| Literature DB >> 35135556 |
Keyang Yang1,2,3, Zhijing Wu1,2,3, Hao Zhang1,3, Nan Zhang3,4, Wantao Wu3,5, Zeyu Wang1,3, Ziyu Dai1,3, Xun Zhang1,3, Liyang Zhang1,3, Yun Peng3,6,7, Weijie Ye3,8, Wenjing Zeng3,8, Zhixiong Liu9,10, Quan Cheng11,12.
Abstract
Gliomas are the common type of brain tumors originating from glial cells. Epidemiologically, gliomas occur among all ages, more often seen in adults, which males are more susceptible than females. According to the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (WHO CNS5), standard of care and prognosis of gliomas can be dramatically different. Generally, circumscribed gliomas are usually benign and recommended to early complete resection, with chemotherapy if necessary. Diffuse gliomas and other high-grade gliomas according to their molecule subtype are slightly intractable, with necessity of chemotherapy. However, for glioblastoma, feasible resection followed by radiotherapy plus temozolomide chemotherapy define the current standard of care. Here, we discuss novel feasible or potential targets for treatment of gliomas, especially IDH-wild type glioblastoma. Classic targets such as the p53 and retinoblastoma (RB) pathway and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene alteration have met failure due to complex regulatory network. There is ever-increasing interest in immunotherapy (immune checkpoint molecule, tumor associated macrophage, dendritic cell vaccine, CAR-T), tumor microenvironment, and combination of several efficacious methods. With many targeted therapy options emerging, biomarkers guiding the prescription of a particular targeted therapy are also attractive. More pre-clinical and clinical trials are urgently needed to explore and evaluate the feasibility of targeted therapy with the corresponding biomarkers for effective personalized treatment options.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35135556 PMCID: PMC8822752 DOI: 10.1186/s12943-022-01513-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Cancer ISSN: 1476-4598 Impact factor: 27.401
Molecular targeted therapy of GBM
| Reference& selected trials | Intervention | Design | Primary endpoint | Response | PFS | OS | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EGFR | |||||||
| Sepúlveda-Sánchez et al.2017 | Dacomitinib | Non-randomized Phase II, Open label | PFS-6 | EGFRamp/EGFRvIII- 1 CR, 1 PR EGFRamp/EGFRvIII + 1 PR | PFS-6(%) EGFRamp/EGFRvIII- 13.3 EGFRamp/EGFRvIII + 5.9 Median PFS(months) EGFRamp/EGFRvIII- 2.7 EGFRamp/EGFRvIII + 2.6 | Median OS(months) EGFRamp/EGFRvIII- 7.8 EGFRamp/EGFRvIII + 6.7 | Dacomitinib has a limited single-agent activity with EGFR amplification |
| Byeon et al. 2020 | Gefitinib | Single-arm phase II, open label | ORR | 1 PR and 2 SD | Median PFS 2.1 months | ND | Gefitinib is modestly active |
| Neyns et al. 2009 | Cetuximab | Non-randomized phase II, Open label | RR | 3 PR and 16 SD | PFS-6 7.3% Median PFS 1.9 months | OS-6 37.9% Median OS 5.06 months | Cetuximab is inactive with HGG |
| van den Bent et al. 2018 | Depatuxizumab/ABT-414 | Randomized phase II, open label | OS | ABT-414 plus TMZ 5 PR ABT-414 2 PR TMZ/CCNU 1 PR | Median PFS (months) ABT-414 plus TMZ 3 ABT-414 1.9 TMZ/CCNU 2.0 | Median OS (months) ABT-414 plus TMZ 9.6 ABT-414 7.9 TMZ/CCNU 8.2 | ABT-414 may be active in combination with TMZ |
| Schuster et al. 2015 | Rindopepimut | Randomized phase II, Open label | PFS | ND | PFS-5.5 66% Median PFS 9.2 months | Median OS 21.8 months | Rindopepimut needs further study |
| Weller et al. 2017 | Rindopepimut | Randomized phase III, Placebo-controlled | OS | Median PFS (months) rindopepimut 7.1 placebo 5.6 | median OS (months) rindopepimut 20.1 placebo 20.0 | Rindopepimut is inactive in newly diagnosed disease | |
| PI3K/AKT/mTOR | |||||||
| Chang et al. 2005 | CCI-779 | Non-randomized phase II | PFS-6 | 2 PR and 20 SD | ND | ND | CCI-779 is inactive |
| Wen et al. 2019 | Buparlisib | Single arm phase II | PFS-6 | none | PFS-6 8% | 9.8 months | Buparlisib is inactive as single agent |
| Hainsworth et al. 2019 | BKM120 with bevacizumab | Single arm Phase II | PFS | 8 CR and 12 PR | PFS-6 36.5% Median PFS 4 months | OS(months) BEV-naïve 10.8 BEV 6.6 | BKM120 is poorly tolerated and relatively inactive |
