$CU6 today released the details of the analysis of the Co-PSMA data presented at the EAU Congress 2026. Shareholders and followers of this business might be forgiven for saying "what? again?" as this is the third ASX release in as many months regarding the outcome of this investigator-led trial. Equally, casual watchers might look at today's SP (down 5% at time of writing) and conclude "oh, it's bad news". Wrong. The further detail presented is positive news on all fronts.

There is a lot of devil in the detail of these clinical releases, so in this straw I will summarise:

1. (recap) At a high level what we already know from the Dec-25 and Feb-26 releases
2. What's news and why it matters
3. Overall, so what?

1. What we already know

From the Dec-2025 announcement and the Feb-2026 abstract release, the key efficacy findings of the Co-PSMA trial were already well established. The study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating that 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA detects significantly more lesions per patient than standard-of-care 68Ga-PSMA-11 in a low-PSA biochemical recurrence setting (PSA 0.2–0.75 ng/mL).

The following quantitative results were fully disclosed in the February abstract: mean lesions per patient (1.26 vs. 0.48, ratio 2.63, p<0.0001); total lesions detected (63 vs. 24); positive scan rate (78% vs. 36%); and management impact (44% of patients). The February release also introduced early diagnostic accuracy data in the form of true positive rates, reported at that time as 75% for 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA vs. 39% for 68Ga-PSMA-11 (based on 28 evaluable patients with a standard of truth).

In short, prior disclosures had already established a clear efficacy advantage, particularly in low-PSA disease where current PSMA agents are weakest.

2. What's New Today? Why it Matters

Today's release adds several important layers of depth that elevate the dataset toward regulatory and clinical maturity. These additions fall into four categories.

2.1. Peer-review acceptance in European Urology

The Co-PSMA manuscript has been accepted for publication in European Urology, the official journal of the EAU with an impact factor of 25.2. This materially strengthens scientific credibility and external validation beyond the conference abstract, and is a meaningful milestone in the asset’s path toward regulatory submission. I'm not saying it is a part of the regulatory path, but peer-reviewed acceptance in a high quality journal gives an indication that the results stand up to expert, independent scutiny. In that respect, I take it as a leading positive indicator of regulatory success, or at least an improvement in the chance of success.

2.2. Revised and expanded diagnostic accuracy metrics

Today’s release provides a more complete and updated diagnostic accuracy profile. Two important points require careful attention here.

First, the true positive rate figures have changed from the February abstract. The earlier abstract reported 75% (21/28) for 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA vs. 39% (11/28) for 68Ga-PSMA-11, based on 28 evaluable patients. Today’s release reports 71% (24/34) vs. 29% (10/34), based on a larger evaluable cohort of 34 patients. The expansion of the standard-of-truth denominator from 28 to 34 reflects the final, fully verified dataset and is the more reliable figure.

Second, today’s release introduces explicit false negative rates: 21% for 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA vs. 65% for 68Ga-PSMA-11. While these figures were arithmetically derivable from the February true positive rates, their explicit disclosure — using the final, larger denominator — is both new and significant. False negative rates directly address the risk of missed disease, which is the key clinical limitation of existing PSMA imaging in the low-PSA setting and is likely to be a focus of regulatory scrutiny.

2.3. Granular lesion location breakdown

For the first time, today’s release provides a detailed anatomical breakdown of where additional lesions are being detected. This data was entirely absent from both the December and February releases and represents one of the most clinically actionable new disclosures.

Table: Location of recurrence: 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA (24-hour) vs. 68Ga-PSMA-11

The biggest differential between the two agents is in the prostate fossa (56% vs. 22%) and lymph nodes (20% vs. 8%) — precisely the sites most relevant to salvage radiotherapy planning. This breakdown directly links the improved detection signal to actionable clinical decision-making, and explains the mechanism behind the 44% management change rate. It is also the type of granular, site-specific evidence that regulators and clinical guideline bodies require to support label claims.

2.4. Clearer regulatory pathway articulation

Today’s release provides more explicit positioning of 24-hour imaging as the mechanistic differentiator underpinning the performance advantage, alongside a clearer articulation of how Co-PSMA will be combined with the Phase II COBRA data and the anticipated results from the pivotal Phase III AMPLIFY trial in a future FDA submission package for the BCR indication. Collectively, this framing shifts the dataset from “strong abstract-level results” to a more complete, regulator-ready evidence package with clearer clinical and mechanistic context.

