Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) in combination with lomustine and temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Tumor treating fields in glioblastoma: long-term treatment and high compliance as favorable prognostic factors

Introduction

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) have earned substantial attention in recent years as a novel therapeutic approach with the potential to improve the prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) patients. However, the impact of TTFields remains a subject of ongoing debate. This study aimed to offer real-world evidence on TTFields therapy for GBM, and to investigate the clinical determinants affecting its efficacy.

Methods

We have reported a retrospective analysis of 81 newly diagnosed Chinese GBM patients who received TTFields/Stupp treatment in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression models with time-dependent covariates were utilized to address non-proportional hazards and to assess the influence of clinical variables on PFS and OS.

Results

The median PFS and OS following TTFields/STUPP treatment was 12.6 months (95% CI 11.0-14.1) and 21.3 months (95% CI 10.0-32.6) respectively. Long-term TTFields treatment (>2 months) exhibits significant improvements in PFS and OS compared to the short-term treatment group (≤2 months). Time-dependent covariate COX analysis revealed that longer TTFields treatment was correlated with enhanced PFS and OS for up to 12 and 13 months, respectively. Higher compliance to TTFields (≥ 0.8) significantly reduced the death risk (HR=0.297, 95%CI 0.108-0.819). Complete surgical resection and MGMT promoter methylation were associated with significantly lower risk of progression (HR=0.337, 95% CI 0.176-0.643; HR=0.156, 95% CI 0.065-0.378) and death (HR=0.276, 95% CI 0.105-0.727; HR=0.249, 95% CI 0.087-0.710).

Conclusion

The TTFields/Stupp treatment may prolong median OS and PFS in GBM patients, with long-term TTFields treatment, higher TTFields compliance, complete surgical resection, and MGMT promoter methylation significantly improving prognosis.

Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future

Glioblastoma (GB) stands out as the most prevalent and lethal form of brain cancer. Although great efforts have been made by clinicians and researchers, no significant improvement in survival has been achieved since the Stupp protocol became the standard of care (SOC) in 2005. Despite multimodality treatments, recurrence is almost universal with survival rates under 2 years after diagnosis. Here, we discuss the recent progress in our understanding of GB pathophysiology, in particular, the importance of glioma stem cells (GSCs), the tumor microenvironment conditions, and epigenetic mechanisms involved in GB growth, aggressiveness and recurrence. The discussion on therapeutic strategies first covers the SOC treatment and targeted therapies that have been shown to interfere with different signaling pathways (pRB/CDK4/RB1/P16ink4, TP53/MDM2/P14arf, PI3k/Akt-PTEN, RAS/RAF/MEK, PARP) involved in GB tumorigenesis, pathophysiology, and treatment resistance acquisition. Below, we analyze several immunotherapeutic approaches (i.e., checkpoint inhibitors, vaccines, CAR-modified NK or T cells, oncolytic virotherapy) that have been used in an attempt to enhance the immune response against GB, and thereby avoid recidivism or increase survival of GB patients. Finally, we present treatment attempts made using nanotherapies (nanometric structures having active anti-GB agents such as antibodies, chemotherapeutic/anti-angiogenic drugs or sensitizers, radionuclides, and molecules that target GB cellular receptors or open the blood-brain barrier) and non-ionizing energies (laser interstitial thermal therapy, high/low intensity focused ultrasounds, photodynamic/sonodynamic therapies and electroporation). The aim of this review is to discuss the advances and limitations of the current therapies and to present novel approaches that are under development or following clinical trials.

The Development of Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma

Recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) is a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that poses a significant challenge for treatment in neuro-oncology, and the survival status of patients after relapse usually means rapid deterioration, thus becoming the leading cause of death among patients. In recent years, immunotherapy has emerged as a promising strategy for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma by stimulating the body's immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells, which could be used in combination with other treatments such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy to improve outcomes for patients with recurrent glioblastoma. This therapy combines several key methods such as the use of monoclonal antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy, checkpoint inhibitors, oncolytic viral therapy cancer vaccines, and combination strategies. In this review, we mainly document the latest immunotherapies for the treatment of glioblastoma and especially focus on rGBM.

