PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Expert Rev Neurother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2819818
NIHMSID: NIHMS169100

Molecularly targeted therapies for malignant glioma: rationale for combinatorial strategies

Abstract

Median survival of patients with malignant glioma (MG) from time of diagnosis is approximately 1 year, despite surgery, irradiation and conventional chemotherapy. Improving patient outcome relies on our ability to develop more effective therapies that are directed against the unique molecular aberrations within a patient’s tumor. Such molecularly targeted therapies may provide novel treatments that are more effective than conventional chemotherapeutics. Recently developed therapeutic strategies have focused on targeting several core glioma signaling pathways, including pathways mediated by growth-factors, PI3K/Akt/PTEN/mTOR, Ras/Raf/MEK/MAPK and other vital pathways. However, given the molecular diversity, heterogeneity and diverging and converging signaling pathways associated with MG, it is unlikely that any single agent will have efficacy in more than a subset of tumors. Overcoming these therapeutic barriers will require multiple agents that can simultaneously inhibit these processes, providing a rationale for combination therapies. This review summarizes the currently implemented single-agent and combination molecularly targeted therapies for MG.

Keywords: angiogenesis, combination therapy, EGF receptor, glioblastoma multiforme, malignant glioma, molecularly targeted therapeutics, VEGF receptor

The term glioma refers to a group of cancers that includes astrocytomas, oligodendro-gliomas and mixed gliomas. Astrocytomas constitute the largest group of CNS tumors and can be further subdivided. The WHO classifies tumors into four grades based on cellular differentiation. Low-grade glioma resembles its tissue of origin (differentiated), while high-grade glioma does not (undifferentiated). Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), which is a high-grade or malignant glioma (MG), is the most common form of astrocytoma and is defined by histologic criteria that include hyper-cellularity, pleomorphism, necrosis, pseudopallisading and vascular proliferation [1]. GBMs exhibit abnormal cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis [2] and can be categorized into two groups based on clinical presentation as primary or secondary. Secondary GBMs, which represent 5% of all GBMs, show malignant progression from an antecedent lower grade tumor, whereas primary GBMs, which represent 95% of all GBMs, present as advanced cancers [3]. These two presentations of GBM are also associated with different sets of molecular genetic alterations [4].

Despite aggressive surgical approaches, optimized radiation therapy regimens and the application of cytotoxic chemotherapies, the median survival of patients with GBM from time of diagnosis is approximately 14.6 months, which has changed little in decades [5]. The poor response of MG, which includes WHO grade III and IV tumors, to conventional therapies reflects a resistance to undergoing apoptosis in response to DNA damage; this may result from mutations of tumor suppressor and cell-cycle control genes and aberrant activation of growth and survival signaling pathways. Understanding the molecular genetic alterations in cancer may provide more effective therapeutic strategies to target the specific mutations in a patient’s tumor.

Completion of the human genome project, integrated genomic analyses of primary and secondary GBM [3,6], and the emergence of molecularly targeted therapeutics have provided insight into a large number of neoplastic molecular alterations, which may ultimately offer novel drug targets. Molecularly targeted therapies may provide novel treatment modalities that are more effective and less toxic than conventional chemotherapies. Development of these therapies has recently focused on targeting several signaling pathways, such as pathways mediated by growth factors, PI3K/Akt/PTEN/mTOR, Ras/Raf/MEK/MAPK and others. However, given the molecular diversity and heterogeneity of MGs, it is unlikely that any single agent will have efficacy in more than a subset of tumors. Parallel, redundant and converging signaling pathways associated with gliomagenesis have required the use of multiple small molecule inhibitors that can simultaneously target and inhibit these processes. In this review, we discuss the currently available single-agent and combination molecularly targeted therapies for the treatment of MG.

Single-agent molecularly targeted therapies

During the past decade, our understanding of the molecular aberrations occurring in MG has deepened [710]. Recent genome-wide molecular characterizations have provided a novel view of the molecular genetic backdrop of GBM [3,6], and research efforts have focused on molecularly targeted therapies with the capacity to specifically target unique tumor aberrations while leaving normal brain cells unharmed [11].

Despite the variability and heterogeneity of these tumors, common alterations in specific cellular signal transduction pathways occur within most MGs (Figure 1). These genetic alterations drive invasiveness, proliferation, cell survival, evasion of apoptosis, avoidance of immune surveillance and ability to form and sustain new blood vessels [1214]. Our understanding of these aberrations in glioma are being translated into novel brain tumor treatments, and the spectrum of available molecularly targeted agents can be categorized into several broad groups inhibiting growth factor receptors, signaling pathways, angiogenesis, gene transcription and protein processing, among others (Figure 1). Box 1 summarizes many of the currently implemented molecularly targeted agents. Although additional agents for these and many other targets of interest are in various stages of development, Box 1 provides an overview of the diversity of targeted options and the multiplicity of agents for many of these targets in glioma.

