Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35397073›Full record

ReviewDrugs2022

Pharmacotherapeutic Treatment of Glioblastoma: Where Are We to Date?

Lidia Gatto, Vincenzo Di Nunno, Enrico Franceschi, Alicia Tosoni, Stefania Bartolini, Alba Ariela Brandes

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Therapeutic Options in Neuro-Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lidia Gatto *Department of Oncology, AUSL Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Vincenzo Di Nunno *Department of Oncology, AUSL Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4441-9834
Enrico FranceschiNervous System Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Via Altura 3, Bologna, Italy. enricofra@yahoo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9332-4677
Alicia TosoniNervous System Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Via Altura 3, Bologna, Italy.
Stefania BartoliniNervous System Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Via Altura 3, Bologna, Italy.
Alba Ariela BrandesNervous System Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Via Altura 3, Bologna, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2503-9089
Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical management of glioblastoma (GBM) is still bereft of treatments able to significantly improve the poor prognosis of the disease. Despite the extreme clinical need for novel therapeutic drugs, only a small percentage of patients with GBM benefit from inclusion in a clinical trial. Moreover, often clinical studies do not lead to final interpretable conclusions. From the mistakes and negative results obtained in the last years, we are now able to plan a novel generation of clinical studies for patients with GBM, allowing the testing of multiple anticancer agents at the same time. This assumes critical importance, considering that, thanks to improved knowledge of altered molecular mechanisms related to the disease, we are now able to propose several potential effective compounds in patients with both newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM. Among the novel compounds assessed, the initially great enthusiasm toward trials employing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) was disappointing due to the negative results that emerged in three randomized phase III trials. However, novel biological insights into the disease suggest that immunotherapy can be a convincing and effective treatment in GBM even if ICIs failed to prolong the survival of these patients. In this regard, the most promising approach consists of engineered immune cells such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T, CAR M, and CAR NK alone or in combination with other treatments. In this review, we discuss several issues related to systemic treatments in GBM patients. First, we assess critical issues toward the planning of clinical trials and the strategies employed to overcome these obstacles. We then move on to the most relevant interventional studies carried out on patients with previously untreated (newly diagnosed) GBM and those with recurrent and pretreated disease. Finally, we investigate novel immunotherapeutic approaches with special emphasis on preclinical and clinical data related to the administration of engineered immune cells in GBM.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaReceptors, Chimeric AntigenHumansImmunotherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalReceptors, Chimeric Antigen

Identifiers

PMID35397073
OpenAlexW4223431990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.