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) increase the effectiveness of temozolomide and lomustine in glioblastoma cell lines

PURPOSE

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt cellular processes critical for cancer cell viability and tumor progression, ultimately leading to cell death. TTFields therapy is approved for treatment of newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) concurrent with maintenance temozolomide (TMZ). Recently, the benefit of TMZ in combination with lomustine (CCNU) was demonstrated in patients with O⁶-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation. The addition of adjuvant TTFields to TMZ plus CCNU further improved patient outcomes, leading to a CE mark for this regimen. The current in vitro study aimed to elucidate the mechanism underlying the benefit of this treatment protocol.

METHODS

Human GBM cell lines with different MGMT promoter methylation statuses were treated with TTFields, TMZ, and CCNU, and effectiveness was tested by cell count, apoptosis, colony formation, and DNA damage measurements. Expression levels of relevant DNA-repair proteins were examined by western blot analysis.

RESULTS

TTFields concomitant with TMZ displayed an additive effect, irrespective of MGMT expression levels. TTFields concomitant with CCNU or with CCNU plus TMZ was additive in MGMT-expressing cells and synergistic in MGMT-non-expressing cells. TTFields downregulated the FA-BRCA pathway and increased DNA damage induced by the chemotherapy combination.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the clinical benefit demonstrated for TTFields concomitant with TMZ plus CCNU. Since the FA-BRCA pathway is required for repair of DNA cross-links induced by CCNU in the absence of MGMT, the synergy demonstrated in MGMT promoter methylated cells when TTFields and CCNU were co-applied may be attributed to the BRCAness state induced by TTFields.

Therapeutic potential of tumor treating fields for malignant brain tumors

BACKGROUND

Malignant brain tumors are among the most threatening diseases of the central nervous system, and despite increasingly updated treatments, the prognosis has not been improved. Tumor treating fields (TTFields) are an emerging approach in cancer treatment using intermediate-frequency and low-intensity electric field and can lead to the development of novel therapeutic options.

RECENT FINDINGS

A series of biological processes induced by TTFields to exert anti-cancer effects have been identified. Recent studies have shown that TTFields can alter the bioelectrical state of macromolecules and organelles involved in cancer biology. Massive alterations in cancer cell proteomics and transcriptomics caused by TTFields were related to cell biological processes as well as multiple organelle structures and activities. This review addresses the mechanisms of TTFields and recent advances in the application of TTFields therapy in malignant brain tumors, especially in glioblastoma (GBM).

CONCLUSIONS

As a novel therapeutic strategy, TTFields have shown promising results in many clinical trials, especially in GBM, and continue to evolve. A growing number of patients with malignant brain tumors are being enrolled in ongoing clinical studies demonstrating that TTFields-based combination therapies can improve treatment outcomes.

Glioblastoma treatment slowly moves toward change: novel druggable targets and translational horizons in 2022

INTRODUCTION

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary brain tumor in adults. GBM treatment options have been the same for the past 30 years and have only modestly extended survival, despite aggressive multimodal treatments. The progressively better knowledge of GBM biology and a comprehensive analysis of its genomic profile have elucidated GBM heterogeneity, contributing to a more effective molecular classification and to the development of innovative targeted therapeutic approaches.

AREAS COVERED

This article reports all the noteworthy innovations for immunotherapy and targeted therapy, providing insights into the current advances in trial designs, including combination therapies with immuno-oncology agents and target combinations.

EXPERT OPINION

GBM molecular heterogeneity and brain anatomical characteristics critically restrain drug effectiveness. Nevertheless, stimulating insights for future research and drug development come from innovative treatment strategies for GBM, such as multi-specific 'off-the-shelf' CAR-T therapy, oncolytic viral therapy and autologous dendritic cell vaccination. Disappointing results from targeted therapies-clinical trials are mainly due to complex interferences between signaling pathways and biological processes leading to drug resistance: hence, it is imperative in the future to develop combinatorial approaches and multimodal therapies.

