Cargando…

Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Although multiple meta-analyses on active specific immunotherapy treatment for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have demonstrated a significant prolongation of overall survival, no single research group has succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of this type of treatment in a prospecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Gool, Stefaan W., Makalowski, Jennifer, Fiore, Simon, Sprenger, Tobias, Prix, Lothar, Schirrmacher, Volker, Stuecker, Wilfried
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7796083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33374196
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13010032
_version_ 1783634597417844736
author Van Gool, Stefaan W.
Makalowski, Jennifer
Fiore, Simon
Sprenger, Tobias
Prix, Lothar
Schirrmacher, Volker
Stuecker, Wilfried
author_facet Van Gool, Stefaan W.
Makalowski, Jennifer
Fiore, Simon
Sprenger, Tobias
Prix, Lothar
Schirrmacher, Volker
Stuecker, Wilfried
author_sort Van Gool, Stefaan W.
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Although multiple meta-analyses on active specific immunotherapy treatment for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have demonstrated a significant prolongation of overall survival, no single research group has succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of this type of treatment in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. In this paper, we explain how the complexity of the tumor biology and tumor–host interactions make proper stratification of a control group impossible. The individualized characteristics of advanced therapy medicinal products for immunotherapy contribute to heterogeneity within an experimental group. The dynamics of each tumor and in each patient aggravate comparative stable patient groups. Finally, combinations of immunotherapy strategies should be integrated with first-line treatment. We illustrate the complexity of a combined first-line treatment with individualized multimodal immunotherapy in a group of 70 adults with GBM and demonstrate that the integration of immunogenic cell death treatment within maintenance chemotherapy followed by dendritic cell vaccines and maintenance immunotherapy might provide a step towards improving the overall survival rate of GBM patients. ABSTRACT: Immunotherapies represent a promising strategy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treatment. Different immunotherapies include the use of checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, and vaccines such as dendritic cell vaccines. Antibodies have also been used as toxin or radioactive particle delivery vehicles to eliminate target cells in the treatment of GBM. Oncolytic viral therapy and other immunogenic cell death-inducing treatments bridge the antitumor strategy with immunization and installation of immune control over the disease. These strategies should be included in the standard treatment protocol for GBM. Some immunotherapies are individualized in terms of the medicinal product, the immune target, and the immune tumor–host contact. Current individualized immunotherapy strategies focus on combinations of approaches. Standardization appears to be impossible in the face of complex controlled trial designs. To define appropriate control groups, stratification according to the Recursive Partitioning Analysis classification, MGMT promotor methylation, epigenetic GBM sub-typing, tumor microenvironment, systemic immune functioning before and after radiochemotherapy, and the need for/type of symptom-relieving drugs is required. Moreover, maintenance of a fixed treatment protocol for a dynamic, deadly cancer disease in a permanently changing tumor–host immune context might be inappropriate. This complexity is illustrated using our own data on individualized multimodal immunotherapies for GBM. Individualized medicines, including multimodal immunotherapies, are a rational and optimal yet also flexible approach to induce long-term tumor control. However, innovative methods are needed to assess the efficacy of complex individualized treatments and implement them more quickly into the general health system.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7796083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77960832021-01-10 Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged Van Gool, Stefaan W. Makalowski, Jennifer Fiore, Simon Sprenger, Tobias Prix, Lothar Schirrmacher, Volker Stuecker, Wilfried Cancers (Basel) Review SIMPLE SUMMARY: Although multiple meta-analyses on active specific immunotherapy treatment for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have demonstrated a significant prolongation of overall survival, no single research group has succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of this type of treatment in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. In this paper, we explain how the complexity of the tumor biology and tumor–host interactions make proper stratification of a control group impossible. The individualized characteristics of advanced therapy medicinal products for immunotherapy contribute to heterogeneity within an experimental group. The dynamics of each tumor and in each patient aggravate comparative stable patient groups. Finally, combinations of immunotherapy strategies should be integrated with first-line treatment. We illustrate the complexity of a combined first-line treatment with individualized multimodal immunotherapy in a group of 70 adults with GBM and demonstrate that the integration of immunogenic cell death treatment within maintenance chemotherapy followed by dendritic cell vaccines and maintenance immunotherapy might provide a step towards improving the overall survival rate of GBM patients. ABSTRACT: Immunotherapies represent a promising strategy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treatment. Different immunotherapies include the use of checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, and vaccines such as dendritic cell vaccines. Antibodies have also been used as toxin or radioactive particle delivery vehicles to eliminate target cells in the treatment of GBM. Oncolytic viral therapy and other immunogenic cell death-inducing treatments bridge the antitumor strategy with immunization and installation of immune control over the disease. These strategies should be included in the standard treatment protocol for GBM. Some immunotherapies are individualized in terms of the medicinal product, the immune target, and the immune tumor–host contact. Current individualized immunotherapy strategies focus on combinations of approaches. Standardization appears to be impossible in the face of complex controlled trial designs. To define appropriate control groups, stratification according to the Recursive Partitioning Analysis classification, MGMT promotor methylation, epigenetic GBM sub-typing, tumor microenvironment, systemic immune functioning before and after radiochemotherapy, and the need for/type of symptom-relieving drugs is required. Moreover, maintenance of a fixed treatment protocol for a dynamic, deadly cancer disease in a permanently changing tumor–host immune context might be inappropriate. This complexity is illustrated using our own data on individualized multimodal immunotherapies for GBM. Individualized medicines, including multimodal immunotherapies, are a rational and optimal yet also flexible approach to induce long-term tumor control. However, innovative methods are needed to assess the efficacy of complex individualized treatments and implement them more quickly into the general health system. MDPI 2020-12-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7796083/ /pubmed/33374196 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13010032 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Van Gool, Stefaan W.
Makalowski, Jennifer
Fiore, Simon
Sprenger, Tobias
Prix, Lothar
Schirrmacher, Volker
Stuecker, Wilfried
Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged
title Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged
title_full Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged
title_fullStr Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged
title_full_unstemmed Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged
title_short Randomized Controlled Immunotherapy Clinical Trials for GBM Challenged
title_sort randomized controlled immunotherapy clinical trials for gbm challenged
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7796083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33374196
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13010032
work_keys_str_mv AT vangoolstefaanw randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged
AT makalowskijennifer randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged
AT fioresimon randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged
AT sprengertobias randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged
AT prixlothar randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged
AT schirrmachervolker randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged
AT stueckerwilfried randomizedcontrolledimmunotherapyclinicaltrialsforgbmchallenged