-
Pharmacological Research Sep 2021Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature,...
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature, genetic heterogeneity, and protection by the blood brain barrier (BBB) have posed great treatment challenges. The standard treatment for GBMs is surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. The robust DNA repair and self-renewing capabilities of glioblastoma cells and glioma initiating cells (GICs), respectively, promote resistance against all current treatment modalities. Thus, durable GBM management will require the invention of innovative treatment strategies. In this review, we will describe biological and molecular targets for GBM therapy, the current status of pharmacologic therapy, prominent mechanisms of resistance, and new treatment approaches. To date, medical imaging is primarily used to determine the location, size and macroscopic morphology of GBM before, during, and after therapy. In the future, molecular and cellular imaging approaches will more dynamically monitor the expression of molecular targets and/or immune responses in the tumor, thereby enabling more immediate adaptation of tumor-tailored, targeted therapies.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Glioblastoma; Humans
PubMed: 34302977
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105780 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly aggressive cancer with poor prognosis that needs better treatment modalities. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable biomarkers... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly aggressive cancer with poor prognosis that needs better treatment modalities. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable biomarkers to predict the response and outcome of current or newly designed therapies. While several molecular markers have been proposed as potential biomarkers for GBM, their uptake into clinical settings is slow and impeded by marker heterogeneity. Detailed assessment of prognostic and predictive value for biomarkers in well-defined clinical trial settings, if available, is scattered throughout the literature. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic and predictive significance of clinically relevant molecular biomarkers in GBM patients. Material and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to retrieve publications from 3 databases (Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase) from January 2010 to December 2021, using specific terms. The combined hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to evaluate the association of biomarkers with overall survival (OS) in GBM patients. Results: Twenty-six out of 1831 screened articles were included in this review. Nineteen articles were included in the meta-analyses, and 7 articles were quantitatively summarised. Fourteen studies with 1231 GBM patients showed a significant association of MGMT methylation with better OS with the pooled HR of 1.66 (95% CI 1.32−2.09, p < 0.0001, random effect). Five studies including 541 GBM patients analysed for the prognostic significance of IDH1 mutation showed significantly better OS in patients with IDH1 mutation with a pooled HR of 2.37 (95% CI 1.81−3.12; p < 0.00001]. Meta-analysis performed on 5 studies including 575 GBM patients presenting with either amplification or high expression of EGFR gene did not reveal any prognostic significance with a pooled HR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.96−1.79; p = 0.08). Conclusions: MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 mutation are significantly associated with better OS in GBM patients. No significant associations were found between EGFR amplification or overexpression with OS.
Topics: Biomarkers; Biomarkers, Tumor; Brain Neoplasms; DNA Methylation; DNA Modification Methylases; DNA Repair Enzymes; Glioblastoma; Humans; Tumor Suppressor Proteins
PubMed: 36012105
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23168835 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Glioblastoma; Humans; Lomustine; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 34559423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013579.pub2 -
JAMA Oncology Nov 2016Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains almost invariably fatal despite optimal surgical and medical therapy. The association between the extent of tumor resection (EOR)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains almost invariably fatal despite optimal surgical and medical therapy. The association between the extent of tumor resection (EOR) and outcome remains undefined, notwithstanding many relevant studies.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether greater EOR is associated with improved 1- and 2-year overall survival and 6-month and 1-year progression-free survival in patients with GBM.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed, CINAHL, and Web of Science (January 1, 1966, to December 1, 2015) were systematically reviewed with librarian guidance. Additional articles were included after consultation with experts and evaluation of bibliographies. Articles were collected from January 15 to December 1, 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies of adult patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial GBM comparing various EOR and presenting objective overall or progression-free survival data were included. Pediatric studies were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted from the text of articles or the Kaplan-Meier curves independently by investigators who were blinded to each other's results. Data were analyzed to assess mortality after gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), and biopsy. The body of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria and PRISMA guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
Relative risk (RR) for mortality at 1 and 2 years and progression at 6 months and 1 year.
RESULTS
The search produced 37 studies suitable for inclusion (41 117 unique patients). The meta-analysis revealed decreased mortality for GTR compared with STR at 1 year (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69; P < .001; number needed to treat [NNT], 9) and 2 years (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89; P < .001; NNT, 17). The 1-year risk for mortality for STR compared with biopsy was reduced significantly (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91; P < .001). The risk for mortality was similarly decreased for any resection compared with biopsy at 1 year (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; P < .001; NNT, 21) and 2 years (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00; P = .04; NNT, 593). The likelihood of disease progression was decreased with GTR compared with STR at 6 months (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12; NNT, 14) and 1 year (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P < .001; NNT, 26). The quality of the body of evidence by the GRADE criteria was moderate to low.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
This analysis represents the largest systematic review and only quantitative systematic review to date performed on this subject. Compared with STR, GTR substantially improves overall and progression-free survival, but the quality of the supporting evidence is moderate to low.
