Aldo Spallone- Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry (IBKh) Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Moscow, Russia
Editorial on the Research Topic
Modern neurosurgical management of gliomas, including local therapies
Glioblastoma (GBM) remains one of the most difficult to treat diseases in the field of oncology, and in neurooncology in particular. This Editorial focuses on the role of surgery and includes the four manuscripts included in the Research Topic “Modern Neurosurgical Management of Gliomas, including Local Therapies”.
of Despite extensive research and significant improvement in operative techniques and diagnostic technology, patient survival has barely increased in the last 40 years: from slightly more than one year to less than two years (1, 2). Moreover, this improvement was achieved by using some very aggressive management protocols, including repeated surgery performed in on an awake patient, as in many surgical experiences, including my own (3, 4). Currently, surgery represents a major instrument in the hands of clinicians in for helping these unfortunate patients. In fact, it is well known that apparent radical surgery is a key factor for prolonging post-operative patients’ survival [(5, 6), Ren et al. (7, 8)], in as well as reoperative surgery patients (3, 9).
This the necessitates of searching for any possible means in to increase the chances of achieving an apparent surgical radical excision in demanding cases, such as tumors located in critical areas and/or deeply situated in the brain, as well as in recurrent tumors. In this respect, the contribution of Ren et al. is of relevant importance.
In fact, using the sophisticated method the authors described, with the patient either under anesthesia or awake, the surgeon can be very aggressive in removing the tumor, while in at the same time, remaining very safe as regards the risk of postoperative loss of functions, in particular motor functions. Moreover, monitoring the minimal subcortical monopolar threshold (MSCMT) can accurately predict the actual risk of damaging the pyramidal tracts; therefore, this unfortunate occurrence can be avoided. The authors actually define a clear cut-off that can be used not only for preventing post-operative deficits, but also for predicting progression-free survival and prognosis of operated GBM patients.
Prognostic indicators for GBM patients can also be retrieved from the experience of other surgical specialties, demonstrated by Li et al., who adapted a protocol originally implemented in Italy for abdominal cancer to malignant glioma patients in for (10). These authors transferred a concept to neuro-oncolological patients, introduced for colorectal cancer by an Italian group, and found that the inflammatory and nutritional status influenced the overall survival of GBM patients. Indeed, serum albumin, concentrate cholesterol level, and the neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio were significantly associated with OS in their patients, and were shown to be reliable prognostic indicators. Wang et al. reported the excellent results of for the implementation of an enhanced post-operative recovery protocol in the early stage of glioblastoma- operated patients. In this case, the authors also adapted protocols already reported by other surgical specialties to neuro-oncology patients (11). In fact, in the last decade, great attention has been paid in different surgical fields to the positive impact of early post-operative recovery in oncological patients. GBM patients are not an exception, and the study of Wang at al. gives another convincing demonstration of this concept.
Zerdan et al. provided a very thoughtful and complex analysis of the recent relevant literature on glioma biomarkers, with a clear view on the implementation of potential future therapeutic protocols. This review is extremely comprehensive. Data are provided accurately and concisely, with the relevant message that future, hopefully effective treatment of gliomas, in particular of malignant ones, would require extensive and deep knowledge of these identified biomarkers.
Classical chemotherapy has seen the introduction of Temozolomide (TMZ) for improving survival in GBM, particularly in patients possessing promoter methylation of the enzyme 0-6-methylguanine DNA methy|transferase (MGMT) [Zerdan et al. (12–14)]. Other, more aggressive therapeutic protocols employing combinations of different agents can be used as a salvage therapy in recurrent GBMs; however, their benefit as a routinely adopted therapeutic regime for these tumors is limited, mostly due to their potential toxicity (1).
Radiation therapy also has shown its efficacy if used as a whole brain radiation technique; and its efficacy is dose related. This indicates that the appropriate radiation dosage should be chosen according to the principle of balancing the positive effect of inducing tumor cell death against the risk of causing severe radionecrosis sequelae in the normal brain adjacent to the lesion (1, 12).
Positive results have been recently reported by a group including the author of this Editorial (9), using a system locally implemented into the surgical cavity at the end of the tumor removal procedure, with the aim of delivering a precisely calculated high radiation dosage targeted mostly at the edge of the surgical cavity wall where presumably scattered tumor cells are left in situ despite apparent macroscopic tumor removal. In this study, the survival of GBM patients treated with such a protocol was significantly longer than that of patients undergoing routine post-operative chemoradiotherapy, while in at the same time, radionecrosis sequelae were limited. However, the study was at single centre and retrospective; and certainly these interesting results await confirmation.
