd be really interested in Lasers' and/or DrBob99's take on this as well. See quote below:
"
This is my interpretation, it may be wrong. We know that Pd-1's negatively effect T cell responses. We want T cell responses, as it is our immune system doing its thing. Many tumor types express Pd-1 (there's a complex interaction that occurs between ligands) which then inhibits the T cells from doing their job. Anti Pd-1's are drugs that inhibit Pd-1/Pd ligand interaction, thus boosting our immune system and allowing the T cells to respond and not being killed off by the tumor.
Based on the statistics, only 20-40% of people respond to these anti Pd-1's and for some reason, many fail to respond. From my understanding, IL2 + electroporation induces IFN gamma, which in turn supports the T cell response to fight the tumor. I think there is a misconception that IL2 will flip a switch that will make people respond immediately respond. What I think is happening is that the the IL2 stimulates the immune system to the point that it overwhelms the tumor, which is being inhibited by the Anti Pd-1 drug. Thus making "non responders" a "responder" through immunogenic enhancement (IL2) while inhibiting the rumors ability to kill T cell (anti Pd-1 drug).
What's going on with the expansion study is the investigation to what extent can ONCS use IL2 to enhance a T cell response through ifn-gamma. How much can we stimulate the immune system while decreasing the effects of Pd-1? Each person will be different and some may need high levels of IL2 to overcome the tumors inhibited Pd-1 response. ONCS needs to find out how much IL2 they can safely administer while still obtaining peak immune performance.
So the answer to you question... IMO, that statement says the IL2+ electroporation creates the systematic response that we need. It does it at the tumor site and throughout the body. The hope is that they can create such an overwhelming immune response that tumors which were previously resistant, will then be overwhelmed by the immune system while subsequently being inhibited in the Pd-1 response.
Check out this article, this shit has been around a while and the data supports ONCS's hypothesis.
http://www.jimmunol.org/content/186/5/2772.full
Feel free to post on the forum, it may be helpful for some to understand the science. This is just my interpretation though, but it appears to be supported by other researchers, other than ONCS. Please excuse any typos, typing on an Ipad sucks,"
I think both. This is my previous post on the subject:
IMO, this is perfectly analogous to the PEGS conference for systemic response rates. At PEGS, ONCS presented data through a mouse trial specifically demonstrating what was ALREADY observed in the human trials, namely that systemic response was observed in untreated tumors.
I believe it is the same here. After ASCO, there is an easy comparison between the intratumoral environment observed between responding tumors and non-responding tumors which is then compared to the intratumoral environment that is created through Immunopulse. However, these were unexpected/awesome observations from human trials, not the intention of them. Therefore, a mouse trial isolating the specific effect of immonupulse upon tumors known to be non-responding to PD-1 would confirm the observations in the human trials--namely that Immunopulse creates the appropriate playground for PD-1s to do their intended job.
Below is the quote from Dr. Pierce in the April Blog Post:
"We are working on trying to understand why it is that IL-12 is driving the immune response strongly enough to push through the PD-1 checkpoint. By that, I mean – you would expect that if IL-12 is driving the generation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL’s), and the TIL’s come into the tumor, you should see an up-regulation of PD-L1. This would then turn off the PD-1 checkpoint on the T-cells and turn off the immune response. In a significant number of patients, we are blowing right through the PD-1 checkpoint and we don’t quite understand how that is happening with IL-12.
But like I said, that is a great problem to have."
http://oncosec.com/dr-pierce-combination-therapies/
I think this is mouse trial data at least partially answering this problem but with comparisons to human data from both big pharma (pd-1 data) and oncs that was presented at ASCO.
See also the post from Punit's shareholder letter:
"Correlative data were also presented for a subset of eight patients that supported the hypothesis that IL-12 electroporation leads to the induction of interferon-gamma and downstream interferon-gamma-inducible genes, including key modulators of antigen presentation and processing machinery and chemokines."
Should be fun.