Personalised therapeutic approaches to glioblastoma: A systematic review

Introduction: Glioblastoma is the most common and malignant primary brain tumour with median survival of 14.6 months. Personalised medicine aims to improve survival by targeting individualised patient characteristics. However, a major limitation has been application of targeted therapies in a non-personalised manner without biomarker enrichment. This has risked therapies being discounted without fair and rigorous evaluation. The objective was therefore to synthesise the current evidence on survival efficacy of personalised therapies in glioblastoma. Methods: Studies reporting a survival outcome in human adults with supratentorial glioblastoma were eligible. PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to 5th May 2022. was searched to 25th May 2022. Reference lists were hand-searched. Duplicate title/abstract screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were conducted. A quantitative synthesis is presented. Results: A total of 102 trials were included: 16 were randomised and 41 studied newly diagnosed patients. Of 5,527 included patients, 59.4% were male and mean age was 53.7 years. More than 20 types of personalised therapy were included: targeted molecular therapies were the most studied (33.3%, 34/102), followed by autologous dendritic cell vaccines (32.4%, 33/102) and autologous tumour vaccines (10.8%, 11/102). There was no consistent evidence for survival efficacy of any personalised therapy. Conclusion: Personalised glioblastoma therapies remain of unproven survival benefit. Evidence is inconsistent with high risk of bias. Nonetheless, encouraging results in some trials provide reason for optimism. Future focus should address target-enriched trials, combination therapies, longitudinal biomarker monitoring and standardised reporting.

Automated summary

Personalised glioblastoma therapies have not shown consistent evidence of survival benefit, and there is a high risk of bias in the available evidence.