3. Conclusion - So What?

Overall, today’s disclosure does not change the fundamental efficacy story in Co-PSMA — the superiority of 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA over 68Ga-PSMA-11 was already well established in both the December and February releases. However, the update delivers four meaningful additions: peer-review acceptance in a top-tier journal; a revised and expanded accuracy dataset (including an updated true positive rate from a larger evaluable cohort and explicit false negative data); a detailed anatomical lesion location breakdown that was entirely new and is the most clinically actionable addition; and a clearer regulatory submission roadmap.

Notably, the revision to the true positive rate figures (i.e., from 75% to 71% for 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA and from 39% to 29% for 68Ga-PSMA-11) reflects a larger and more complete evaluable dataset and should be treated as the definitive accuracy figures going forward. The directional advantage for 64Cu-SAR-bisPSMA is preserved and strengthened on the false negative metric.

In effect, the update represents a de-risking and maturation step rather than a step-change in efficacy, moving the asset incrementally but meaningfully closer to regulatory readiness and real-world adoption, without altering the core investment thesis established by earlier releases.

Overall, pretty good news IMHO.

Disc: Held in RL

More good news for $CU6 in the SECURE trial.

ASX Announcement

Highlights

• Another participant with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the Cohort Expansion Phase (Phase II; 8 GBq of 67Cu-SAR-bisPSMA per cycle) of the SECuRE trial (NCT04868604)1 achieved undetectable disease as assessed by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET).
• Undetectable disease by PSA was achieved after the first cycle, followed by a negative PSMA PET after the second cycle of 67Cu-SAR-bisPSMA.
• Participant was initially diagnosed with prostate cancer 15 years ago, had metastatic disease since 2020 and experienced progressive mCRPC in 2025.
• All related adverse events (AEs) were mild (Grade 1), most of which resolved after the treatment. No haematological or renal AEs were observed to date.
• This is the fifth patient to achieve undetectable disease by radiographic assessment following 67CuSAR-bisPSMA treatment.
• The previous participant in the same Cohort Expansion Phase who achieved undetectable PSA after three cycles of 8 GBq 67Cu-SAR-bisPSMA2 (announced on the 15 January 2026) continues to demonstrate undetectable disease on PSMA PET after the fourth cycle.
• The SECuRE trial will continue enrolment into the Cohort Expansion Phase with planned completion of recruitment in 2026. Phase III registrational trial planning is ongoing based on data generated to date.

Further details

SECURE Background

• The SECuRE trial (NCT04868604) plans to enrol approximately 54 participants in total.
• It consists of a Dose Escalation Phase (Phase I) and a Cohort Expansion Phase (Phase II).
• The Cohort Expansion Phase is planned to include 24 participants and recruitment is ongoing in 2026.

Dose Escalation Phase details:

• In the pre-chemotherapy mCRPC subgroup, 13 participants are referenced.
• 12/13 (92%) had a PSA decline >35%.
• 8/13 (61.5%) had a PSA decline >50%.
• 6/13 (46.2%) achieved PSA reductions ≥80%.
• In the 8 GBq cohort of the Dose Escalation Phase, 3 participants were treated and all three achieved ≥80% PSA decline.
• Based on these data, 8 GBq was selected for the Cohort Expansion Phase.

Cohort Expansion Phase details:

• Patients receive 8 GBq per cycle, with up to 6 cycles permitted.
• A subset will receive 67Cu-SAR-bisPSMA in combination with enzalutamide.

Undetectable disease outcomes:

• Five participants in total have achieved undetectable disease by radiographic assessment following treatment.
• Of these five:
• Three received up to four cycles of 8 GBq.
• Two received up to three cycles of 12 GBq.
• The most recent patient (reported February 2026) achieved undetectable PSA after one cycle and a negative PSMA PET after two cycles.
• A previously reported Cohort Expansion patient achieved undetectable PSA after three cycles and remains PSA-undetectable with no disease on PET after four cycles (as of February 2026).

In summary:

• Total planned trial size: ~54 patients.
• Phase II Cohort Expansion size: 24 patients (ongoing).
• 5 patients have achieved radiographic undetectable disease to date.
• At least 2 of these remain disease-free on ongoing follow-up imaging as of the latest report.

My Assessment

A good progress update - things appear to be progressing well. This is a cherry-picked update, which I am not a fan of, as there is no statistical update and the numbers are still small. However, it is positive, and it seems more than likely to me that this should progress in due course to Phase 3..

