Sharpie, thank you for all this wonderful DD and background on this topical IDH issue. It's all looking very bullish.
I do want to suggest, though, that I doubt the top line data, or probably even the journal presentation, will go into any sort of depth (or even address) the topic of GBM subtypes like mesenchymal, classical or pro neural. Those subtypes were not called out in the protocol, and are not indicated to be measured in the indicated SAP endpoints. Even IDH mutant or IDH wild type status were not part of the protocol. It's possible that it may receive some sort of mention in the journal, but a deeper analysis will likely be addressed in some sort of future white paper.
The clinical journals have moderately strict limits as to the word counts they'll allow for a manuscript, and there's a lot of trial analysis and discussion (such as external control arms and pseudo progression) they are likely to want to cover that will eat up that word count pretty quickly.
NEJM has one of the smallest word limits with 2700 in the main text (250 in the abstract), and the BMJ has one of the higher at 4400 (400 in the abstract).