Topics: Brain; Brain Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Glioblastoma; Humans; Risk; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27310651
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1373 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2023Glioblastoma (GBM) is characterized by aggressive growth and high rates of recurrence. Despite the advancements in conventional therapies, the prognosis for GBM patients... (Review)
Review
Glioblastoma (GBM) is characterized by aggressive growth and high rates of recurrence. Despite the advancements in conventional therapies, the prognosis for GBM patients remains poor. Immunotherapy has recently emerged as a potential treatment option. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current strategies and future perspectives of the GBM immunotherapy strategies. A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) up to 3 September 2023. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to "glioblastomas," "immunotherapies," and "treatment." The studies included in this review consist of randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies reporting on the use of immunotherapies for the treatment of gliomas in human subjects. A total of 1588 papers are initially identified. Eligibility is confirmed for 752 articles, while 655 are excluded for various reasons, including irrelevance to the research topic (627), insufficient method and results details (12), and being case-series or cohort studies (22), systematic literature reviews, or meta-analyses (3). All the studies within the systematic review were clinical trials spanning from 1995 to 2023, involving 6383 patients. Neuro-oncology published the most glioma immunotherapy-related clinical trials (15/97, 16%). Most studies were released between 2018 and 2022, averaging nine publications annually during this period. Adoptive cellular transfer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells were the primary focus in 11% of the studies, with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), oncolytic viruses (OVs), and cancer vaccines (CVs) comprising 26%, 12%, and 51%, respectively. Phase-I trials constituted the majority at 51%, while phase-III trials were only 7% of the total. Among these trials, 60% were single arm, 39% double arm, and one multi-arm. Immunotherapies were predominantly employed for recurrent GBM (55%). The review also revealed ongoing clinical trials, including 9 on ICIs, 7 on CVs, 10 on OVs, and 8 on CAR T cells, totaling 34 trials, with phase-I trials representing the majority at 53%, and only one in phase III. Overcoming immunotolerance, stimulating robust tumor antigen responses, and countering immunosuppressive microenvironment mechanisms are critical for curative GBM immunotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors, show promise, with the ongoing research aiming to enhance their effectiveness. Personalized cancer vaccines, especially targeting neoantigens, offer substantial potential. Oncolytic viruses exhibited dual mechanisms and a breakthrough status in the clinical trials. CAR T-cell therapy, engineered for specific antigen targeting, yields encouraging results, particularly against IL13 Rα2 and EGFRvIII. The development of second-generation CAR T cells with improved specificity exemplifies their adaptability.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Cancer Vaccines; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Glioma; Immunotherapy; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Brain Neoplasms; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 37894718
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242015037 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Aug 2023Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, an electric field-based cancer treatment, became FDA-approved for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) in 2015... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, an electric field-based cancer treatment, became FDA-approved for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) in 2015 based on the randomized controlled EF-14 study. Subsequent approvals worldwide and increased adoption over time have raised the question of whether a consistent survival benefit has been observed in the real-world setting, and whether device usage has played a role.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search to identify clinical studies evaluating overall survival (OS) in TTFields-treated patients. Comparative and single-cohort studies were analyzed. Survival curves were pooled using a distribution-free random-effects method.
RESULTS
Among nine studies, seven (N = 1430 patients) compared the addition of TTFields therapy to standard of care (SOC) chemoradiotherapy versus SOC alone and were included in a pooled analysis for OS. Meta-analysis of comparative studies indicated a significant improvement in OS for patients receiving TTFields and SOC versus SOC alone (HR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.53-0.75; p < 0.001). Among real-world post-approval studies, the pooled median OS was 22.6 months (95% CI 17.6-41.2) for TTFields-treated patients, and 17.4 months (95% CI 14.4-21.6) for those not receiving TTFields. Rates of gross total resection were generally higher in the real-world setting, irrespective of TTFields use. Furthermore, for patients included in studies reporting data on device usage (N = 1015), an average usage rate of ≥ 75% was consistently associated with prolonged survival (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Meta-analysis of comparative TTFields studies suggests survival may be improved with the addition of TTFields to SOC for patients with newly diagnosed GBM.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Temozolomide; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Brain Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy
PubMed: 37493865
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04348-w -
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Jun 2022About half of the brain tumours are primary and the rest are metastatic. The impact of each of these treatments alone or together on the prognosis of patients with... (Review)
Review
About half of the brain tumours are primary and the rest are metastatic. The impact of each of these treatments alone or together on the prognosis of patients with astrocytoma tumours, especially low-grade astrocytoma, is unclear which may pose many challenges in the decision-making of surgeons and patients. Considering the importance of patient's outcomes with astrocytoma and lack of general statistics, this study aimed to determine the survival of patients with high-grade astrocytoma and low-grade astrocytoma after treatments. This study follows a systematic review and a meta-analysis approach. Following a systematic review and meta-analysis method, articles dated from 1982 to March 2020 were extracted from Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) international databases. Random effects model was used for analysis, and heterogeneity of studies was investigated considering the index. Data were analysed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 2). According to a meta-analysis of studies, the mean overall survival in patients with high-grade astrocytoma was 31.9 ± 2.7 months, for 2-year survival, 38.1% (95% CI: 27.5-50.1%) and for 5-year survival was 28.6% (95% CI: 24.1-33.4%). Mean overall survival in patients with low-grade astrocytoma was 64.8 ± 7.4 months, for 2-year survival was 74.3% (95% CI: 32.6-94.5%) and for 5-year survival was 74.4% (95% CI: 57.9-86%). The highest mean for survival in patients with high-grade astrocytoma and in chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments was 45.2 ± 5.2 months, and also the highest mean for survival in patients with low-grade astrocytoma in surgical treatment was 71.4 ± 8.8 months. The results of this study show that the average survival in patients with low-grade astrocytoma is high following the treatment, and in high-grade astrocytoma, there will be the highest survival rate, if the surgical treatment is combined with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This study summarizes retrospective studies up to 2020 to evaluate the prognosis and survival of patients with brain astrocytoma tumours, and the results of this meta-analysis can be of interest to surgeons and specialists in this field.
