ymav, I mention the development timeline as 'some years away',...

ymav, I mention the development timeline as 'some years away', suitably ambiguous.
-----
""some treatments involve surgery (prostatectomy for example), which means there is no need for CVAC

Some treatments involve drugs that cut-off blood supply to the tumor, causing them to essentially die from malnourishment...this will mean that the dendritic cells will not be able toaccess the tumours, and so will be useless""
-------
Yes, there are too many variables to take into account for each indication, hence I just left them as broad numbers; and believe a 1-5% share to be realistic considering the possible exclusions.
For example, I haven't taken into account the various stages of each cancer which CVac is likely to target, since we don't know.

And while prostatectomies are on the increase (and likely to continue as the prognoses are good ... they should be for such radical surgery) the majority of cases aren't referred. I'd say about 30% are completely removed, but depending on stage, the cancer may have spread beyond the prostate, even microscopically. This is where immunotherapy is of use.
In this case, our main competition would be Provenge, though CVac could be used in conjunction with it (and Zytiga).

The ideal would be if we didn't have to remove organs. There are complications (both physical and psycchological)
For example, for CVac's first cab off the rank you could perform an oophorectomy. But it would be better for all involved if that could be avoided.
Especially in younger women.

Also, treatments which cut off the blood supply are still in their infancy.
There's research to suggest they only help initially. Reducing the tumour somewhat, only to essentially force it to metastasise elsewhere. This is not an ideal outcome by any measurement.

That said, I'm pretty sure I put enough disclaimers in my preamble so as not to whip people into a frenzy.

Recap: years away. 'possible' market, 1-5%.