Box 1. Molecularly targeted therapies for malignant glioma

Inhibition of growth factor receptors

EGFR inhibition
  • Gefitinib (ZD1839)
  • Erlotinib (OSI-774)
  • Lapatanib (GW-572016)
  • Cetuximab (C225)
  • AEE788
  • ZD6474

PDGF inhibition
  • Imatinib mesylate (STI571)
  • Sunitinib (SUO11248)
  • Vandetanib (PTK787)

Inhibition of downstream signaling

PKC inhibition
  • Enzastaurin (LY317615)
  • Tamoxifen

Farnesyltransferase inhibition
  • Tipifarnib (R115777)
  • Lonafarnib (SCH66336)

MAPK cascade/Raf inhibition
  • Sorafenib (Bay 43–9006)
  • AZD6244

PI3K/Akt pathway (mTOR) inhibition
  • Sirolimus
  • Temsirolimus (CCI-779)
  • Everolimus (RAD001)

Immunologic or ligand-based therapies

Antibody therapy
  • Cetuximab
  • Bevacizumab

Radiolabeled intracavitary antibody therapy
  • Anti-EGFR
  • Anti-tenascin

Immunotoxins
  • Tf-CRM107
  • IL13-PE38QQR
  • TP-38
  • IL4-PE

Angiogenesis inhibition

VEGFR/multitargeted kinase inhibition
  • Semaxanib
  • Vatalanib
  • Vandetanib (PTK787)
  • Sunitinib
  • Sorafenib
  • AZD2171

AEE788 VEGF inhibition
  • Bevacizumab
  • VEGF Trap

Integrin inhibition
  • Cilengitide (EMD121974)

Other antiangiogenics
  • Thalidomide
  • Lenalidomide

Cox-2 inhibitors
  • Endostatin
  • Angiostatin

Miscellaneous therapies

HDAC inhibition
  • Vorinostat
  • Depsipeptide (FK228)
  • Valproic acid

Proteasome inhibition
  • Bortezomib (PS-341)
  • MG-132

Cell cycle modulation
  • UCN-01
  • CYC202
  • Flavopiridol

HSP inhibition
  • Geldanamycin
  • 17-AAG

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition
  • Olaparib (AZD2281)

AGT inhibition
  • O6-benzylguanine
Figure 1
Molecular genetic aberrations and molecularly targeted therapies for malignant glioma

Inhibition of growth factor receptors

Growth factor pathways provide the proliferative drive in most MGs [15], and rational therapy has focused on abnormalities within these pathways. Several growth factor receptor pathways are activated in MG, including EGF receptor (EGFR), PDGF receptor (PDGFR) [16], IGF receptor [17], FGF receptor [18], VEGF receptor (VEGFR) [19] and the TGF-β receptor [20,21]. These receptors and their ligands are overexpressed or mutated to varying degrees on tumor cells, and overactivation of these pathways has lead to aberrant intracellular signaling, tumor development, tumor proliferation, apoptotic resistance, motility, invasion and neoangi-ogenesis [4]. Thus, growth factor receptors, particularly EGFR and PDGFR, have constituted a major target for drug development.

EGFR

The EGFR is one of a family of receptors that is amplified in approximately 50% of GBMs and overexpressed in many MGs independent of amplification status [14,22]. In approximately 40% of tumors with EGFR amplification, the gene has a deletion of exons 2–7 that causes a defect in the extracellular ligand-binding domain, leading to ligand-independent constitutive activation [23,24]. This mutant is known as EGFRvIII and may be an independent prognostic factor for poor survival outcome [14,25]. Since activated EGFR induces tyrosine phosphorylation of substrates that contribute to cell proliferation, excessive activation of this protein, either by ligand binding or mutation-induced constitutive signaling, may provide cells with a growth advantage under certain conditions.

Gefitinib (Iressa®, ZD1839, AstraZeneca) is a molecularly targeted agent that has been tested in MG. This agent is a competitor for the intracellular ATP binding site of EGFR and is effective in blocking EGFR-dependent cell signaling in cell lines that rely heavily on EGFR activation for proliferative stimulation and tumor growth in EGFR-dependent xenograft models [26]. Initial clinical studies reported that gefitinib was well tolerated at effective doses [27], with common toxicities being an acneiform skin rash and diarrhea. Results from several clinical studies for non-CNS solid tumors demonstrated activity of gefitinib as a single agent [28,29], although Phase III clinical studies for advanced small-cell lung cancer failed to demonstrate a convincing benefit of adding this agent to conventional treatments [30]. Not surprisingly, recent reports have demonstrated that response to gefitinib is strongly influenced by tumor EGFR status, with a high percentage of objective responses among patients with EGFR mutations [31].

