4.5 Review

Focused ultrasound for the treatment of glioblastoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 157, Issue 2, Pages 237-247

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-022-03974-0

Keywords

Glioblastoma; Focused ultrasound; Blood-brain barrier opening; Tumor ablation; Histotripsy; Cancer immunotherapy; Sonodynamic therapy

Funding

  1. Focused Ultrasound Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews the key updates from the 2021 workshop on focused ultrasound in the treatment of glioblastoma, outlines next research steps, and provides relevant references.
Purpose Six years ago, in 2015, the Focused Ultrasound Foundation sponsored a workshop to discuss, and subsequently transition the landscape, of focused ultrasound as a new therapy for treating glioblastoma. Methods This year, in 2021, a second workshop was held to review progress made in the field. Discussion topics included blood-brain barrier opening, thermal and nonthermal tumor ablation, immunotherapy, sonodynamic therapy, and desired focused ultrasound device improvements. Results The outcome of the 2021 workshop was the creation of a new roadmap to address knowledge gaps and reduce the time it takes for focused ultrasound to become part of the treatment armamentarium and reach clinical adoption for the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. Priority projects identified in the roadmap include determining a well-defined algorithm to confirm and quantify drug delivery following blood-brain barrier opening, identifying a focused ultrasound-specific microbubble, exploring the role of focused ultrasound for liquid biopsy in glioblastoma, and making device modifications that better support clinical needs. Conclusion This article reviews the key preclinical and clinical updates from the workshop, outlines next steps to research, and provides relevant references for focused ultrasound in the treatment of glioblastoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available