PubMed: 35782798
DOI: 10.1007/s13193-022-01533-7 -
Brain Sciences Dec 2023(1) Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is categorized as a grade IV astrocytoma by the World Health Organization (WHO), representing the most aggressive and prevalent form... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is categorized as a grade IV astrocytoma by the World Health Organization (WHO), representing the most aggressive and prevalent form of glioma. It presents a significant clinical challenge, with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of various nanotherapy approaches for GBM and explores future directions in tumor management. Nanomedicine, which involves nanoparticles in the 1-100 nm range, shows promise in improving drug delivery and targeting tumor cells. (2) Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of databases including Google Scholar, NCBI PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify clinical trials on GBM and nanomedicine. The primary outcome measures were median overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality of life assessed through Karnofsky performance scores. The safety profile was assessed by adverse events. (3) Results: The analysis included 225 GBM patients, divided into primary and recurrent sub-populations. Primary GBM patients had a median overall survival of 6.75 months, while recurrent GBM patients had a median overall survival of 9.7 months. The mean PFS period was 2.3 months and 3.92 months in primary GBM and recurrent GBM patients, respectively. Nanotherapy showed an improvement in quality of life, with KPS scores increasing after treatment in recurrent GBM patients. Adverse events were observed in 14.2% of patients. Notably, Bevacizumab therapy exhibited better survival outcomes but with a higher incidence of adverse events. (4) Conclusions: Nanotherapy offers a modest increase in survival with fewer severe side effects. It shows promise in improving the quality of life, especially in recurrent GBM patients. However, it falls short in terms of overall survival compared to Bevacizumab. The heterogeneous nature of treatment protocols and reporting methods highlights the need for standardized multicenter trials to further evaluate the potential of nanomedicine in GBM management.
PubMed: 38137175
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13121727 -
BioMedicine 2023Glioblastoma multiforme, commonly known as GBM or glioblastoma is a grade IV astrocytoma. Brain tumors are difficult to treat and lead to poor prognosis and survival in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glioblastoma multiforme, commonly known as GBM or glioblastoma is a grade IV astrocytoma. Brain tumors are difficult to treat and lead to poor prognosis and survival in patients. Gliomas are categorized into four different grades among which GBM is the worst grade primary brain tumor with a survival of less than a year. The genomic heterogeneity of the brain tumor results in different profiles for patients diagnosed with glioblastoma. Precision medicine focuses on this specific tumor type and suggests specialized treatment for better prognosis and overall survival (OS).
PURPOSE
With the recent advancements in Genome-Wide Studies (GWS) and various characterizations of brain tumors based on genetic, transcriptomic, proteomic, epigenetic, and metabolomics, this review discusses the advancements and opportunities of precision medicine therapeutics, drugs, and diagnosis methods based on the different profiles of glioblastoma.
METHODS
This review has exhaustively surveyed several pieces of works from various literature databases.
CONCLUSION
It is evident that most primary brain tumors including glioblastoma require specific and precision therapeutics for better prognosis and OS. In present and future, molecular understanding and discovering specific therapies are essential for treatment in the field of neurooncology.
PubMed: 37937301
DOI: 10.37796/2211-8039.1403 -
Journal of Nanobiotechnology Aug 2023Lymph nodes targeted drug delivery is an attractive approach to improve cancer immunotherapy outcomes. Currently, the depth of understanding of afferent and efferent... (Review)
Review
Lymph nodes targeted drug delivery is an attractive approach to improve cancer immunotherapy outcomes. Currently, the depth of understanding of afferent and efferent arms in brain immunity reveals the potential clinical applications of lymph node targeted drug delivery in brain tumors, e.g., glioblastoma. In this work, we systematically reviewed the microenvironment of glioblastoma and its structure as a basis for potential immunotherapy, including the glial-lymphatic pathway for substance exchange, the lymphatic drainage pathway from meningeal lymphatic vessels to deep cervical lymph nodes that communicate intra- and extracranial immunity, and the interaction between the blood-brain barrier and effector T cells. Furthermore, the carriers designed for lymph nodes targeted drug delivery were comprehensively summarized. The challenges and opportunities in developing a lymph nodes targeted delivery strategy for glioblastoma using nanotechnology are included at the end.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Lymph Nodes; Brain Neoplasms; Brain; Drug Delivery Systems; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 37542241
DOI: 10.1186/s12951-023-02011-0