Meta-Analysis of Modulated Electro-Hyperthermia and Tumor Treating Fields in the Treatment of Glioblastomas

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma is one of the most difficult to treat and most aggressive brain tumors, having a poor survival rate. The use of non-invasive modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT) and Tumor Treating Fields (TTF) devices has been introduced in the last few decades, both of which having proven anti-tumor effects.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies about mEHT and TTF was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of seven and fourteen studies about mEHT and TTF were included, with a total number of 450 and 1309 cases, respectively. A 42% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 25-59%] 1-year survival rate was found for mEHT, which was raised to 61% (95% CI: 32-89%) if only the studies conducted after 2008 were investigated. In the case of TTF, 1-year survival was 67% (95% CI: 53-81%). Subgroup analyses revealed that newly diagnosed patients might get extra benefits from the early introduction of the devices (mEHT all studies: 73% vs. 37%, p = 0.0021; mEHT studies after 2008: 73% vs. 54%, p = 0.4214; TTF studies: 83% vs. 52%, p = 0.0083), compared with recurrent glioblastoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that both mEHT and TTF can improve glioblastoma survival, and the most benefit may be achieved in newly diagnosed cases.

Effectiveness and safety of tumor-treating fields therapy for glioblastoma: A single-center study in a Chinese cohort

Objective

Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are a new therapeutic modality for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). However, studies on survival outcomes of TTFields are rarely reported in China. This study aimed to examine the clinical efficacy and safety of TTFields therapy for GBM in China.

Methods

A total of 93 patients with newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM) and recurrent GBM (rGBM) were included in our study retrospectively. They were divided into two groups based on whether they used TTFields. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were assessed.

Results

Among the patients with ndGBM, there were 13 cases with TTFields and 39 cases with no TTFields. The median PFS was 15.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-24.1] months and 10.6 (95% CI: 5.4-15.8) months in the two groups, respectively, with P = 0.041. The median OS was 24.8 (95% CI: 6.8-42.8) months and 18.6 (95% CI: 11.4-25.8) months, respectively, with P = 0.368. Patients with subtotal resection (STR) who used TTFields had a better PFS than those who did not (P = 0.003). Among the patients with rGBM, there were 13 cases with TTFields and 28 cases with no TTFields. The median PFS in the two groups was 8.4 (95% CI: 1.7-15.2) months and 8.0 (95% CI: 5.8-10.2) months in the two groups, respectively, with P = 0.265. The median OS was 10.6 (95% CI: 4.8-16.4) months and 13.3 (95% CI: 11.0-15.6) months, respectively, with P = 0.655. A total of 21 patients (21/26, 80.8%) with TTFields developed dermatological adverse events (dAEs). All the dAEs could be resolved or controlled.

Conclusion

TTFields therapy is a safe and effective treatment for ndGBM, especially in patients with STR. However, it may not improve survival in patients with rGBM.

Are we providing best-available care to newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients? Systematic review of phase III trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma 2005-2022

Background

Glioblastoma is the most aggressive primary brain cancer with a poor prognosis. Despite numerous studies in the past 17 years, effective treatment options for glioblastoma remain limited. In this study, we aimed to identify and compare phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma in terms of efficacy and baseline characteristics.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma in adult patients. The target population included adult patients aged 18 years and above (younger cohort) and patients ≥60 years of age (elderly cohort). The search results were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria, and the included trials were analyzed for their study design, baseline characteristics, and survival results.

Results

Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria in the younger cohort. Of these, three reported a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS), including the EORTC/NCIC study (NCT00006353), EF-14 (NCT00916409), and CeTeG (NCT01149109). Of the 11 trials, eight were open-label randomized trials, including all of the positive ones, while three negative trials employed treatment blinding and a placebo control. The baseline characteristics of the trials [such as extent of resection, age, gender, and O(6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status] did not significantly differ between positive and negative trials. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status was analyzed in only two trials, with a small percentage of IDH-mutated tumors in each. Additionally, three more trials in the elderly cohort showed a statistically significant improvement of OS, the NOA-08 trial, the ISRCTN81470623-trial by Malmström et al. and NCT00482677-trial by Perry et al. Their baseline characteristics and implications are also analyzed.

Conclusion

This analysis of phase III clinical trials for glioblastoma conducted since 2005 showed that the majority of trials did not result in a significant improvement in OS. Among the trials included in this analysis, only the EORTC/NCIC, EF-14, and CeTeG studies demonstrated a positive OS outcome in the younger cohort.

