Barriers to overcoming immunotherapy resistance in glioblastoma

Immunotherapy for Brain Tumors: Where We Have Been, and Where Do We Go From Here?

OPINION STATEMENT

Immunotherapy for glioblastoma (GBM) remains an intensive area of investigation. Given the seismic impact of cancer immunotherapy across a range of malignancies, there is optimism that harnessing the power of immunity will influence GBM as well. However, despite several phase 3 studies, there are still no FDA-approved immunotherapies for GBM. Importantly, the field has learned a great deal from the randomized studies to date. Today, we are continuing to better understand the disease-specific features of the microenvironment in GBM-as well as the exploitable antigenic characteristic of the tumor cells themselves-that are informing the next generation of immune-based therapeutic strategies. The coming phase of next-generation immunotherapies is thus poised to bring us closer to treatments that will improve the lives of patients with GBM.

Molecular mechanisms of tumour development in glioblastoma: an emerging role for the circadian clock

Glioblastoma is one of the most lethal cancers with current therapeutic options lacking major successes. This underlines the necessity to understand glioblastoma biology on other levels and use these learnings for the development of new therapeutic concepts. Mounting evidence in the field of circadian medicine points to a tight interplay between disturbances of the circadian system and glioblastoma progression. The circadian clock, an internal biological mechanism governing numerous physiological processes across a 24-h cycle, also plays a pivotal role in regulationg key cellular functions, including DNA repair, cell cycle progression, and apoptosis. These processes are integral to tumour development and response to therapy. Disruptions in circadian rhythms can influence tumour growth, invasion, and response to treatment in glioblastoma patients. In this review, we explore the robust association between the circadian clock, and cancer hallmarks within the context of glioblastoma. We further discuss the impact of the circadian clock on eight cancer hallmarks shown previously to link the molecular clock to different cancers, and summarize the putative role of clock proteins in circadian rhythm disturbances and chronotherapy in glioblastoma. By unravelling the molecular mechanisms behind the intricate connections between the circadian clock and glioblastoma progression, researchers can pave the way for the identification of potential therapeutic targets, the development of innovative treatment strategies and personalized medicine approaches. In conclusion, this review underscores the significant influence of the circadian clock on the advancement and understanding of future therapies in glioblastoma, ultimately leading to enhanced outcomes for glioblastoma patients.

The need for paradigm shift: prognostic significance and implications of standard therapy-related systemic immunosuppression in glioblastoma for immunotherapy and oncolytic virotherapy

Despite significant advances in our knowledge regarding the genetics and molecular biology of gliomas over the past two decades and hundreds of clinical trials, no effective therapeutic approach has been identified for adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, and overall survival remains dismal. Great hopes are now placed on combination immunotherapy. In clinical trials, immunotherapeutics are generally tested after standard therapy (radiation, temozolomide, and steroid dexamethasone) or concurrently with temozolomide and/or steroids. Only a minor subset of patients with progressive/recurrent glioblastoma have benefited from immunotherapies. In this review, we comprehensively discuss standard therapy-related systemic immunosuppression and lymphopenia, their prognostic significance, and the implications for immunotherapy/oncolytic virotherapy. The effectiveness of immunotherapy and oncolytic virotherapy (viro-immunotherapy) critically depends on the activity of the host immune cells. The absolute counts, ratios, and functional states of different circulating and tumor-infiltrating immune cell subsets determine the net immune fitness of patients with cancer and may have various effects on tumor progression, therapeutic response, and survival outcomes. Although different immunosuppressive mechanisms operate in patients with glioblastoma/gliomas at presentation, the immunological competence of patients may be significantly compromised by standard therapy, exacerbating tumor-related systemic immunosuppression. Standard therapy affects diverse immune cell subsets, including dendritic, CD4+, CD8+, natural killer (NK), NKT, macrophage, neutrophil, and myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC). Systemic immunosuppression and lymphopenia limit the immune system's ability to target glioblastoma. Changes in the standard therapy are required to increase the success of immunotherapies. Steroid use, high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and low post-treatment total lymphocyte count (TLC) are significant prognostic factors for shorter survival in patients with glioblastoma in retrospective studies; however, these clinically relevant variables are rarely reported and correlated with response and survival in immunotherapy studies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors, vaccines, and oncolytic viruses). Our analysis should help in the development of a more rational clinical trial design and decision-making regarding the treatment to potentially improve the efficacy of immunotherapy or oncolytic virotherapy.

Cytokine Modification of Adoptive Chimeric Antigen Receptor Immunotherapy for Glioblastoma

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) cell-based therapies have demonstrated limited success in solid tumors, including glioblastoma (GBM). GBMs exhibit high heterogeneity and create an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). In addition, other challenges exist for CAR therapy, including trafficking and infiltration into the tumor site, proliferation, persistence of CARs once in the tumor, and reduced functionality, such as suboptimal cytokine production. Cytokine modification is of interest, as one can enhance therapy efficacy and minimize off-target toxicity by directly combining CAR therapy with cytokines, antibodies, or oncolytic viruses that alter cytokine response pathways. Alternatively, one can genetically modify CAR T-cells or CAR NK-cells to secrete cytokines or express cytokines or cytokine receptors. Finally, CARs can be genetically altered to augment or suppress intracellular cytokine signaling pathways for a more direct approach. Codelivery of cytokines with CARs is the most straightforward method, but it has associated toxicity. Alternatively, combining CAR therapy with antibodies (e.g., anti-IL-6, anti-PD1, and anti-VEGF) or oncolytic viruses has enhanced CAR cell infiltration into GBM tumors and provided proinflammatory signals to the TME. CAR T- or NK-cells secreting cytokines (e.g., IL-12, IL-15, and IL-18) have shown improved efficacy within multiple GBM subtypes. Likewise, expressing cytokine-modulating receptors in CAR cells that promote or inhibit cytokine signaling has enhanced their activity. Finally, gene editing approaches are actively being pursued to directly influence immune signaling pathways in CAR cells. In this review, we summarize these cytokine modification methods and highlight any existing gaps in the hope of catalyzing an improved generation of CAR-based therapies for glioblastoma.