While I hope you're correct, I believe the company is allowing the publication to say where the end is. While Lancet seems to be the odd on favorite, until we have a publication we really don't know.
What we do know is that in the past LP hasn't been concerned about regulations that generally have been ignored by many companies, especially when it comes to the update of Clinical Trials. We've been reminded that they're supposed to be updated by 12 months after the conclusion, but I also believe they're supposed to be updated annually, the last time we did so was 2016 as I remember it. I believe that regulations that are virtually never enforced should be eliminated, but that doesn't happen.
I believe the company was surprised when the European version of Clinical Trials was updated to show the new SAP goals. While they're clear, they don't appear in our Clinical Trials. I suppose a Journal article could just say it's based on the goals published in Europe, but I believe they'd want the update made here as well, and the TLD statement issued that clearly states it. All this might be done just hours to days before the publication became public, perhaps essentially simultaneously, but clearly the publication should reflect published goals.
Others here have shown that Journals often take more than a year from conclusion of a trial to publication. While I hope we see it this month, I don't believe it's guaranteed. If we don't see it before the quarterly report, due early next month, I believe that something should be said there, but cannot be certain that it will be.
I believe we're sitting on game changing technology, not just for GBM but potentially for many forms of solid cancer. If those at the Journal are also believing this is possible, I can understand them wanting to be certain that they've got it right, not that they've done it quickly.
Gary
