Optimizing glioblastoma treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of local injection and systemic drug delivery system in murine models

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Background Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain tumor with a poor prognosis. The current gold standard for GBM treatment, known as the Stupp protocol, includes maximal safe surgical resection followed by radiotherapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. Despite extending survival modestly, this regimen is associated with significant side effects and limited efficacy, resulting in a median survival (MS) of 15 months and a 5-year survival rate of only 7%. A major challenge in GBM treatment is the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which restricts the penetration of therapeutic agents into the brain, thereby limiting the effectiveness of systemic therapies. To address these limitations, this systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of injectable local drug delivery systems (DDS) compared to systemic DDS in murine GBM models. This study aimed to provide robust evidence supporting the potential benefits of injectable local DDS for GBM treatment. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases. The studies included were original research on local DDS of anticancer agents compared to systemic DDS in orthotopic GBM tumor models. The data extraction process included information on survival rates, tumor growth, and other relevant outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, employ

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.