Disc: Held

Pre-commercial company $CU6 announced that the abstract for the upcoming conference presentation for the CoPSMA trial has bee released today.

ASX Announcement

The market has gotten a little excited over this with the SP up 17% at time of writing. So in this straw I set out my thoughts, having analysed the release.

TLDR: It is good news. On its own I judged the SP reaction to be overdone, however, that it maybe can be understood because I don't think the market is properly relfecting the risk value of the business. So a large jump in SP really only closes some of the gap IMHO.

First some background.

BACKGROUND: Where does this trial sit compared with $CU6’s own trials?

Co-PSMA is a small, investigator-led Phase II study conducted at a single centre that directly compared Copper-64 SAR-bisPSMA against the current standard Gallium-68 PSMA-11 in men with low prostate-specific antigen biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. The investigator is Prof. Louise Emmett at St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney, and the paper will be given as an oral presentation at the upcoming European Association of Urology Congress.

Its purpose was to test whether Clarity’s product detects more true cancer lesions in a challenging early-recurrence setting. It provides head-to-head superiority data and clinical utility signals, but it is not a registration-enabling study.

CLARIFY and AMPLIFY, by contrast, are large, multi-centre, sponsor-run trials specifically designed to support regulatory approval. These are the leading trials that $CU6 is running, and through which it is aiming to commercialize Cu-64 SAR-bisPSMA. They are structured to meet formal regulatory requirements for diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility and statistical robustness across multiple sites and readers. While Co-PSMA strengthens the differentiation case, it is the outcomes from CLARIFY and AMPLIFY that will ultimately determine the likelihood of registration.

What is New in Today’s Release Compared with Earlier Announcements?

We have already had quite a bit of detail about these trial results released in December. So one key question is what, specifically, is new in today's release? And what bearing if any should have that have on valuation.

The new abstract release does not change the headline outcome that the Co-PSMA study met its primary endpoint, but it adds important quantitative detail.

It now discloses the precise magnitude of superiority over Gallium-68 PSMA-11, including exact lesion detection rates, confidence intervals, statistical significance, confirmed true positive rates, and - importantly - the proportion of patients whose treatment plans changed after imaging (this is likely to be a major consideration bearing on ultimate registration approvals, because the add value of a me-too diagnostic agent is whether or not is changes the treatment pathway).

This moves the disclosure from a general statement of statistical success to a clearly defined and robust effect size, strengthening the credibility of the superiority claim.

In terms of impact on the likelihood of eventual approval of Copper-64 SAR-bisPSMA, the data incrementally reduces clinical and differentiation risk but does not materially alter the regulatory pathway. Co-PSMA remains a small, supportive Phase II study rather than a pivotal registration trial. The results enhance confidence in diagnostic performance and potential commercial positioning, but regulatory success will ultimately depend on the larger, approval-directed studies.

My Overall Takeaway

The near term valuation catalysts lie primarily in AMPLIFY and CLARIFY, and so strictly, I'm not sure how much you can read across from this CoPSMA trial into those (I need to give this further thought and investigation). Of course, it does offer a promising sign for the eventual use of the diagnosis in low prostate-specific antigen biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy, but this will of course require its own registrational trial. So, if prior to today, we considered the likelihood of that pathway ulimtately being approved as 60%-65% (which is where I have it based on the December disclosures), then the incremental detail today perhaps nudges that up to 65%-75%.

Again, the optimist in me would like to read across that it strengthens the evidence base that 64Cu-SAR-bisPMSA is going to emerge as an important platform more generally for diagnosing prostate cancer across the lifecycle and across the patient journey. That's the super Bull thesis for $CU6, and it is why I hold $CU6. Today's news is one paragraph of one chapter of that thesis.

My more sober assessment is in contrast to Exec Chair Alan Taylor's more upbeat assessmentin the release. Of course he knows infinitely more than me, but I know that the pathway to realising material value here is long, and won't be straigtforward.

So, good news, but on its own, I don't think it is enough for me to increase my current holding. I continue to evaluate every new piece of data for this business, as it does have the potential to be an ultimate blockbuster and today is a supportive sign.

A HOLD for me.

Disc: Held (3% RL)

$CU6 burned $25m in the last Q, up from $23m in prior Q. With $226m left, that's about two years runway - plenty of time for multiple significant developments currently in the pipeline.

Last year's $203m placement agilely timed at $4.20 shows the benefit of having a former investment banker as an Exec Chair of this kind of business.

