Randy S D'Amico1, Manish K Aghi2, Michael A Vogelbaum3, Jeffrey N Bruce4. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA. rdamico8@northwell.edu. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of NeuroOncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fl, USA. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) is a method of targeted, local drug delivery to the central nervous system (CNS) that bypasses the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and permits the delivery of high-dose therapeutics to large volumes of interest while limiting associated systemic toxicities. Since its inception, CED has undergone considerable preclinical and clinical study as a safe method for treating glioblastoma (GBM). However, the heterogeneity of both, the surgical procedure and the mechanisms of action of the agents studied-combined with the additional costs of performing a trial evaluating CED-has limited the field's ability to adequately assess the durability of any potential anti-tumor responses. As a result, the long-term efficacy of the agents studied to date remains difficult to assess. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed using the phrase "convection-enhanced delivery and glioblastoma". The references of significant systematic reviews were also reviewed for additional sources. Articles focusing on physiological and physical mechanisms of CED were included as well as technological CED advances. RESULTS: We review the history and principles of CED, procedural advancements and characteristics, and outcomes from key clinical trials, as well as discuss the potential future of this promising technique for the treatment of GBM. CONCLUSION: While the long-term efficacy of the agents studied to date remains difficult to assess, CED remains a promising technique for the treatment of GBM.
INTRODUCTION: Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) is a method of targeted, local drug delivery to the central nervous system (CNS) that bypasses the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and permits the delivery of high-dose therapeutics to large volumes of interest while limiting associated systemic toxicities. Since its inception, CED has undergone considerable preclinical and clinical study as a safe method for treating glioblastoma (GBM). However, the heterogeneity of both, the surgical procedure and the mechanisms of action of the agents studied-combined with the additional costs of performing a trial evaluating CED-has limited the field's ability to adequately assess the durability of any potential anti-tumor responses. As a result, the long-term efficacy of the agents studied to date remains difficult to assess. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed using the phrase "convection-enhanced delivery and glioblastoma". The references of significant systematic reviews were also reviewed for additional sources. Articles focusing on physiological and physical mechanisms of CED were included as well as technological CED advances. RESULTS: We review the history and principles of CED, procedural advancements and characteristics, and outcomes from key clinical trials, as well as discuss the potential future of this promising technique for the treatment of GBM. CONCLUSION: While the long-term efficacy of the agents studied to date remains difficult to assess, CED remains a promising technique for the treatment of GBM.
Authors: Russell R Lonser; Stuart Walbridge; Kayhan Garmestani; John A Butman; Hugh A Walters; Alexander O Vortmeyer; Paul F Morrison; Martin W Brechbiel; Edward H Oldfield Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Juergen Voges; Regina Reszka; Axel Gossmann; Claus Dittmar; Raphaela Richter; Guido Garlip; Lutz Kracht; Heinz H Coenen; Volker Sturm; Karl Wienhard; Wolf-Dieter Heiss; Andreas H Jacobs Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Michal T Krauze; Ryuta Saito; Charles Noble; Matyas Tamas; John Bringas; John W Park; Mitchel S Berger; Krystof Bankiewicz Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jeffrey N Bruce; Robert L Fine; Peter Canoll; Jonathan Yun; Benjamin C Kennedy; Steven S Rosenfeld; Stephen A Sands; Krishna Surapaneni; Rose Lai; Candix L Yanes; Emilia Bagiella; Robert L DeLaPaz Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Michael C Brown; Eda K Holl; David Boczkowski; Elena Dobrikova; Mubeen Mosaheb; Vidya Chandramohan; Darell D Bigner; Matthias Gromeier; Smita K Nair Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Sandeep Kunwar; Susan Chang; Manfred Westphal; Michael Vogelbaum; John Sampson; Gene Barnett; Mark Shaffrey; Zvi Ram; Joseph Piepmeier; Michael Prados; David Croteau; Christoph Pedain; Pamela Leland; Syed R Husain; Bharat H Joshi; Raj K Puri Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: D Klatzmann; C A Valéry; G Bensimon; B Marro; O Boyer; K Mokhtari; B Diquet; J L Salzmann; J Philippon Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 1998-11-20 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Pin-Yuan Chen; Tomoko Ozawa; Daryl C Drummond; Ashish Kalra; Jonathan B Fitzgerald; Dmitri B Kirpotin; Kuo-Chen Wei; Nicholas Butowski; Michael D Prados; Mitchel S Berger; John R Forsayeth; Krystof Bankiewicz; C David James Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Karl John Habashy; Rana Mansour; Charbel Moussalem; Raymond Sawaya; Michel J Massaad Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Julian S Rechberger; Kendra A Porath; Liang Zhang; Cody L Nesvick; Randy S Schrecengost; Jann N Sarkaria; David J Daniels Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-04-24 Impact factor: 6.525