This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In the June 26 update I wrote that the Q4 2026 bizaxofusp data drop “may be the predicate for that deal” and that the Sorbie clock was ticking. Today’s Q1 FY2027 release moves both needles — but in opposite directions. Bizaxofusp and MDNA11 both get oral presentations at upcoming medical conferences (venue unnamed, which is its own tell about embargo timing). MDNA113’s IND, which the FY26 release date-stamped to Q4 2026, is now “an IND submission with a Phase 1 trial commencing in 2027.” And the Sorbie Transaction still appears only in the forward-looking-statements paragraph — the legal register reserved for things that have not happened.
The stock is $0.32, up 9.0% from the $0.29 close on June 26. A modest bid, not a re-rating.
The Receipts
Two oral presentations, both lead assets. Updated MDNA11 ABILITY-1 clinical results and new bizaxofusp data in unresectable recurrent IDH-WT glioblastoma are both slated for oral sessions at upcoming medical conferences. Why it matters: posters are wallpaper; orals are curated. Conference organizers hand oral slots to data the scientific committee thinks the room needs to hear. For an asset the company has explicitly said it will not advance without a partner — the $60M–$80M USD bizaxofusp Phase 3 — an oral session is the closest thing to a free investor day in front of every neuro-oncology BD team in the building. This is the predicate-for-a-deal setup I flagged in June, now with a better podium than I expected.
The registrational language sharpened. ABILITY-1 enrollment remains on track for Q3 2026 completion, and management now says it plans to “explore with regulators the potential for expedited registrational development path” at the end-of-Phase 1 meeting. The implication: “expedited” is management’s word, not the FDA’s — but the framing has moved from “registrational trial design” (FY26 release) to actively probing accelerated routes. In a checkpoint-refractory basket, that likely means an ORR-based accelerated approval conversation rather than a randomized overall-survival trial. Cheaper, faster, and far more fundable for a company with a CDN$4.44M marketed raise behind it. It is also entirely aspirational until the FDA says something back.
MDNA113 slipped a full quarter-plus. June’s release specified Q4 2026 IND submission with first-in-human “soon thereafter.” Today reads “Planning is underway for an IND submission with a Phase 1 trial commencing in 2027.” Why it matters: this is the second consecutive quarter the MDNA113 timeline has drifted right — H2 2026 → Q4 2026 → 2027. For a company where I called MDNA113 the first-in-class call option, the option’s expiry keeps getting pushed. Microcap IND slippage is usually a cash-sequencing decision, not a science problem, and nothing in the release suggests a toxicology or CMC issue. But it does mean the >10,000-fold masking attenuation and the head-to-head NHP tolerability data stay preclinical for another year.
NEO-CYT reads out Q4 2026, and it’s randomized. Preliminary clinical data from the Phase 1b neoadjuvant melanoma study — MDNA11 plus nivolumab ± ipilimumab before surgery — is expected in Q4 2026. Why it matters: this is the only randomized dataset in the near-term calendar. Neoadjuvant trials read out fast because you get the tumor on a pathology slide within weeks of dosing, and pathologic complete response has become a broadly accepted surrogate in melanoma. A randomized signal, even a small one, is worth more to a partner than another single-arm basket cohort.
Sorbie: still forward-looking. The transaction appears only in the forward-looking-statements block — “the Sorbie Transaction, its consummation and the Company’s receipt of any potential additional proceeds... the receipt of any required approvals.” The implication: that’s twelve weeks since the May 22 Prospectus Supplement with no closing notice. The FY26 runway guidance of “through Q1 calendar 2027” was explicitly conditional on this close. The condition remains unsatisfied.
The Scientific Reality Check
The efficacy story is unchanged and restated: response rates in the 30–40% range in 2L/3L or post-checkpoint settings, which is consistent with the n=21 expansion cohort 50% ORR headline and the n=55 all-comers 19% figure I walked through in the deep dive.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.