Disc: Held (RL 2.75%)

Radiopharma company $CU6 have this morning announced the latest clinical trial progresss of 64Cu‑SAR‑bisPSMA .

ASX Announcement

The Investigator-Initiatied Co‑PSMA Phase II trial provides statistically significant superiority of 64Cu‑SAR‑bisPSMA over the current Standard of Care, 68Ga‑PSMA‑11 in lesion detection at low PSA levels. This confirms the biological rationale and reinforces earlier data (PROPELLER, COBRA). While the result materially improves confidence in efficacy and diagnostic differentiation, it remains a supportive, not pivotal, dataset.

My Assessment

The NDA path still depends on Phase III outcomes (CLARIFY, AMPLIFY) and CMC readiness. These are in progress and don't report until 2026.

Overall, my "gusesstimate" of NDA probability‑of‑approval is around 66% prior to today's supportive news. While the news slightly de-risks the broader trials, it is not material enough for me to add to my position (2.7% RL). This is mainly due to the incomplete readout of this IIT. For example, it is not clear from the release what accuracy verification / reader-blind data protocols were in place - these details will be important when the FDA consider this additional information. It will be interesting to read the full account of the study when this is available.

So, good news, I expect the market will react positively, however, I'll not be taking any action today as a result.

Disc: Held in RL and SM

It is turning out to be quite the day for my biotechs, with another "non-price sensitive" announcement, this time from radiopharma aspirant $CU6.

ASX Announcement

Even though this is a VERY EARLY PRE-CLINICAL preliminary result, I'm going to go into this one in some detail, because it is an example of why I hold a small $CU6 position. Basically, IF $CU6 can get approval for one or more of their imaging agents currently in Phase 3, and get a first product commercialised, THEN the operating cash flow will drive a material expansion and acceleration of their pipeline to more fully exploit their unique science platform.

It is a big if, and yes entirely speculative at this stage, but in the success case, I believe the payoff might be huge.

OK, So that's the connection to the thesis. Let's now look at the specifics.

What's Today's Announcement About?

$CU6 announced that new preclinical data on its pan-cancer theranostic candidate 64/67Cu-SAR-bisFAP will be presented at the World Molecular Imaging Conference 2025. The compound targets fibroblast activation protein (FAP), highly expressed on cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) in the tumour microenvironment across a wide range of cancers (e.g. breast, colorectal, pancreatic, lung, brain, ovarian), but minimal in normal tissue — making it an attractive target for imaging and therapy

Clarity compared a monomeric product (SAR-FAP) with a dual-targeting version (SAR-bisFAP) and found the latter achieved superior tumour uptake and retention in FAP-positive glioblastoma mouse models.  Therapeutically, 67Cu-SAR-bisFAP doubled median survival (28.5 days) compared to 67Cu-SAR-FAP (14.5 days) and exceeded the performance of an industry benchmark, 177Lu-FAP-2286 (11.5 days).

The company plans to commence a Phase I trial of 64Cu-SAR-bisFAP in 2026, initially focused on diagnostic applications, followed by therapeutic trials with 67Cu-SAR-bisFAP targeting cancers with unmet medical needs. It highlighted the improved retention and efficacy of the bis-structure and the advantages of copper-64/67 pairing with Clarity’s proprietary SAR chelator.

OK - So Why Is This Potentially Significant?

1. Strategic Implications – A Shift Toward Tumour Microenvironment Targeting

This announcement underscores Clarity’s strategic positioning in the emerging FAP-targeted theranostics space, which represents a complementary approach to tumour-cell-directed therapies. Targeting CAFs and the tumour stroma could enable treatments to overcome resistance mechanisms and broaden applicability across tumour types. If translatable to humans, this pan-cancer approach significantly expands the addressable market beyond single-indication radiopharmaceuticals.

2. Preclinical Data – Strong but Preliminary

The doubling of survival compared to both the monomer and a benchmark product is highly encouraging and suggests meaningful biological efficacy. Moreover, the superior tumour retention observed preclinically indicates potential for improved dosing efficiency and therapeutic index. However, these results are based on murine xenograft models, and translation to human efficacy and safety remains uncertain. The leap from preclinical to clinical success in FAP-targeted therapies has historically been challenging. (So this is a major caveat!)

