Health Check: Inoviq cops ASX ‘speeding ticket' query over cancer study headline claims
Last week's tearaway performer, Amplia will launch a second pancreatic cancer trial
The private Myro to launch neuroblastoma trial
As any wizened sub editor will impart to an impressionable cub reporter – or what's left of either – a headline needs to be short and punchy or else readers will go no further.
In adopting a similar approach, cancer drug developer Inoviq (ASX:IIQ) has attracted the gaze of the ASX compliance cops.
The bourse took issue with last Wednesday's spiky disclosure headlined: 'New treatment kills 88% of breast and lung cancer cells'.
Investors certainly read on, with the shares surging from 38.75 cents to a high of 47 cents (21%).
The ASX asked the company whether the announcement conveyed a "fair and balanced' impression of the contents, 'given the early stage of the research'.
The bourse asked how Inoviq justified the use of the term "treatment", given the disclosure lacked the 'usual detail' to justify the claims.
In response, Inoviq furnished the compliance cops with a response that ran to nine pages, including 12 tables and 27 references.
Inoviq said the release made it clear the claims were based on in vitro studies, using cancer cell lines in a laboratory.
'Therefore, the header of the announcement was both fair and balanced in the context used.'
'Best practice'
The company said the in vitro work is recognised as standard best practice.
This work is 'often mandated by regulatory authorities and scientific guidelines for generating credible, reliable and interpretable results in both laboratory and clinical research settings.'
Inoviq also said the potential advantages of its CAR-exosomes over autologous CAR-T therapies in solid tumours were 'generally well known and accepted in the scientific literature based on previous researchers' in vitro and in vivo studies.'
CAR-Ts are T-cells that have been tricked up to improve their cancer-busting abilities.
CAR-T therapies to date have used patients' own cells. Inoviq strives for an 'off the shelf' treatment availing of donor material.
Inoviq noted its headline was limited by the ASX's proforma requiring a 60-word limit.
As any grizzled sub will tell you, the headline needs to match the allocated space (now, AI will do the job in a flash).
Not the first time
In late May, the ASX suspended Inoviq shares and lodged a query after a 25% share romp.
Inoviq pointed to the online publication of an abstract poster to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference.
This outlined an independent patient validation study of the company's ovarian cancer test.
The 'outstanding' blood test results showed more than 94% accuracy.
The issue centred on what data was 'new new', as opposed to being previously released data validated by Inoviq's learned peers.
Amplia to launch second pancreatic cancer trial
Tearaway pancreatic cancer drug developer Amplia (ASX:ATX) has won US ethics clearance to launch a second phase II trial, combining its candidate with standard chemotherapy.
Amplia shares last week surged as much as 400% after the company announced separately two 'complete responses' in a local trial.
A complete response is defined as the complete disappearance of a tumour lesion, maintained for more than two months.
That sounds awfully close to a cure but – corporate cops note – the company did not use the 'c' word.
The trial combined Amplia's protein inhibitor narmafotinib (AMP-945) with the chemotherapies gemcitabine and Abraxane (nab-paclitaxel).
The proposed second trial will combine AMP-945 with Folfirinox.
Folfirinox is a cocktail of four chemo agents, more commony used in the US for advanced pancreatic cancers.
Having won central US Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethics assent, Amplia is selecting up to six US sites and two Australian venues.
The company expects to recruit 60 to 70 patients, which has a single arm (no placebo group).
The study is also open label (the researchers and patients know what treatment is being administered).
Take it as Red, Myrio is tackling neuroblastoma
Myrio Therapeutics is not listed – or not yet anyway – but keep an eye on this immunotherapy play because of its sole focus on neuroblastoma.
Neuroblastoma is a rare but aggressive childhood cancer.
Myrio recently won FDA approval to carry out a phase I road test of its CAR-T therapy. This is inelegantly named PHOX2B PC-CAR T and is based on Myrio's tech dubbed Red.
Developed with the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the proposed therapy targets a specific protein.
You guessed it, that's PHOX2B – as expressed in neuroblastoma cells.
Red can also treat a much broader range of patients, via a mechanism best described by Google rather than us.
