Info?on LASER ASSISTED IMMUNOTHERAPY FOR BREAST C.

I enjoy threads like this that discuss unorthodox approaches (as long as they are grounded in real science).
I'm gonna be devils advocate here, because I'm good at that and I'm a believer that patients/caretakers need to poke holes at these approaches to get the researchers to develop novel ways of making these possible therapies a reality.

The first thing I notice is that the article (first link) was written in Nov 2010 and updated in June 2015.
Why such a chasm in time?
I see a May 2011 pubmed release, here, called "Preliminary safety and efficacy results of laser immunotherapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients".
On pubmed, you'll see similar articles of Laser immunotherapy, which date back to the late 1990's.
Why have I never heard of this?

Getting back to the first link, here's some quotes from the article:
- "So far, the technology has been applied to tumors with defined boundaries that are easy to reach, such as the ones that occur with breast cancer and melanoma."
- "The neat thing is it's a simple procedure," Hode said. "It takes about an hour and eliminates primary tumors and distant metastases. With laser-assisted immunotherapy, we use a laser to heat the tumor a little bit for 10 to 20 minutes."

1. How does one define "defined boundaries"? How many breast cancers have "defined boundaries"?
I can assume that ILC wouldn't be applicable, since the lack of the sticky cell-to-cell adhesion protein, E-cadherin, often prevents clumping and thus definitive boundaries.

2. I know little about mets, but my understanding is that they can be quite diffuse and not easy to reach, depending on location.
Based on the time it takes the laser to heat each portion of the tumor, it could take numerous hours to reach all of the mets.

3. Has there been any peer review to validate the claims of the studies in Peru and the Bahamas? These locations conjure up suspicion since regulatory oversight is scarce.

4. Immunotherapy has been a buzz word for a couple years now. Historically, vaccine therapies have had a bad reputation of failure. However, within the last few years there's been a resurgence of them and some success with them in other cancers.
What makes this vaccine better than past efforts or existing competitors (like Boston-based Neon Therapeutics' vaccine)?

5. From my brief reading, it appears that this approach is being pursued in the HER2+ cohort, a small percentage of the breast cancer population. I assume this means that the vaccine exploits HER2+ antigens only.
Does a vaccine exist that targets the 80% of patients who are HER2 negative?

6. Who else is doing this or something similar? That's often an indication of potential success.

The company that is trying to commercialize this therapy, ImmunoPhotonics, has raised ~$3.05M in 5 rounds of funding, as shown below.
Jan 2015: $600k / Series A
Sep 2014: $1.8M / Series A
Jul 2014: undisclosed amount / Series A
May 2011: $100.12k / Venture (seed money)
May 2010: $550k / Venture (seed money)

Don't get me wrong, I love those that think outside the box (Hode's PhD is in Astrobiology), but there are many moving parts needed to make it work. With less than 15 employees and a small lump of cash, ImmunoPhotonics faces a daunting task to succeed.

How do others see this?
Can anyone explain how/why this would work?