Anti-cancer mechanisms of action of therapeutic alternating electric fields (tumor treating fields [TTFields])

Despite improved survival outcomes across many cancer types, the prognosis remains grim for certain solid organ cancers including glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer. Invariably in these cancers, the control achieved by time-limited interventions such as traditional surgical resection, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy is short-lived. A new form of anti-cancer therapy called therapeutic alternating electric fields (AEFs) or tumor treating fields (TTFields) has been shown, either by itself or in combination with chemotherapy, to have anti-cancer effects that translate to improved survival outcomes in patients. Although the pre-clinical and clinical data are promising, the mechanisms of TTFields are not fully elucidated. Many investigations are underway to better understand how and why TTFields is able to selectively kill cancer cells and impede their proliferation. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the reported mechanisms of action of TTFields from pre-clinical studies (both in vitro and in vivo). An improved understanding of how TTFields works will guide strategies focused on the timing and combination of TTFields with other therapies, to further improve survival outcomes in patients with solid organ cancers.

Tumour treating fields in glioblastoma: is the treatment tolerable, effective, and practical in UK patients?

BACKGROUND

Tumour Treating Fields (TTF) in combination with standard therapy, prolongs survival in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). The aim of the current study was to assess the feasibility of integrating TTF into a standard UK neuro-oncology service with a focus on patient tolerability, compliance, and treatment delivery.

METHODS

A prospective study was performed of UK patients with IDH 1 Wild Type, MGMT Unmethylated GBM treated with TTF, in conjunction with conventional therapy. Patient compliance data, device-specific tolerability questions, and an evaluation of disease progression and survival were collected. Monthly quality of life (QoL) questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 with BN-20) examined the trend of global health, psychosocial function, and symptom progression.

RESULTS

Nine patients were enrolled with a median age of 47 (seven males; two females). Overall, compliance with TTF was 89% (range 16-97%). Only one patient failed to comply with treatment. Patients tolerated the device with minimal side effects. Eight patients described mild to moderate skin irritation, whilst all patients were keen to recommend the device to other patients (100%). Most patients found the weight and size of the device to be its biggest drawback (72%). Progression-free survival was 5.5 months and median overall survival was 14.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

TTF was well-tolerated amongst a small cohort of UK patients, who were able to comply with treatment without any significant complication. QoL questionnaires showed no sustained deterioration in global health, physical and emotional function until the final months of life when the disease burden was greatest.

Medical Device Advances in the Treatment of Glioblastoma

Despite decades of research and the growing emergence of new treatment modalities, Glioblastoma (GBM) frustratingly remains an incurable brain cancer with largely stagnant 5-year survival outcomes of around 5%. Historically, a significant challenge has been the effective delivery of anti-cancer treatment. This review aims to summarize key innovations in the field of medical devices, developed either to improve the delivery of existing treatments, for example that of chemo-radiotherapy, or provide novel treatments using devices, such as sonodynamic therapy, thermotherapy and electric field therapy. It will highlight current as well as emerging device technologies, non-invasive versus invasive approaches, and by doing so provide a detailed summary of evidence from clinical studies and trials undertaken to date. Potential limitations and current challenges are discussed whilst also highlighting the exciting potential of this developing field. It is hoped that this review will serve as a useful primer for clinicians, scientists, and engineers in the field, united by a shared goal to translate medical device innovations to help improve treatment outcomes for patients with this devastating disease.

Tumor-Treating Fields in Glioblastomas: Past, Present, and Future

Simple Summary

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumor. Although the standard of care, including maximal resection, concurrent radiotherapy with temozolomide (TMZ), and adjuvant TMZ, has largely improved the prognosis of these patients, the 5-year survival rate is still < 10%. Tumor-treating fields (TTFields), a noninvasive anticancer therapeutic modality, has been rising as a fourth treatment option for GBMs, as confirmed by recent milestone large-scale phase 3 randomized trials and subsequent real-world data, elongating patient overall survival from 16 months to 21 months. However, the mechanisms of antitumor efficacy, its clinical safety, and potential benefits when combined with other treatment modalities are far from completely elucidated. As an increasing number of studies have recently been published on this topic, we conducted this updated, comprehensive review to establish an objective understanding of the mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, clinical concerns, and future perspectives of TTFields.