Myrio plans to enrol the first patient in mid-2025.
The most common tumour of the sympathetic nervous system, neuroblastomas account for 15% of paediatric cancer-related deaths. So, it's rare, but not so rare.
Current treatment options result in low response rates and toxicity issues.
Clarity abandons program
There's a dearth of neuroblastoma work in the ASX-listed sphere.
In April Clarity Pharmaceuticals (ASX:CU6) abandoned its program called CL04, which was in phase I/II trial stage across five US sites.
The study road-tested Clarity's copper isotope-based agent, 64Cu/67Cu Sartate.
While the safety profile was OK, Clarity decided to focus its Sartate program on neuroendocrine tumours, a 'a faster and larger market opportunity'.
Clarity has two Rare Paediatric Disease designations from the FDA, thus opening the prospect of winning valuable Priority Review Vouchers (PRVs).
What's not to like?
The answer is the 'risk to the continuation of the PRV program under the current US administration, the changes to the FDA and the very small patient population in neuroblastoma, despite the high unmet need.'
... but Arovella remains in the game
In early May Arovella Therapeutics (ASX:ALA) announced an exclusive option with the Baylor College of Medicine, to license two novel CAR-T receptors.
These receptors target solid tumours, including neuroblastoma (highly prevalent in children) and hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).
Both CARs have been studied in human clinical trials, reducing the need for extensive preclinical testing.
Elsewhere, neuroblastoma progress has been snail-paced.
In 2020 the FDA approved Y-mAbs Therapeutics naxitamab (Danyelza).
This is a monoclonal antibody for relapsed or refractory high-risk neuroblastoma in the bone or bone marrow.
But in late 2022 the agency's oncologic drug advisory committee voted 16 to nil to reject Y-mAbs' omburtamab (Omblastys).
The European Medicines Agency swiftly followed suit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
28 minutes ago
- ABC News
Tasmania enters the 'AI race' with Firmus Technologies factory in north of state
The construction of an "artificial intelligence (AI) factory" in northern Tasmania will bring economic benefits to the state and help ensure Australian data isn't sent overseas, an AI expert says. A company called Firmus Technologies is building a $2.1 billion AI factory in the Launceston suburb of St Leonards, set to be operational in the first half of next year. Co-chief executive Tim Rosenfield said the factory was different from a typical data centre — a building which houses computers and storage systems. "With an AI factory, the customer is the end user — it's you and me, it's folks in a bank, it's folks in a telco, it's folks in a mining company." Mr Rosenfield said AI factories produced the "tokens" needed for tools such as ChatGPT, a generative AI "chatbot" being increasingly used by Australians and people around the world. Toby Walsh, chief scientist at the University of New South Wales's AI Institute, welcomed the announcement of an AI factory in Tasmania. "People don't realise that to get things like ChatGPT serving up all those wonderful funny responses requires a lot of infrastructure in the cloud and we need to start building that infrastructure if we're going to be players in the AI race that's coming," Professor Walsh said. He said it was important these factories were built in Australia. "If they're overseas, we have to ship our data overseas — our sensitive personal data, our sensitive commercial data, our sensitive health data — with other people. That's a risk," he said. "And then the other risk is that — [and] we've seen this already that in the US — they can change their mind as to who they want to play with, and we may be therefore be easily cut off." Professor Walsh said big companies, including in tech and banking, would be relying on these factories. A data centre designed to be used by AI factories is also being built in Sydney, by NEXTDC. Firmus said it chose northern Tasmania as the location for its facility due to the availability of renewable energy and its cool climate. "We've always believed that green energy is an important part [of] delivering AI sustainably and responsibly," Mr Rosenfield said. Like data centres, AI factories require cooling systems due to the heat they generate. Mr Rosenfield said the Firmus project has a liquid cooling system that uses either oil or water in a closed loop. AI expert Toby Walsh said Tasmania was a logical location for an AI factory. "Tasmania is the obvious place to start building these because of the wonderful access that you have to hydroelectric power, to wind power, to do this in a sustainable way," he said. He said the use of a closed cycle cooling system would ensure the projects don't draw vast amounts of water from Tasmania's rivers and lakes. Mr Rosenfield said the factory would employ Tasmanians in construction and operation. "Roughly for every 50 megawatts or so of capacity, we're needing between 50 and 100 full-time staff to help operate this AI factory," he said. But Professor Walsh cast doubt on the number of employees the factory would require. "There will be a significant number of jobs to build these factories in the first couple of years, but once those factories are built, they don't employ that many people to run them." He said the project would, however, bring economic benefits to the state through the sales of tokens generated by the factory. Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff this week said he would establish an "AI factory zone" in northern Tasmania, where Firmus's project is being built. "We've worked very solidly together," Mr Rockliff said. "A business, an investment, saw an opportunity to invest in Tasmania, empowered by renewable energy." Tasmania is heading towards an election on July 19, and the Liberal party is not proposing to invest money in Firmus's factory. But Mr Rosenfield said the support was meaningful. "It's really a statement of intent that the government understands the importance of this new asset class, the AI factory, and is going to work to help us realise the vision of Tasmania and northern Tasmania as a globally significant hub of renewable AI," he said. It comes as other major Tasmanian projects have reported issues with getting enough power. The Boyer paper mill said this week it had not been able to secure Tasmanian-generated electricity to convert its coal-fired boilers to electric ones. Labor leader Dean Winter welcomed the project, but voiced concerns about power availability. "Firmus is a really exciting opportunity for the north," Mr Winter said. "But there's a big problem here — there isn't enough power. Firmus said the first stage of its project required 90 megawatts of energy. "The infrastructure for that is in place and the customer connection agreements are in place for that," Tim Rosenfield said. He said the company had been working with TasNetworks and the Australian Energy Market Operator for the past six to seven years on connecting to the grid. The company is planning a 300-megawatt second stage of the project, but Mr Rosenfield described it as "aspirational".
ABC News
29 minutes ago
- ABC News
ACCC accuses Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreens of greenwashing over 'reef friendly' claims
The owner of popular Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens says it will defend allegations of "greenwashing" products by labelling them as "reef friendly". The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) launched federal court proceedings against Edgewell Australia and its US parent company, Edgewell Personal Care Company on Tuesday. It claims more than 90 Edgewell products allegedly contained false and potentially misleading representations between 2020 and 2024. The consumer watchdog alleges Edgewell Australia claimed the sunscreens were "reef friendly" because they did not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate. These chemicals have been banned in some jurisdictions, including Hawaii, because of the damage they inflict on reefs. However, the ACCC alleges the sunscreens contained other ingredients that either cause or risk causing harm to reefs including coral and marine life. These ingredients are common UVA and UVB filters octocrylene, homosalate, Enzacamene (4-methylbenzylidene camphor), and Avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane). The ACCC claimed Edgewell Australia and Edgewell PCCC were aware of scientific studies and other reports indicating at least some of these ingredients were known to "adversely affect" reefs. But the consumer regulator alleged neither company commissioned testing of the ingredients or their impacts. It said Edgewell Australia breached consumer law when it made the "reef friendly" claims about many Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreen products across websites, social media and catalogues. Several Hawaiian Tropic products also included a logo on its packaging with the words "reef friendly" and an image of coral, the ACCC said. Edgewell removed "reef-friendly" tags from its US products in 2020 but allegedly continued the branding in Australia until December 2024. ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe said Edgewell's claims about the environmental benefits of its products "had no reasonable or scientific basis". "By engaging in this alleged greenwashing, we say Edgewell deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed decision," she said. "[It] may have prevented them from purchasing a different brand of sunscreen that did not contain chemicals which risked causing harm to reefs." Ms Lowe said the ACCC believed this greenwashing was "widespread" and risked misleading "a large number of consumers". "The sunscreen products were supplied throughout Australia over a period of four years, including in large stores and online websites," she said. "Businesses should not shy away from promoting the environmental credentials of their products. "But they must be able to substantiate any claims, for example through reputable third-party certification or reliable scientific reports." The ACCC said it is seeking penalties, declarations, injunctions, costs and other orders. A spokesperson for the company's Australian arm said it would defend the lawsuit. "Edgewell has fully co-operated with the ACCC throughout its investigation and firmly stands by the claims it has made," the spokesperson said. This latest accusation comes just weeks after consumer group Choice found only four of 20 sunscreens it tested provided the SPF protection claimed on their labels. The brands disputed the findings and said their own testing showed their sunscreens met or exceeded their SPF claims. ABC/AAP
