While I would like to agree with you as kind of a consistency is good idea, science advances and changes. I think in this case it will not harm the trial results but science advancing certainly could have done so.
However, my view is the general science should prevail. I do not think this change would invalidate the trial, it simply relates to what defined treatment this vaccine would be best to treat, now that the broader scientific community has noted that there are variations of this cancer that fundamentally act differently. I do not think there is a way around that discovery. They can’t license a product based upon an outdated notion of GBM.
But I do not think it harms the trial, and in this case I think the discovery and change helps actually to illustrate the method of action of DCVax and that it operated as expected. That reenforces the science both in the redefinition and in regards to DCVax.
Good luck and no worries.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
