Yeah, fair point although I was thinking more along the lines of...

Yeah, fair point although I was thinking more along the lines of PBS approval (for the Australian market at least).

PBS approval requires a certain degree of efficacy because the PBS board has to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the drug.
Again, using Herceptin as a benchmark: About 5 years ago a 12 month course of Herceptin (17 cycles) cost about $47,000. The efficacy against HER2+ breast cancer was significant enough for PBS approval and a lot of sales were made. On the other hand, efficacy against HER2+ gastric cancer was a lot less (median overall survival was only prolonged by 2.7 months compared to HER2+ breast cancer which I'm of the understanding resulted in some?/many? complete responses with patients receiving treatment for 8-9 years without disease reappearance/progression) and as such Herceptin was not approved for gastric cancers and subsequently very few if any sales likely occurred.

We won't know for many years just how well HER-Vaxx works. It's possible it could result in killing 50% of the tumor cells and eventually the 50% remaining grows large enough to do fatal damage; it could kill 99% and the remaining 1% eventually grows large enough to be fatal; or it could kill/stabilise 100% of the tumors and as long as treatment is kept up, someone could go on to live another 20, 40, 60+ years.

So many possible outcomes.  You won't see me use the word 'cure' in the next 10-15 years however I do think it's likely the B cell technology will be successful and one day we might call it a curative option or we might just call it a long term treatment option (a bit like how someone can now have asthma and be on medication for 80 years without dying whilst 100-150 years ago there was no medication it was a death sentence in the same way we currently think of cancer).