Boron capture radiation therapy (BRT) has been given recent attention after being introduced with little success in clinical practice a few decades ago (15, 16). Although promising results have been reported recently by Japanese groups (16, 17), its real efficacy in the treatment of GBMs is still unproven and highly debated (18–21), and the ideal pharmacological agent to be used for better targeting of tumor cells by activated neutron particles remains to be identified (22). In this respect, very recent experimental studies have shown interesting results; again, they await clinical confirmation (23).
A promising way for to treat GBMs would be to better address immunotherapeutic protocols, which are likely to suffer from the shortcomings of having to fight against a very effective GBM microenvironment barrier, which does not allow immunocompetent cells, in particular T lymphocytes, to reach the tumor in such a way to be able to exert their anti-tumoral activity (24). In fact, the biology of immuno-related cells infiltrating GBM is still poorly understood and underlying partially clarified complex biological mechanisms can well explain why T lymphocytes, representing a non-negligible fraction of those cells which are found in the microenvironment of GBM, do not exert the antitumoral activity they exert in other types of cancer (25).
The definition of what constitutes the GBM microenvironment, as related to its capacity of making the tumor an immuno-resistant biological entity, is extremely complex. Extensive recent research in the field of neurogenetics has focused on the potential role of several biological factors in such a process (26–28). In particular, recent studies have convincingly demonstrated that CD4, CD8, and II-10 can play a major role in the development of an efficacious anti-immunity barrier, as in the case of GBMs (24, 27).
It is well known that myeloid-derived cells are the most prominent immunocompetent cells found in GBM (29–31), and they can have a direct immunosuppressive effect (24, 27). This role could be mediated by the regulatory B cells called Breggs, which exert an immunosuppressive effect controlled by the same GBM microenvironment (27). Perhaps an increased focus on the role of the B regulatory lymphocytes in GBM could be a clue for more effective immunologically based therapeutic protocols for these tumors.
of the Breggs can act in a more complex manner, which could include significant roles exerted by other bio factors such as CD 155, PD-1, and TGFbeta (27), in addition to the above mentioned CD4, CD8, and II-10. All this strongly suggests a crucial role of B lymphocytes in the development of the immunoresistance of GBM and future research should look in this direction. This effect would appear to be mainly mediated by II-10 via the JAK-STAT pathway (24, 32); and its selective inhibition seems to produce a positive effect in the clinical settings (24, 33), although this interesting observation awaits future confirmation.
Genetically based insights continue to be explored for GBM [(2), Zerdan et al. (34, 35)] in a personalized way, as suggested a few years ago (36). This likely represents the near future of GBM research focused on the issue of finding an effective treatment. The wide availability of excellent experimental GBM models (37) can certainly be relevant for exploring this potentially very interesting new direction.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Funding
A grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education Russian Federation (agreement No. 05.619.21.0010). AG was supported by Russian Scientific Foundation project No. 17-74-30019.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply thankful to Miss Olga Nacharova for her help in editing the manuscript. I am also thankful to my friend Professor Alexander Gabibov for his continuous encouragement to pursue my research efforts
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Chowdhary MM, Ene CI, Silbergeld DL. Treatment of Gliomas: How did we get here? Surg Neurol Int (2015) 6(Suppl 1):S85–8. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.151348
2. Suryadevara CM, Verla I, Sanchez-Perez L, Reap EA, Choi BD, Fecci PE, et al. Immunotherapy for malignant glioma. Surg Neurol Int (2015) 6(Suppl 1):568–77. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.151341
3. Bloch O, Han SJ, Cha S, Sun MZ, Aghi MK, McDermott MW, et al. Impact of extent of resection for recurrent glioblastoma on overall survival: clinical article. Neurosurg (2012) 117(6):1032–8. doi: 10.3171/2012.9.JNS12504
4. Spallone A. (2015). Awake surgery for recurrent glioblastoma, in: Presented at the 64 congress of the Italian Neurosurgical Society SINCH, Naples. (Torin, Italy: Proceedings of the 64th congres of the italian society of neurosurgery, Min. MED.), 126.