With these issues in mind, Phase I/II studies of gefitinib were initiated in patients with GBM. In a Phase II study, 12.7% of patients were noted to have partial tumor regression, although the median times to progression were not better than historical controls [32]. In another study for recurrent GBM, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2 months, the PFS at 6 months (PFS6) was 13% and the median overall survival (OS) was 10 months, with no observed radiographic response [33]. Another Phase II study by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) had noted some radiographic responses but no superior survival benefits [34].

Clinical trials for gliomas have also been completed for erlotinib (Tarceva®, OSI-774, Genentech), which also reversibly inhibits EGFR by competition with the ATP binding site [35]. Phase I studies reported toxicities that were comparable to gefitinib [36]. Phase II studies in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer demonstrated tumor response [37], and a recently completed trial for MG showed that erlotinib, alone or with the DNA alkylating agent temozolomide (TMZ), demonstrated a PFS6 of 10.5% [38]. However, as with gefitinib, median PFS for these patients was no better than historical control data. Several Phase II trials observed only modest impacts on PFS6 for erlotinib as a single agent [3942], and although one study found that the combination of erlotinib with TMZ and concurrent radiation therapy was well tolerated, it was unclear if outcomes improved [43].

Since responses, albeit modest and short-lived, were observed with these agents, efforts were made to determine whether a molecular genetic profile could distinguish responders from nonresponders. Although one analysis failed to note a clear association between EGFR status and response [44], subsequent studies noted that responses were typically seen in tumors that had amplification of EGFR combined with low levels of Akt [45] or expression of the EGFRvIII variant and preservation of PTEN [46], thereby suppressing constitutive Akt activation. These findings may provide a rationale for stratifying patients based on genomic studies that identify the molecular aberrations in individual tumors.

Lapatinib (GW572016, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) is another EGFR inhibitor that is currently in an early phase of trials [47] and has demonstrated activity against erbB2-expressing tumors [48]. A Phase II study incorporated a molecular biology component for patients in whom a resection was planned. In these patients, lapatinib was administered prior to surgical resection and then a portion of the tumor was analyzed for suppression of the EGFR and other downstream molecular features. A recent Phase II study demonstrated that lapatinib does distribute into glioma tissue, and a formal report of response data is eagerly awaited [49].

Cetuximab (Erbitux®, ImClone Systems) is a monoclonal antibody against EGFR that has demonstrated preclinical anti-tumor activity in GBM and was effective when administered systemically in an intracranial model [14,50]. However, antibodies have limited penetration into the tumor due to the BBB, which may limit the clinical efficacy of this therapeutic modality. In a recent Phase II study that stratified patients according to EGFR gene amplification status, cetuximab was well tolerated but had limited activity in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma, with a median OS of 5 months [51].

EGFR: EGF receptor; HDAC: Histone deacetylase; HSP: Heat-shock protein; PDGFR: PDGF receptor; PKC: Protein kinase c; Topo I: Topoisomerase I; VEGFR: VEGF receptor.

PDGFR

Overexpression and activation of PDGFR may be an important alteration contributing to the phenotype of MGs [52] and represents an important step in the transition from WHO grade II–III gliomas in adults [53]. PDGF was originally identified as a potent mitogen for fibroblasts, glial cells and smooth muscle and was shown to stimulate tumor growth and angiogenesis in preclinical studies [54]. The various PDGF isoforms (AA, AB, BB, CC, DD) bind with differential affinity to two cell-surface PDGFRs [16,55] and concurrent expression of one or more of these ligands and their receptors has been observed in a high percentage of MGs [56].

A number of PDGFR inhibitors are in various phases of clinical development. One agent that has been extensively tested is imatinib (STI571, Gleevec®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals), which is a kinase inhibitor of PDGFR, c-Kit and BCR–ABL that has exhibited antiglioma activity alone [57] and in combination with radiation therapy [58]. This compound initially became a focus of clinical interest because of its potent inhibition of BCR–ABL, which is associated with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemias [59,60], and of c-Kit, which is constitutively activated in a substantial percentage of gastrointestinal stromal tumors [61]. As imatinib was also potent in blocking PDGFR signaling [62], this agent was tested in tumors with PDGFR-driven proliferation.