Abstract

Tumor-treating fields (TTFields), a noninvasive and innovative therapeutic approach, has emerged as the fourth most effective treatment option for the management of glioblastomas (GBMs), the most deadly primary brain cancer. According to on recent milestone randomized trials and subsequent observational data, TTFields therapy leads to substantially prolonged patient survival and acceptable adverse events. Clinical trials are ongoing to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of TTFields in treating GBMs and its biological and radiological correlations. TTFields is administered by delivering low-intensity, intermediate-frequency, alternating electric fields to human GBM function through different mechanisms of action, including by disturbing cell mitosis, delaying DNA repair, enhancing autophagy, inhibiting cell metabolism and angiogenesis, and limiting cancer cell migration. The abilities of TTFields to strengthen intratumoral antitumor immunity, increase the permeability of the cell membrane and the blood–brain barrier, and disrupt DNA-damage-repair processes make it a promising therapy when combined with conventional treatment modalities. However, the overall acceptance of TTFields in real-world clinical practice is still low. Given that increasing studies on this promising topic have been published recently, we conducted this updated review on the past, present, and future of TTFields in GBMs.

Tumor-Treating Fields for the treatment of glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) is an emerging treatment modality for glioblastoma (GBM). Studies have shown a good safety profile alongside improved efficacy in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM), while a less clear effect was shown for recurrent GBM (rGBM). Despite regulatory support, sectors of the neuro-oncology community have been reluctant to accept it as part of the standard treatment protocol. To establish an objective understanding of TTFields' mechanism of action, safety, efficacy, and economical implications, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Twenty studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria, incorporating 1636 patients (542 ndGBM and 1094 rGBM), and 11 558 patients (6403 ndGBM and 5155 rGBM) analyzed for the clinical outcomes and safety endpoints, respectively.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated improved clinical efficacy and a good safety profile of TTFields. For ndGBM, pooled median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 21.7 (95%CI = 19.6-23.8) and 7.2 (95%CI = 6.1-8.2) months, respectively. For rGBM, pooled median OS and PFS were 10.3 (95%CI = 8.3-12.8) and 5.7 (95%CI = 2.8-10) months, respectively. Compliance of ≥75% was associated with an improved OS and the predominant adverse events were dermatologic, with a pooled prevalence of 38.4% (95%CI = 32.3-44.9). Preclinical studies demonstrated TTFields' diverse molecular mechanism of action, its potential synergistic efficacy, and suggest possible benefits for certain populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of TTFields for GBM, alongside the standard-of-care treatment protocol, and provides a practical summary, discussing the current clinical and preclinical aspects of the treatment and their implication on the disease course.

Tumor Treating Fields for Glioblastoma Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed excessive strain on health care systems and is especially evident in treatment decision-making for cancer patients. Glioblastoma (GBM) patients are among the most vulnerable due to increased incidence in the elderly and the short survival time. A virtual meeting was convened on May 9, 2020 with a panel of neuro-oncology experts with experience using Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields). The objective was to assess the risk-to-benefit ratio and provide guidance for using TTFields in GBM during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Panel Discussion

Topics discussed included support and delivery of TTFields during the COVID-19 pandemic, concomitant use of TTFields with chemotherapy, and any potential impact of TTFields on the immune system in an intrinsically immunosuppressed GBM population. Special consideration was given to TTFields' use in elderly patients and in combination with radiotherapy regimens. Finally, the panel discussed the need to better capture data on COVID-19positive brain tumor patients to analyze longitudinal outcomes and changes in treatment decision-making during the pandemic.

Expert Opinion

TTFields is a portable home-use device which can be managed via telemedicine and safely used in GBM patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. TTFields has no known immunosuppressive effects which is important during a crisis where other treatment methods might be limited, especially for elderly patients with multiple co-morbidities. It is too early to estimate the full impact of COVID-19 on the global healthcare system and on patient outcomes and the panel strongly recommended collaboration with existing cancer COVID-19 registries to follow CNS tumor patients.

Clinical Potential of Nerve Input to Tumors: A Bioelectricity Perspective

We support the notion that the neural connections of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and the associated 'bioelectricity' play significant role in the pathophysiology of cancer. In several cancers, the nerve input promotes the cancer process. While straightforward surgical denervation of tumors, therefore, could improve prognosis, resulting side effects of such a procedure would be unpredictable and irreversible. On the other hand, tumor innervation can be manipulated effectively for therapeutic purposes by alternative novel approaches broadly termed "electroceuticals." In this perspective, we evaluate the clinical potential of targeting the TME first through manipulation of the nerve input itself and second by application of electric fields directly to the tumor. The former encompasses several different biophysical and biochemical approaches. These include implantable devices, nanoparticles, and electroactive polymers, as well as optogenetics and chemogenetics. As regard bioelectrical manipulation of the tumor itself, the "tumor-treating field" technique, applied to gliomas commonly in combination with chemotherapy, is evaluated. Also, as electroceuticals, drugs acting on ion channels and neurotransmitter receptors are highlighted for completeness. It is concluded, first, that electroceuticals comprise a broad range of biomedical tools. Second, such electroceuticals present significant clinical potential for exploiting the neural component of the TME as a strategy against cancer. Finally, the inherent bioelectric characteristics of tumors themselves are also amenable to complementary approaches. Collectively, these represent an evolving, dynamic field and further progress and applications can be expected to follow both conceptually and technically.