| Wick et al. 2016 | Temsirolimus | Randomized phase II, open label | OS-12 | Median PFS (months) temsirolimus 5.4 TMZ 6.0 | OS-12 Temsirolimus 70% TMZ 72% Median OS (months) Temsirolimus 14.8 TMZ 16.0 | mTORSer2448 phosphorylationmay be used for enrichment in further studies of mTOR inhibition | |
| Ma et al. 2015 | Everolimus | Single arm phase II | OS-12 | median PFS 6.4 months | OS-12: 64% median OS: 15.8 MONTHS | Everolimus is not active in combination with TMZ/RT → TMZ | |
| MET | |||||||
| Wen et al. 2011 | Rilotumumab | Single arm phase II | ORR | None | PFS (months) 10 mg/kg: 1.0 20 mg/kg: 1.0 | OS (months) 10 mg/kg: 6.5 20 mg/kg: 5.4 | Rilotumumab is inactive |
| Cloughesy et al. 2017 | Onartuzumab | Randomized phase II, open label | PFS-6 | onartuzumab plus bevacizumab 1 CR, 11 PR bevacizumab 3 CR, 11 PR | PFS-6 (months) onartuzumab plus bevacizumab 3.9 bevacizumab 2.9 | OS (months) onartuzumab plus bevacizumab 8.8 bevacizumab 12.6 | High tumor hepatocyte growth factor and lack of MGMT promoter methylation may predict benefit from MET inhibition |
| van den Bent et al. 2020 | INC280(Capmatinib) | Non-randomized phase Ib/II open label | PFS-6 | INC280 monotherapy 3 SD | ND | ND | INC280 is inactive as single agent |
| BRAF | |||||||
| Kaley et al. 2018 | Vemurafenib | Single arm phase II | ORR | None, 3 SD in 6 patients | BRAF inhibition in gial brain tumors deserves further study | ||
| FGFR | |||||||
| Sharma et al. 2019 | Dovitinib | 2-arm Phase II Open label | PFS-6/TTP | PFS-6: 6%(± 4%) Median PFS 1.8 months | Median OS 5.6 months | Dovitinib is not active | |
| Proteasome | |||||||
| Friday et al. 2012 | Bortezomib plus vorinostat | Single arm Phase II | PFS-6 | 1 PR | PFS-6: 0% | Median OS 3.2 months | No indication to further study this combination |
| Kong et al. 2018 | boretezomib | Single arm Phase II | OS | Median PFS 6.2 months | Median OS 19.1 months | Bortezomib warrants further study | |
| Huang et al. 2019 | Disulfiram | Single arm Phase II Open label | ORR | 6 SD | Median PFS 1.7 months | Median OS 7.1 months | Disulfiram has limited activity |
| CDK4/6 or CDKN2A/B or RB | |||||||
| Taylor et al. 2018 | Palbociclib | Single arm Phase II | PFS-6 | Median PFS 5 weeks | Median OS 15 weeks | Palbociclib is inactive as single agent | |
| Multi-kinase inhibition | |||||||
| Wen et al. 2018 | Cabozantinib | Single arm phase II | ORR | 6 PR and 17 PR | PFS-6: 22.3% and 27.8% | Median OS 7.7 and 10.4 months | Cabozantinib is inactive as single agent |
Cloughesy et al 2018 | Cabozantinib | Single arm phase II | ORR | 3 PR | PFS-6: 8.5% | Median OS 4.6 months | Cabozantinib is inactive as single agent |
| TGF-β | |||||||
| Brandes et al. 2016 | Galunisertib | Randomized phase II, Partially blinded | OS | Galunisertib plus lomustine 1 CR Galunisertib 2 PR Lomustine none | PFS(months) Galunisertib plus lomustine 1.8 Galunisertib 1.8 Lomustine 1.9 | OS(months) Galunisertib plus lomustine 6.7 Galunisertib 8.0 Lomustine 7.5 | Galunisertib is inactive |
| Bogdahn et al. 2011 | Trabedersen | Randomized phase IIb, Open label Active controlled | Tumor control rate | Median survival 10 μM trabedersen 7.3 80 μM trabedersen 10.9 | OS-24 10 μM trabedersen 20% 80 μM trabedersen 18% | Trabedersen needs further clinical development | |
| PD-1 | |||||||
| Reardon et al. 2017 | Nivolumab | Randomized phase III, Open label | OS | Nivolumab 12 responses Bevacizumab 36 responses | Median PFS (months) Nivolumab 1.5 Bevacizumab 3.5 | OS (months) Nivolumab 9.8 Bevacizumab 10.0 | Nivolumab may be active in patients with MGMT promotermethylated tumors who are not on steroids |
| Schalper et al. 2019 | Nivolumab as neoadjuvant | Single arm Phase II | Median PFS 4.1 months | Median OS 7.3 months | Nivolumab is inactive as neoadjuvant | ||
PFS progression-free survival, PFS-6 6-month PFS rate, OS overall survival, OS-6 6-month OS rate, ORR objective response rate, RR response rate, ND no data
Fig. 1Tyrosine kinase receptor
Fig. 2Cell cycle control and apoptosis regulating pathways
Fig. 3Microenvironmental targets
Fig. 4Immunotherapy targets
Fig. 5Candidate molecular targets amenable to targeted interventions in LGG
Molecular targeted therapy of LGG
| Reference& selected trials | Intervention | Design | Primary endpoint | Response | PFS | OS | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkylating agent | |||||||