Preliminary studies of imatinib in glioma cell lines demonstrated inhibition of proliferation in vitro of GBM cell lines and delay of tumor growth in vivo in heterotopic glioma models [57]; however, results were less impressive than those noted for c-Kit and BCR–ABL-dependent tumors. Based on these results, dose- escalation studies in MGs were initiated by several cooperative groups, including the North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC) and Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium. The NABTC trial, however, achieved a PFS6 of only 16% [63], and an unexpected finding from several of these studies was intratumoral hemorrhage during treatment [64]. Further studies, however, are required to determine if imatinib is associated with an increased risk for intratumoral hemorrhage. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) conducted a Phase II study of imatinib in recurrent gliomas, and preliminary results showed a modest PFS6 of 15.7% [65]. A recent study by Marosi et al. demonstrated a PFS6 of 32% in patients who had expression of PDGFR detected by immunohistochemistry, indicating that patient stratification based upon tumor molecular phenotype may enhance therapeutic efficacy [66].

Inhibition of intracellular signaling pathways

The response of cells to growth factors is mediated by cell-surface receptors that interact with downstream signaling components. Upon binding to ligand, these growth factor receptors transduce a signal through several common pathways, including the Ras/Raf/MAPK and PI3K/Akt pathways (Figure 1) [6770]. These signaling molecules ultimately relay information to various parts of the cell to modulate cell growth, differentiation, protein trafficking, secretion of angiogenic factors, membrane activity and apoptosis. Inhibition of intermediate and downstream components of growth factor signaling pathways is, therefore, a promising strategy for interfering with the proliferation of MG and other brain tumors [71].

Ras pathway

In certain tumor types, mutation of one of the Ras genes to a constitutively active protein has been associated with tumorigenesis [72]. Although such mutations are rare in MG, Ras activity may be markedly elevated as a result of deregulation of signaling through growth factor receptors [73,74]. These observations suggest that targeted inhibition of Ras-dependent signaling may constitute a therapeutically useful strategy.

Before translocation to the cell membrane and subsequent activation, Ras undergoes a post-translational lipid modification catalyzed by farnesyltransferase, and one strategy for interfering with Ras activity has involved targeting this process [75,76]. Although farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) inhibit Ras farnesylation, their antiproliferative effects are not specific, as they target other proteins, including the centromere-associated proteins CENP-E and CENP-F, RhoB and E, the nuclear lamins and Rap2 [77,78]. Previous studies have demonstrated that astrocytomas are sensitive to growth inhibition by FTIs at low micromolar concentrations [79].

Tipifarnib (R115777, Zarnestra®; Johnson and Johnson) is a nonpeptidomimetic FTI with activity against many human cancer cell lines and xenograft models [80]. Although some activity was observed in patients with hematological malignancies [81], the results of Phase II and III trials in adults with solid tumors have been less promising [82,83]. In a recent Phase II trial, tipifarnib showed only modest activity, with a PFS6 of 12% in recurrent GBM [84]. Another study was stopped early due to progression of disease in 48% of patients, where administration of tipifarnib prior to irradiation in patients with newly diagnosed GBM and residual enhancing disease did not result in improvement in survival [85].

Lonafarnib (SCH66336, SARASAR, Schering-Plough) is another FTI that was examined in a Phase I study [86]. This agent has previously been evaluated in a variety of tumor types alone and in conjunction with conventional chemotherapeutic agents [87,88], and further studies will be needed to determine the efficacy of this agent in patients with glioma.

Protein kinase C

Another important signaling pathway in glioma involves activation of protein kinase C (PKC), which constitutes an element of the signaling cascade of several growth factors, such as EGF and PDGF, that stimulate glioma cell proliferation [89]. Activation of PKC induces phosphorylation of other effectors, such as Raf and MAPK, as well as activation of Ras [90,91]. Levels of PKC activity have been noted to correlate with proliferative status in neoplastic astrocytes [92], and astrocytoma cells express levels of PKC that are up to tenfold higher than in normal astrocytes. In addition, pharmacological and antisense agents that target PKC isoforms that were overexpressed in astrocytomas diminished glioma proliferation in vitro [93].

Tamoxifen is a well-known anti-estrogen drug that also inhibits PKC. High doses of tamoxifen have demonstrated anti-tumor activity in glioma xenografts [94], but failed to show benefit in clinical trials [95,96]. In an attempt to increase clinical efficacy, tamoxifen has been combined with many other standard chemotherapeutic regimens, such as low-dose TMZ, without clear additional benefit to date [96]. One study used a thyroid function suppressor, propylthiouracil, to modulate the effect of IGF-1, which is a naturally occurring antagonist of tamoxifen. In this study, median OS was significantly extended in hypothyroid patients [97], although further studies are needed to evaluate this effect.

