A Systematic Review of Nanomedicine in Glioblastoma Treatment: Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Future Directions

A Systematic Review of Nanomedicine in Glioblastoma Treatment: Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Future Directions

(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 e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Brain sciences Vol. 13; no. 12; p. 1727
Main Authors: Farooq, Minaam, Scalia, Gianluca, Umana, Giuseppe E, Parekh, Urja A, Naeem, Faiza, Abid, Sayeda Fatima, Khan, Muhammad Hammad, Zahra, Shah Gul, Sarkar, Hrishikesh P, Chaurasia, Bipin
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01-12-2023
Subjects:
Adverse events
Astrocytoma
Bevacizumab
Brain cancer
Cancer therapies
Chemotherapy
Clinical trials
Development and progression
Drug delivery
Drug delivery systems
Drug therapy
Drugs
Evidence-based medicine
Glioblastoma
Glioblastoma multiforme
Immunology
Immunotherapy
Medical prognosis
molecular markers
nanomedicine
Nanoparticles
Nanotechnology
Patient compliance
Patients
Proteins
Quality of life
Radiation therapy
Safety
Surgery
Systematic review
theranostics
Tumor cells
Tumors
Vehicles
nanomedicine
theranostics
glioblastoma
nanoparticles
quality of life
molecular markers
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:(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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ISSN:2076-3425
2076-3425
DOI:10.3390/brainsci13121727