| Baumert et al. 2016 | standard radiotherapy/primary temozolomide | Randomized phase III, Open label | PFS | Median PFS (months) IDHmt/codel 62 IDHmt/non-codel 48 IDHwt 20 | There is no significant difference between radiotherapy alone and TMZ alone | ||
| Reijneveld et al. 2016 | radiotherapy/temozolomide | Randomized phase III Open label | PFS | Median PFS (months) RT alone 46 TMZ alone 39 | The effect of temozolomide or radiotherapy on HRQOL or global cognitive functioning did not differ in LGG | ||
| Wahl et al. 2017 | Adjuvant TMZ | Non-randomizes phase II | radiographic response rate | 7 PR | Median PFS 3.8 years | Median OS 9.7 years | TMZ is beneficial as adjuvant therapy |
| Fisher et al. 2020 | RT, TMZ, post-RT TMZ | Single arm Phase II | OS | Median PFS 4.5 years | 3-year OS rate 73.5% 5-year OS rate 60.9% | Combination of TMZ and RT is better than RT alone | |
| Ras/Mek/Erk | |||||||
| Karajannis et al. 2014 | Sorafenib | Non-randomized Phase II Open label | Sorafenib produced unexpected and unprecedented acceleration of tumor growth | ||||
| Fangusaro et al. 2019 | selumetinib | Non-randomized Phase II Open label | ORR | Stratum 1: 9 PR and 9 SD Stratum 2: 10 PR and 15 SD | 2-year PFS Stratum 1: 70% Stratum 2: 96% | Selumetinib is active against BRAF aberrations and NF-1 associated pLGG | |
| Hargrave et al. 2019 | Dabrafenib | Single arm phase I/IIa Open label | ORR | 1 CR and 13 PR | Median PFS 35.0 months | Dabrafenib is active | |
| Perreault et al. 2019 | Trametinib | Non-randomized Phase II Open label | ORR (primary objective) | ||||
| PI3K/AKT/mTOR | |||||||
| Ullrich et al. 2020 | Everolimus | Non-randomized Phase II | PFS at 48 weeks | 1 CR and 3 PR(3D/volumetric analysis) | Everolimus is active against NF-1 associated patients | ||
| Wahl et al. 2017 | Everolimus | Non-randomized Phase II | PFS-6 | PFS-6 Grade II 84% Grade III/IV 55% Median PFS (years) Grade II 1.4 Grade III/IV 0.6 | Median OS(years) Grade II not reached Grade III 2.9 | Everolimus leads to disease stability | |
Outlook
| Pathways or targets | Limitations | Hotspots |
|---|---|---|
| EGFR | EGFR inhibitors or antibody appear inactive, partly due to the existence of BBB | Target on EGFR amplification and EGFRvIII |
| PI3K/AKT/mTOR | Most of the drugs experience poorly tolerance, and the regulation of this pathway is far too complex | combine PI3K/SKT/mTOR inhibitors with other drugs |
| MET | There is still no effective kind of drugs | Combination of c-MET inhibitor and PI3K inhibitors due to their cooperation to drug resistance |
| FGFR | Population of patients that could gain benefit from this target is extraordinarily small | |
| BRAF | Mutations of this target are rare | BRAFv600E in GBM needs to be further studied |
| NTRK | The incidence of NTRK gene fusion seems to be very low in glioblastoma | NTRK fusion as a therapeutic target is active and molecular heterogeneity screening in the diagnosis of GBM is significant |
| pRB | Regulation of cell cycle and apoptosis is complex | |
| P53 | Effort on promoting the refolding of mutant proteins into wild-type conformations meets failure | Inhibitors of MDM2/4 and Weel kinase |
| TERT | Though TERT mutation is commonly identified in GBM, it has not yet become the main pharmacological target for tumor therapy | Novel inhibitors need to be developed |
| proteasome | ||
| TGF-β | The function of TGF β protein family is complex and the regulatory pathways are widely crossed | Combine TMA and TGF inhibitors |
| PD-1 | Combine PD-1 and other immunotherapy target | |
| LAG-3 | there are few trials about LAG-3 inhibitors or antibodies involved in GBM therapy | |
| CTLA-4 | CTLA-4 inhibitors combined with TMZ, anti-PD-1 or other drugs appear promising | |
| IDO1 | Enzymatic and non-enzymatic activity of IDO | |
| CD73 and CD39 | In tumor microenvironment, both CD73 and CD39 participate in regulation of ATP-adenosine axis | |
| CD27-CD70 | Combination of CD27 agonist and CD70 inhibitor | |
| CD276 | Un-defined isoforms and intracellular domain with unknown ligand | CD276 is correlated with angiogenesis |
| CD47 | Polymorphism of SIRPα, ligand of CD47 | Anti-CD47 promotes phagocytosis of glioma |