Enzastaurin (LY317615, Eli Lilly and Company) is a PKC inhibitor that prevents substrate phosphorylation by competing with the enzyme’s ATP binding site. This agent has demonstrated antiangiogenic activity [98], as well as anti-tumor activity, in U87 glioma xenografts and a variety of other solid tumors [99]. Additionally, this compound inhibits signaling through the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway, suppresses phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3β, induces apoptosis and inhibits proliferation in cultured cell lines from a variety of human cancers, including gliomas, and has antiangiogenic activity. Enzastaurin was well tolerated as a single agent [100] and preliminary results in adult patients with recurrent MG reported that 22% of patients achieved objective radiographic responses and 5% achieved stable disease [101]. However, intratumoral hemorrhages were noted in seven patients. Based on these encouraging results, a Phase III study had been initiated in adult patients with GBM but was terminated prematurely owing to clinical inefficacy.

MAPK cascade

One of the most critical downstream signals to reach the nucleus involves the MAPK cascade. This cascade involves multiple separate protein kinases. The most proximal kinase is the Raf (MAPKKK) family, which includes at least three members. Raf, a serine/threonine kinase, is recruited to the cell membrane, stabilized by interaction with other proteins and phosphorylated to an active form [102]. Activated Raf phosphorylates and activates MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK, also known as MAPKK), which subsequently activates MAPK (also known as ERK) [103]. These enzymes subsequently activate a number of downstream mediators that regulate transcription, protein translation and cytoskeletal rearrangement.

Several agents have been developed that function as Raf kinase inhibitors. Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006; Bayer) has been a focus of combinatorial studies for MGs in preclinical and clinical studies [104,105]. Since this agent also inhibits VEGFR activation, it may have applicability as an antiangiogenic agent (discussed later). Additionally, the novel inhibitor AAL881 (Novartis), which is a dual inhibitor of Raf and VEGFR, induced profound tumor responses in gliomas in a preclinical study but is not currently being used clinically [106].

PI3K/Akt pathways

The activation of Akt via PI3K is another major pathway implicated in growth factor receptor-mediated signaling. PI3K is a phospholipid kinase that regulates several cancer phenotypes, including cell growth, proliferation and antiapoptosis, and activation of this pathway is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with glioma [14,107]. Upon cell-surface activation, PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol 4,5-biphosphate (PI4,5P2, PIP2) to form PI3,4P2 and PIP3. PIP3 leads to translocation and activation of Akt. Activated Akt phosphorylates several proteins involved in cell survival and growth signaling, such as Bad, mTOR, forkhead transcription factor, glycogen synthase kinase and mTOR [108,109].

Under normal conditions, Akt activation is inhibited by PTEN, a phosphatase that converts PIP3 to PIP2 [110]. However, PTEN is mutated in at least 40% of GBMs [111], particularly in primary GBMs, which leads to constitutive activation of the PI3K pathway. The importance of this pathway in gliomagenesis is highlighted by the fact that transfer of a wild-type PTEN gene to the PTEN-deleted U87 glioma cell line suppressed tumor growth, leading to cell cycle arrest [111]. Conversely, increased PI3K/Akt activity has been associated with resistance to radiation therapy [112].

Based on these observations, PI3K and Akt appear to be rational therapeutic targets for GBM. Perifosine (Keryx) is an oral Akt inhibitor that is undergoing assessment in MG [113]. Inhibitors of PI3K, such LY294002, have demonstrated promising activity in preclinical models, but their toxicity profile has precluded clinical use [112].

mTOR

Activated by both Akt and Ras pathways, mTOR transduces proliferative signals mediated through the PI3K/Akt pathway by activating the downstream ribosomal S6 kinase and inhibiting the eukaryotic initiation factor 4E-binding protein-1, which are required for translation of mRNAs necessary for progression from G1 to S phase [14,114]. Overexpression of growth factors or deletion of PTEN increases activation of mTOR. Several mTOR inhibitors are being investigated in clinical trials, including rapamycin (sirolimus, Rapamune®, Wyeth), temsirolimus (CCI-779, Wyeth), AP23573 (Ariad) and everolimus (Rad-001, Certican®, Novartis). All of these agents inhibit GBM proliferation in culture and in intracerebral xenografts.

Temsirolimus binds to the immunophilin FK-506 binding protein 12 (FKBP12) and forms a complex that inhibits mTOR. It has demonstrated modest activity in recent Phase II studies [115], both as a single agent and in combination with cisplatin for human medulloblastoma and glioma cell lines [116]. In a recent Phase II study, administration of temsirolimus to patients with progressive GBM was well tolerated, with some objective responses [117]. High levels of phosphorylated ribosomal S6 kinase at baseline seemed to correlate with response to treatment. Radiographic improvement was evident in some patients, although the PFS6 was only 7.8% [117] and 2.5% [115] in two studies.