5. Eberlin LS, Norton I, Orringer D, Dunn IF, Liu X, Ide JL, et al. Ambient mass spectrometry for the intraoperative molecular diagnosis of human brain tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. (2013) 110(5):1611–6. doi: 10.1073/pas.1215687110
6. Lacroix M, Abi-Said D, Fourney DR, Gokaslan ZL, Shi W, DeMonte F, et al. A multivariate analysis of 416 patients with glioblastoma multiforme: prognosis, extent of resection, and survival. J Neurosurg (2001) 95(2):190–8. doi: 10.3171/jns.2001.95.2.0190
7. Sanai N, Polley MY, McDermott MW, Parsa AT, Berger MS. An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas. J Neurosurg (2011) 115(1):3–8. doi: 10.3171/2011.2.jns10998
8. Stummer W, Reulen HJ, Meinel T, Pichlmeier U, Schumacher W, Tonn JC, et al. Extent of resection and survival in glioblastoma multiforme: identification of and adjustment for bias. Neurosurgery (2008) 62(3):564–76. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000317304.31579.17
9. Krivoshapkin A, Gaytan A, Abdullaev O, Salim N, Sergeev G, Marmazeev I, et al. Prospective comparative study of intraoperative balloon electronic brachytherapy versus resection with multidisciplinary adjuvant therapy for recurrent glioblastoma. Surg Neurol Int (2021) 12:517. doi: 10.25259/SNI_494_2021
10. Galizia G, Lieto E, Auricchio A, Cardella F, Mabilia A, Podzemny V, et al. Naples prognostic score, based on nutritional and inflammatory status, is an independent predictor of long-term outcome in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum (2017) 60(12):1273–1284. doi: 10.1097/DR.0000000000000961
11. Elias KM, Stone AB, McGinigle K, Tankou JI, Scott MJ, Fawcett WJ, et al. ERAS® Society and ERAS® USA. The reporting on ERAS compliance, outcomes, and elements research (RECOVER) checklist: A joint statement by the ERAS® and ERAS® USA societies. World J Surg (2019) 43(1):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-4753-0
12. Dapash M, Hou D, Castro B, Lee-Chang C, Lesniak MS. The interplay between glioblastoma and its microenvironment. Cells (2021) 10(9):2257. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043330
13. Shaw EG, Scheithauer BW, Gilbertson DT, Nichols DA, Laws ER, Earle JD, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy of supratentorial low-grade gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (1989) 16(3):663–8. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(89)90482-3
14. Hatanaka H. Clinical results of boron neutron capture therapy. Basic Life Sci (1990) 54:15–21. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-5802-22
15. Sweet WH. Early history of development of boron neutron capture therapy of tumors. J Neurooncol (1997) 33(1-2):19–26. doi: 10.1023/a:1005752827194
16. Nakagawa Y, Hatanaka H. Boron neutron capture therapy. Clinical brain tumor studies. J Neurooncol (1997) 33(1-2):105–15. doi: 10.1023/1:1005781517624
17. Yamamoto T, Nakai K, Kageji T, Kumada H, Endo K, Matsuda M, et al. Boron neutron capture therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Radiother Oncol (2009) 91(1):80–4. doi: 10.1016/j.radon.2009.02.009:105-115
18. Busse PM, Harling OK, Palmer MR, Kiger WS 3rd, Kaplan J, Kaplan I, et al. A critical examination of the results from the Harvard-MIT NCT program phase I clinical trial of neutron capture therapy for intracranial disease. J Neurooncol (2003) 62(1-2):111–21. doi: 10.1007/BF02699938
19. Linz U. Boron neutron capture therapy for glioblastoma: is it worth pursuing? Technol Cancer Res Treat (2008) 7(1):83–8. doi: 10.1177/153303460800700110
20. Chanana AD, Capala J, Chadha M, Coderre JA, Diaz AZ, Elowitz EH, et al. Boron neutron capture therapy for glioblastoma multiforme: interim results from the phase I/I dose-escalation studies. Neurosurgery (1999) 44(6):1182–93. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199906000-00013
21. Joensuu H, Kankaanranta L, Seppäla T, Auterinen I, Kallio M, Kulvik M, et al. Boron neutron capture therapy of brain tumors: clinical trials at the finish facility using boronophenylalanine. J Neurooncol (2003) 62(1-2):123–34. doi: 10.1007/BF02699939
22. Fujimura A, Yasui S, Igawa K, Ueda A, Watanabe K, Hanafusa T, et al. In vitro studies to define the cell-surface and intracellular targets of polvarginine-conjugated sodium borocaptate as a potential delivery agent for boron neutron capture therapy. Cells (2020) 9(10):2149. doi: 10.3390/cells9102149
