001     286593
005     20240229155126.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3390/brainsci13121727
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:38137175
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC10742051
|2 pmc
024 7 _ |a altmetric:157569625
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2023-02810
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 570
100 1 _ |a Farooq, Minaam
|0 0000-0003-0136-4239
|b 0
245 _ _ |a A Systematic Review of Nanomedicine in Glioblastoma Treatment: Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Future Directions.
260 _ _ |a Basel
|c 2023
|b MDPI AG
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1703765048_31546
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
|x Review Article
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a (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.
536 _ _ |a 312 - Funktionelle und strukturelle Genomforschung (POF4-312)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-312
|c POF4-312
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 7 |a glioblastoma
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a molecular markers
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a nanomedicine
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a nanoparticles
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a quality of life
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a theranostics
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Scalia, Gianluca
|0 0000-0002-9465-2506
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Umana, Giuseppe E
|0 0000-0002-1573-431X
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Parekh, Urja
|0 P:(DE-He78)d175d4ab09be0f7c46e1563679f341c7
|b 3
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Naeem, Faiza
|0 0000-0002-1676-1512
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Abid, Sayeda Fatima
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Khan, Muhammad Hammad
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Zahra, Shah Gul
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Sarkar, Hrishikesh P
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Chaurasia, Bipin
|0 0000-0002-8392-2072
|b 9
773 _ _ |a 10.3390/brainsci13121727
|g Vol. 13, no. 12, p. 1727 -
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2651993-8
|n 12
|p 1727
|t Brain Sciences
|v 13
|y 2023
|x 2076-3425
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:286593
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-He78)d175d4ab09be0f7c46e1563679f341c7
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-312
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Funktionelle und strukturelle Genomforschung
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2023
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b BRAIN SCI : 2022
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0320
|2 StatID
|b PubMed Central
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2023-04-12T14:57:08Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-04-12T14:57:08Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Anonymous peer review
|d 2023-04-12T14:57:08Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-04-12T14:57:08Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2023-08-26
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2023-08-26
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)B420-20160331
|k B420
|l Genominstabilität in Tumoren
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)B420-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21