NVP-BEZ235 is a novel dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor that has shown inhibitory effects on tumor vasculature [118], breast cancer growth in cells with activating PI3K mutations [119] and primary human pancreatic cancer growth as xenografts [120]. In vivo glioma models treated with this agent showed antiproliferative activity [121], and a Phase I trial in patients with solid tumors, particularly breast cancer, is currently underway [301]. While this agent is not being applied in glioma clinical trials, studies with other PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, such as XL765, are in progress.

Inhibition of angiogenesis

Glioblastoma multiformes are among the most highly vascularized tumors [122,123], where genetic aberrations result in upregulation of proangiogenic factors and downregulation of angiogenic inhibitors. Glioma cells also have remarkable invasive capabilities that allow infiltration into the surrounding brain [124]. Proangiogenic cytokines, such as VEGF that is upregulated in most patients with GBM and is the most potent endothelial cell mitogen, drive an increase in vascularity and endothelial cell proliferation [125]. Several therapeutic approaches that inhibit tumor cell migration and endothelial cell proliferation are being evaluated, including VEGFR inhibitors, integrin antagonists, endothelin receptor antagonists and PKC inhibitors.

VEGFR

Secretion of VEGF by tumor cells depends heavily on EGFR-mediated signaling [126] and a significant component of the therapeutic efficacy of EGFR-targeting agents reflects this secondary effect on tumor angiogenesis [127,128]. Similarly, PDGF has been demonstrated to stimulate tumor angiogenesis [129] in addition to supporting the growth and survival of vascular pericytes and promoting VEGF secretion by glioma [130]. Thus, an important consideration in evaluating the therapeutic utility of growth factor receptor inhibition must focus on the effects of these agents on the surrounding tumor vasculature [64,127].

As VEGF represents a major stimulatory factor for the initiation of angiogenesis, inhibition of ligand–receptor interactions has been a focus of recent attention for MG. A number of agents have been examined, including vatalanib (PTK787/ZK 222584, Novartis and Schering AG), ZD6474 (Zactima™, AstraZeneca), and CEP-7055 (Sanofi-Aventis). In Phase I/II trials, vatalanib, a VEGFR kinase inhibitor, achieved 4% partial response (PR) and 56% stable disease [131]. Although combinations of vatalanib with either TMZ or lomustine were well tolerated in another Phase I/II trial, anti-tumor efficacy was modest [132]. In a trial of 16 patients, AZD2171 sustained reduction in permeability with a reduction in tumor-associated vasogenic brain edema and clinical benefit in most patients [133]. Clinical trials of other multi-targeted kinase inhibitors, such as sorafenib and sunitinib (SU11248), have also been initiated in MG and results are eagerly awaited (Table 1).

Table 1
Multi-targeting single-agent molecularly targeted therapies.

VEGF blockade

Bevacizumab (Avastin®, Genentech) is a recombinant, humanized neutralizing monoclonal antibody to VEGF that has demonstrated encouraging radiographic results in patients with recurrent MG [14,134] and has recently been approved by the US FDA for treatment of recurrent GBM. This agent has been shown to decrease vascular permeability and increase apoptosis in intracranial xenografts of human glioblastoma, and synergism has been observed with several chemotherapeutic agents [135]. In a Phase III placebo-controlled trial of 815 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were randomized to receive combination bevacizumab therapy, bevacizumab produced a significantly better rate and duration of response compared with placebo [136]. Bevacizumab also prolonged PFS compared with placebo for patients with metastatic renal cell cancer [137]. On the basis of the preclinical and clinical efficacy demonstrated in adult studies of recurrent solid tumors, a Phase II study was initiated for patients with recurrent MG [138], where the PFS6 was 46%, OS6 was 77% and PR was 57%. In another Phase II study of bevacizumab alone or in combination with irinotecan, the PFS6 for bevacizumab alone was 35.1% and for the combination was 50.2%, both providing encouraging activity in patients with recurrent GBM [139]. These data suggest that there may be a meaningful difference in response rates, but the limited size of the study precluded a determination of whether there was a statistically significant improvement with the combination. Additionally, a recent Phase II trial reported that single-agent bevacizumab had significant biologic activity in patients with recurrent GBM, with a PFS6 of 29% and median OS of approximately 8 months [140].

VEGF Trap (Regeneron) is a soluble decoy receptor of VEGF that has demonstrated efficacy in several preclinical cancer models [141]. It is under clinical development for treatment of MG by the NABTC [14].

Other antiangiogenic agents

Thalidomide (Thalomid®, Celgene) has been investigated for the treatment of GBM because of its antiangiogenic effects. Although the exact mechanism of action is unclear, thalidomide probably acts as an inhibitor of VEGF and bFGF and may interfere with integrin receptors [122]. This agent has had modest activity in this setting, although changes in serum levels of bFGF correlated with overall survival [142]. More recent studies have examined lenalidomide (CC-5013, Revlimid®, Celgene), a more potent analog of thalidomide. Long-term stable disease has been observed in several patients with gliomas, and a Phase II study of irinotecan plus lenalidomide in patients with recurrent GBM is underway [302]. The combination of thalidomide and chemotherapy appears to be more active in patients with recurrent gliomas than either approach alone [143].