23. Kanygin V, Razumov I, Zaboronok A, Zavjalov E, Kichigin A, Solovieva O, et al. Dose-dependent suppression of human glioblastoma xenograft growth by accelerator-based boron neutron capture therapy with simultaneous use of two boron-containing compounds. Biol (Basel) (2021) 10(11):1124. doi: 10.3390/biology10111124
24. Ravi VM, Neidert N, Will P, Joseph K, Maier JP, Kückelhaus J, et al. T-cell dysfunction in the glioblastoma microenvironment is mediatedby myeloid cells releasing interleukin-10. Nat Commun (2022) 13(1):925. doi: 10.1038/41467-022-28523-1
25. Mitsdoerffer M, Aly L, Barz M, Engleitner T, Sie C, Delbridge C, et al. The glioblastoma multiforme tumor site promotes the commitmentof tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes to the Twl7 lineage in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. (2022) 119(34):2206208119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2206208119
26. Larionova TD, Bastola S, Aksinina TE, Anufrieva KS, Wang J, Shender VO, et al. Alternative RNA splicing modulates ribosomal composition and determines the spatialphenotype of glioblastoma cells. Nat Cell Biol (2022) 24(10):1541–57. doi: 10.1038/41556-022-00994-w
27. Lee-Chang C, Rashidi A, Miska J, Zhang P, Pituch KC, Hou D, et al. Myeloid-Derived Suppressive Cells Promote B cell-MediatedImmunosuppression via Transfer of PD-L1 in Glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Res (2019) 7(12):1928–43. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0240
28. Ni B, Huang G, Yang R, Wang Z, Song H, Li K, et al. The shortisoform of MS4A7 is a novel player in glioblastoma microenvironment, M2 macrophage polarization, and tumor progression. J Neuroinflammation (2023) 20(1):80. doi: 10.1186/12974-023-02766-1.PMID:36944954
29. Friebel E, Kapolou K, Unger S, Núñez NG, Utz S, Rushing EJ, et al. Single-cell mapping of human brain cancer reveals tumor-specificInstruction of tissue-invading leukocytes. Cell (2020) 181(7):1626–1642.20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.055
30. Klemm F, Maas RR, Bowman RL, Kornete M, Soukup K, Nassiri S, et al. Interrogation of the microenvironmental landscape in brainTumors reveals disease-specific alterations of immune cells. Cell (2020) 181(7):1643–60. doi: 10.1016/i.cell.2020.05.007
31. Poon CC, Gordon PMK, Liu K, Yang R, Sarkar S, Mirzaei R, et al. Differential microglia and macrophage profiles in human IDH-mutantand -wild type glioblastoma. Oncotarget (2019) 10(33):3129–43. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.26863
32. Ou A, Ott M, Fang D, Heimberger AB. The role and therapeutic targeting of JAK/STAT signaling in glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel) (2021) 13(3):437. doi: 10.3390/cancers13030437
33. Lee-Chang C, Miska J, Hou D, Rashidi A, Zhang P, Burga RA, et al. Activation of 4-1BBL+ B cells with CD40 agonism and IFNy elicits potent Immunity against glioblastoma. J Exp Med (2021) 218(1):20200913. doi: 10.1084/jem.20200913
34. Cheng WY, Kandel JJ, Yamashiro DJ, Canoll P, Anastassiou D. A multi-cancer mesenchymal transitiongene expression signature is associated with prolonged time to recurrence in glioblastoma. PloS One (2012) 7(4):34705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034705
35. Verhaak RG, Hoadley KA, Purdom E, Wang V, Qi Y, Wilkerson MD, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevantsubtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDHI, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell (2010) 17(1):98–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.12.020
36. Ene CI, Holland EC. Personalized medicine for gliomas. Surg Neurol Int (2015) 6(Suppl 1):S89–95. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.151351
Keywords: glioblastoma, surgery, chemo-radio therapy, BNCT (boron neutron capture therapy), microenvironment resistance
Citation: Spallone A (2023) Editorial: Modern neurosurgical management of gliomas, including local therapies. Front. Oncol. 13:1217180. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1217180
Received: 04 May 2023; Accepted: 10 July 2023;
Published: 08 August 2023.
Edited and Reviewed by:
David D. Eisenstat, Royal Children’s Hospital, AustraliaCopyright © 2023 Spallone. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Aldo Spallone, aldospallone@hotmail.com