News.com.au
44 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Cyber security expert says Qantas data breach could have devastating consequences
A Sydney cybersecurity expert has lifted the lid on exactly what the Qantas data breach may mean for customers — and why three key components of the attack could have a devastating impact for millions. Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson today 'sincerely apologised' to customers, after the national carrier confirmed that six million people could be impacted by a mammoth cyber incident impacting personal data. The concerning attack was detected by Qantas on Monday, after 'unusual activity' on a third party call centre platform based in the Philippines was detected by the airline. While Qantas says the 'system is now contained,' Ms Hudson said an initial review confirmed customers' names, email addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and frequent flyer numbers were likely exposed. Credit card details, personal financial information and passport details were not held by the impacted system and were therefore not absorbed by the attack. But Dr Hammond Pearce from UNSW Sydney's School of Computer Science and Engineering said the personal information that was exposed is actually far more 'frustrating' and 'concerning' to have in the hands of hackers. 'When a data breach like this occurs, it's very frustrating for everyone involved,' he told adding that 'date-of-birth' being leaked was of greatest concern. 'The kind of information that has been stolen, you use it everywhere … they define you. I can change my credit card number, it's annoying and it's a hassle, but I can ring up my bank and it's done. 'But my name and my date of birth, these are things that are a little bit more permanent and in many ways these are just as frustrating to have leaked because those are things you actually can't change. I can't change my name very easily and I certainly can't change my date of birth.' Dr Pearce said that a hacker obtaining your full name, date-of-birth, email or phone number are three pieces of personal data that may pave the way for a future 'downstream attack', and that as a cybersecurity expert, his biggest fear for impacted customers is impersonation. 'When other businesses use those pieces of personal information as well, we run the risk of whoever obtains that data being able to impersonate you and also being able to target you,' he explained. 'So when that information is leaked … it's very frustrating. 'The biggest thing that we're worried about is impersonation … where they [hackers] can pretend to be you with other businesses that you might be registered with.' Dr Pearce said another area of concern is the use of the leaked information to mimic or to create an account in new systems. This means the cyber-hacker might have the ability to open a credit card account or even sign up for hotel registrations or other accounts with the information obtained. 'They don't need your existing credit card number to do that, they just need all of those other bits of information like your name and your date of birth and so on and so forth,' he said. 'While the banks are getting a little bit more responsible with that, there are so many other things that we can sign up for with those details. 'I am a Qantas customer, and it is concerning.' Qantas is another victim in a long line of Australian companies, including Optus and Medibank, to have had a breach like this. Dr Pearce added it's getting 'quite frustrating' that these big companies are 'not responsibly looking after our data.' 'As a result, everyday Australians are having our data leaked over and over again to people that should not have access to that data, and that can try and use that data for malicious purposes.' Bea Sherwood, Senior Campaigns and Policy Advisor at advocacy group CHOICE echoed the concerns of Mr Pearce, saying today's breach has left millions at serious risk. 'Today's cyber attack on Qantas has left millions of customer records at serious risk of being stolen, highlighting the urgent need for a strong aviation ombuds scheme to support airline customers and facilitate complaints when incidents like this occur,' Ms Sherwood said in a statement. 'As consumer concerns about use of their data grow, and airline operations become more data driven, a robust aviation ombuds scheme is more important than ever. We look forward to seeing the government establish a strong aviation ombuds scheme which can facilitate and investigate consumer complaints, including those related to data privacy.' Dr Pearce said as a customer, his advice for those concerned is relatively simple. Stay vigilant, ask questions and never trust anyone in the modern-day world of digital economy. 'Always be sceptical of companies that say they're going to be responsible stewards of your data,' he said. 'Qantas, and in many ways, is a company we kind of have to trust. It's our national carrier. We have to give them our real information when we travel with them. We have to give them our passport numbers and our date of birth and name. So it's very frustrating when they're irresponsible with it.'