Another agent being examined as a potential angiogenesis inhibitor and inhibitor of cell invasion is the integrin inhibitor cilengitide (EMD121974, EMD). Integrins are often over-expressed in glioma and mediate cell adhesion, migration and invasion into the surrounding tissue [144]. In a recent Phase II trial, cilengitide monotherapy was well tolerated and exhibited modest anti-tumor activity in patients with recurrent GBM, with a PFS6 of 15% and median OS of 9.9 months [145].

Other angiogenic inhibitors of interest include COX-2 inhibitors, based on the association between COX-2 overexpression in glioma and angiogenesis [146]. Both celecoxib (Celebrex®, Pfizer) and rofecoxib (Vioxx®, Merck) have been combined with conventional chemotherapeutic agents in studies of patients with recurrent brain tumors [147,148]. COX-2 inhibitors may also have a role in treating peritumoral edema [149]. Furthermore, endostatin and angiostatin, which are natural product inhibitors of angiogenesis, and atrasentan (Xinlay™), which is a selective inhibitor of the endothelin A receptor, are agents that may inhibit glioma-induced angiogenesis [150,151]. However, the median PFS was only 1.5 months in a Phase I study of atrasentan. The previously described enzastaurin has also been noted to decrease VEGF levels in a mouse tumor model [98,152].

Other molecularly targeted therapies

Histone deacetylase inhibition

Recent studies have indicated that alterations of gene expression by epigenetic modifications may influence the growth-promoting phenotype of MG. Histone proteins organize DNA into units called nucleosomes [153], and the acetylation (by histone acetyltransferases) and deacetylation (by histone deacetylases [HDACs]) of these proteins play an important role in the regulation of gene expression [154]. Acetylation of histone lysine residues is associated with relaxation of the DNA wrapped around the core histones, enhancing access by the transcriptional machinery; conversely, deacetylation condenses the nucleosome structure, restricting access to the DNA [153]. There is evidence that histone processing is altered in MG, and treatment of cells with inhibitors of HDACs may result in increased expression of a variety of genes that promote cell cycle arrest, inhibit cell growth, induce terminal differentiation, induce apoptosis and prevent formation of tumors [153,155].

Phenylbutyrate was one of the first HDAC inhibitors to be evaluated clinically. In a Phase I/II study in adults with recurrent solid tumors, 25% of patients had stable disease for over 6 months [156] and, in a study of recurrent multicentric MG, Baker et al. reported a complete response [157]. Clinical trials of several HDAC inhibitors, including valproic acid (Depakote), depsipeptide (FK228) and vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid), are currently underway or planned [158]. A preclinical study of vorinostat suggested that HDAC inhibition could enhance radiation-induced cytotoxicity in human prostate and glioma cells [159], and a recent Phase II trial of vorinostat in recurrent GBM reported that monotherapy was well tolerated in patients with recurrent GBM and had modest single-agent activity, with a median OS of 5.7 months [160]. Trials of combination therapies with the HDAC inhibitors vorinostat or depsipeptide are currently ongoing.

Proteasome inhibition

The proteasome is a proteolytic complex involved in numerous cellular functions, including protein homeostasis, the cell cycle, apoptosis, inflammation and resistance to antineoplastic therapy [10]. Disruption of the degradation of regulatory molecules (e.g., proapoptotic proteins) by proteasome inhibitors can induce cell growth arrest and apoptosis, and may increase sensitivity to chemotherapeutics [161]. In addition to these effects, inhibition of the proteasome may also result in degradation of nuclear factor-κB, which is involved in counteracting downstream mediators of apoptotic signaling. Bortezomib (Velcade®, PS-341, Millennium) is a recently approved proteasome inhibitor for multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma that has induced cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in glioma cell lines [162]. However, a Phase I/II study of bortezomib in MG was prematurely terminated owing to limited activity [163], possibly due to limitations in activity as a single agent or an inability to penetrate into the tumor at therapeutically active concentrations.

Heat-shock protein inhibition

Inhibiting members of the heat-shock protein (HSP) family is another strategy for modulating cell resistance to apoptosis. HSPs are involved in the conformational maturation, stability and function of a variety of key growth-stimulating, apoptosis-inhibiting and cell survival proteins. Inhibitors of HSP90, such as geldanamycin and 17-allylaminogeldanamycin (17-AAG), have potentiated the efficacy of conventional cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents [164], as well as other signaling modulators [165], against gliomas. However, their clinical applicability for gliomas has been limited by their poor penetration through the BBB.

