% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Farooq:286593,
author = {M. Farooq and G. Scalia and G. E. Umana and U. Parekh$^*$
and F. Naeem and S. F. Abid and M. H. Khan and S. G. Zahra
and H. P. Sarkar and B. Chaurasia},
title = {{A} {S}ystematic {R}eview of {N}anomedicine in
{G}lioblastoma {T}reatment: {C}linical {E}fficacy, {S}afety,
and {F}uture {D}irections.},
journal = {Brain Sciences},
volume = {13},
number = {12},
issn = {2076-3425},
address = {Basel},
publisher = {MDPI AG},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-02810},
pages = {1727},
year = {2023},
abstract = {(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.},
subtyp = {Review Article},
keywords = {glioblastoma (Other) / molecular markers (Other) /
nanomedicine (Other) / nanoparticles (Other) / quality of
life (Other) / theranostics (Other)},
cin = {B420},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)B420-20160331},
pnm = {312 - Funktionelle und strukturelle Genomforschung
(POF4-312)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-312},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:38137175},
pmc = {pmc:PMC10742051},
doi = {10.3390/brainsci13121727},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/286593},
}