3. Competitive Positioning – Benchmark Outperformance

Beating 177Lu-FAP-2286, a leading FAP-targeted radioligand from Novartis/ITM, is notable. If replicated clinically, Clarity could differentiate itself in a crowded field with a dual-targeting construct and leverage the logistical and dosimetric advantages of the copper-64/67 theranostic pair over lutetium-based agents.

4. Timeline and Development Path – Key Risks Ahead:

A planned Phase I diagnostic trial in 2026 suggests Clarity remains 12–24 months from initial human proof-of-concept, and therapeutic validation will come later still. Regulatory, manufacturing, and clinical-trial execution risks remain substantial. Demonstrating safety, tumour targeting, and dosimetry advantages in humans will be critical inflection points for value creation.

My Overall Assessment

At the time of writing, the SP has ticked up arouind 13% on this announcement. On the basis of this news as a standalone potential future product, that reaction is way, way overdone. But such is the world of speccy biotechs.

However, what I have tried to spell out here is why this is an important confirmation of the thesis. $CU6 has a science platform with the potential to spawn many products.

As we know from the recent Strawman interview with Alan Taylor, $CU6 is being laser focused on getting its first prostate cancer screen diagnostic over the critical Phase 3 hurdle. But that product is just the point edge of a potentially vast portfolio of other products, and today's announcement is providing a glimpse of that potential.

I'll be honest and say that earlier in the year I was a lot more bullish about the likes of $TLX and $CU6 to at least get a high proportion of the diagnotic imaging agents approved. However, the $TLX experience in quick succession with both Zircaix and Pixclara have provided sobering reminders (if we really needed any) that Phase 3 is a real hurdle, and that products do fail to clear it.

And that's why I have a very small $CU6 position. 2.0% in RL. There is no need to put a lot of capital at risk on this one, because in the success case, the payoff could be very substantial indeed. And yes, of course, it could all go to zero!

Disc: Held in RL and SM

So, some of us have been wondering when $CU6 would raise capital - given their royal cash burn resulting from their mutliple-pronged development program. (Personally, I was expecting something mid next year.)

Answer: They've already done it. $203 million at $4.20 per share, so that must be 48 million shares, a dilution of about 15%. And the capital was provided by "a small group of institutional investors who are close to the company".

At last report they were burning $15-16m a quarter, which of course will ramp up as the development programs mature. But now they have a war chest of $288 million. So that should see them through several key milestones over the coming couple of years.

Drug development is not for the faint-hearted!

Disc: Held in RL and SM

@Strawman - a great meeting with Alan.

He's not the first to draw the analogy between pharma and resources. In fact, some of the world largest resource and pharma companies have studied each others' R&D / Exploration and Development processes to gain learning into better capital allocation and decision processes. (As an aside, I find it interesting that 75% of my career has been in either resources or pharma. The reason I prefer healthcare to invest in, is that the IP protection means that prices aren't commoditised when it counts - i.e., the early revenue years!)

In previous straws and posts, I've said I wasn't considering investing in $CU6. However, as a result of my early position in $TLX, I have been doing a lot of research into radiopharma in oncology. Much of what Alan said in the meeting confirmed and added to my understanding. I am now shifting in my thinking.

In the event that CLARIFY and even more importantly SECURE continue their early initial promise, and should NDAs be granted in due course, the pre-existing products in the market are doing the hard work of building the market of clinicians using these products to diagnose and treat. Should clearly superior products become available, then of course switching products in an existing market and associated workflows, is an easier thing. Because of this, should $CU6 get both the Cu64 and Cu67 products approved for prostate, we'd be look as a very different valuation from today, with the potential for very rapid adoption - particularly if there are positive stats in differentials in patient outcomes.

It was interesting to hear about the clinician demand to get more patients on Cu67, and the relative benefits of the longer half-life both in the imaging and therapy modes (Alan's mentioned this before on investor calls and other podcasts). $TLX have tried to spin their very short half-life issue as a benefit around speed of treatment. They have knocked the idea that a patient might be imaged a day after dosing for better S/N due to the inconvenience of have to be in the process for longer. But given what these patients are dealing with in terms of important life decisions, and potentially earlier failed lines of treatment, I'm not so convinced.

$CU6 is still not aligned with my usual risk appetite. After all, an adverse reaction or series of less promising results, could dampen the outlook quite quickly. However, as Alan says, it is all about understanding the probabilities. I'm not far off from concluding that a small speculative investment might be justified for me.

I'm glad we have some companies like these on the ASX to consider. More work to do! But a great meeting.