Observations on the anti-glioma potential of electrical fields: is there a role for surgical neuromodulation?

Alternating electrical field therapy represents a recent addition to the armamentarium against high grade glioma. Randomised trial evidence suggests a survival benefit from adjunctive scalp delivered Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) in glioblastoma. Any underlying anti-glioma effect is not fully understood, but interference with cell division and microtubule assembly has been averred. The survival benefit claimed for TTFields is modest and is associated with mild reductions in health-related quality of life indices amid costs that presently preclude routine use. I review possible mechanisms by which alternating electrical fields may confer an anti-glioma effect. As scalp and skull are poor conductors of an electrical field, a case is made here for implantable electrodes, perhaps placed at the time of tumour debulking. Such a system may deliver an electrical field directly to the tumour resection cavity and with greater precision.

Advances in radiotherapy and comprehensive treatment of high-grade glioma: immunotherapy and tumor-treating fields

High-grade gliomas (HGGs) are the most common primary malignant brain tumors. They have a high degree of malignancy and show invasive growth. The personal treatment plan for HGG is based on the patient's age, performance status, and degree of tumor invasion. The basic treatment plan for HGG involves tumor resection, radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant temozolomide (TMZ), and adjuvant TMZ chemotherapy. The basic radiation technology includes conventional RT, three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, and stereotactic RT. As our understanding of tumor pathogenesis has deepened, so-called comprehensive treatment schemes have attracted attention. These combine RT with chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or tumor-treating fields. These emerging treatments are expected to improve the prospects of patients with HGG. In the present article, we review the recent advances in RT and comprehensive treatment for patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent HGG.

Optimal treatment strategy for adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

To compare the efficacy and safety of treatments based on the Stupp protocol for adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and to determine the optimal treatment option for patients with different O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation statuses. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for adverse events of grade 3 or higher (AEs ≥ 3). Twenty-one randomized controlled trials involving 6478 patients treated with 21 different treatment strategies were included. Results of the pooled HRs indicated tumor-treating fields (TTF) combined with the Stupp protocol resulted in the most favorable OS for patients with and without MGMT promoter methylation. Subgroup analyses by the two MGMT promoter statuses indicated that lomustine-temozolomide plus radiotherapy or TTF combination therapy was associated with the best OS for patients with methylated MGMT promoter (HR, 1.03; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-1.97), and standard cilengitide combination therapy or TTF combination treatment was associated with the best OS for patients with unmethylated MGMT promoter (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.67-1.64). Regarding AEs ≥ 3, there were no significant differences in pooled ORs. However, Bayesian ranking profiles that demonstrated intensive cilengitide combination therapy and TTF combination therapy have a similar possibility to cause the least toxicity. These results indicated that TTF combination therapy was associated with increased survival, irrespective of the MGMT promoter methylation status, and a relatively tolerated safety profile compared with other combination treatments. The optimal treatment option for glioblastoma patients with different MGMT promoter methylation statuses was different.

New hints towards a precision medicine strategy for IDH wild-type glioblastoma

Glioblastoma represents the most common primary malignancy of the central nervous system in adults and remains a largely incurable disease. The elucidation of disease subtypes based on mutational profiling, gene expression and DNA methylation has so far failed to translate into improved clinical outcomes. However, new knowledge emerging from the subtyping effort in the IDH-wild-type setting may provide directions for future precision therapies. Here, we review recent learnings in the field, and further consider how tumour microenvironment differences across subtypes may reveal novel contexts of vulnerability. We discuss recent treatment approaches and ongoing trials in the IDH-wild-type glioblastoma setting, and propose an integrated discovery stratagem incorporating multi-omics, single-cell technologies and computational approaches.