Combination therapies

Given the biological diversity and heterogeneity of tumors, it is not surprising that single-agent molecularly targeted therapies have been unable to cure patients with GBM [166], and results of first-generation clinical trials with these agents have been disappointing. No major survival advantage has been observed in the population to date, although transient responses to some antiangiogenic agents, such as bevacizumab, have been noted. Despite promising in vitro and in vivo data, intrinsic or acquired resistance to these therapies has been a major therapeutic obstacle, and understanding the rationale for combinatorial strategies will therefore rely on a review of the major resistance mechanisms to targeted therapies.

The most notable mechanisms of in vitro and in vivo drug resistance are tumor heterogeneity, redundancy and parallel processing of intracellular signaling pathways, inactivating metabolism, loss of negative inhibition, mutations leading to constitutive activation, coactivation of receptor tyrosine kinase receptors (RTKs) and limited drug delivery. For instance, coactivation of families of RTKs appears to be common in most human cancers, including GBM [167]. Multiple RTKs are coactivated through redundant inputs, which maintain downstream signaling and limit the efficacy of single-targeting treatments. Combinations of RTK inhibitors or single drugs with activities against multiple RTKs may decrease intracellular signaling, increase cytotoxicity and limit anchorage-independent growth in glioma cells [167]. Signaling through these pathways may also be increased by constitutive activation of intracellular signaling molecules that are downstream of the targeted protein, or by constitutive signaling through a receptor even in the absence of ligands [168]. Additionally, tumors may become resistant to targeted therapy over time through acquired secondary mutations within the targeting agent’s binding site, which has been noted in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer with gefitinib [169,170]. Drug combinations that target multiple binding sites may be less susceptible to resistance via this mechanism. Furthermore, targeted therapies are also susceptible to mechanisms of resistance that affect their specific targeted pathway, as well as compensatory activation of alternative signaling pathways.

Given these therapeutic challenges and the multiple mutations leading to gliomagenesis, tumor cells will need to be targeted with several agents simultaneously to ensure a cure or long-term survival. Combination therapies that target multiple signaling pathways or different constituents in the same pathway may over-come resistance mechanisms and widen the therapeutic window, ultimately enhancing the effect on tumor cells without increasing toxicity on normal cells. However, therapeutic combinations are limitless and a strategy is necessary to choose only the most effective and synergistic of combinations. These therapies include multi-targeting single-agent therapies or multiagent therapies, both of which are being tested in MG. There is a particularly strong rationale for targeting growth factor receptor pathways and tumor angiogenesis, owing to promising preclinical and clinical studies.

Multi-targeting single agents

Multi-targeting kinase inhibition is a promising strategy for the treatment of glioma, as discussed earlier. Unlike pathway signaling in chronic myelogenous leukemia that depends on nonredundant single pathways or ‘oncogene addiction’ for maintaining malignancy [59], MG may have numerous constitutively activated growth and survival signaling pathways. Accordingly, targeting multiple signaling pathways with multi-targeted single-agent kinase inhibitors may prove more efficacious than highly specific agents. Table 1 summarizes several of these agents, their targets and the clinical models being used [171173]. Of note, sunitinib dually inhibits VEGFR and PDGFR and is currently being investigated in glioma. Unfortunately, several studies in recurrent glioma have been stopped because of the lack of efficacy of sunitinib as a monotherapy [174,303]. NVP-BEZ235 is another dual inhibitor that has shown activity in various cancers, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, multiple myeloma and melanoma, as well as in preclinical studies in gliomas [121,175], although this agent is not being used in GBM clinical trials. AZD2171 is a pan-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown promise in the preclinical [176] and clinical settings [133,177], and may have a function in normalizing tumor vasculature and alleviating edema in patients with GBM or non-small-cell lung cancer.

Multi-targeting multiagent drug combinations

Inhibition of growth factor receptors

There is a strong rationale for targeting growth factor receptors. EGFR is overexpressed or amplified in the majority of gliomas [22], and the EGFRvIII variant is a constitutively active, ligand-independent receptor that may have a distinct pattern of response or resistance to several RTK inhibitors, including erlotinib and gefitinib [178]. One rationale for combination therapies is to target downstream intracellular effectors of the EGFR signaling pathway, including PI3K and mTOR. Combined and simultaneous inhibition of receptor and intracellular effectors may confer improved outcomes in patients with GBM. Additionally, activation of the EGFR pathway may be accompanied by activation of parallel inputs through PDGFR and VEGFR pathways. Coactivation of alternative RTKs may lead to activation of parallel, convergent and divergent intracellular signals that may over-come upstream blockade by a single targeting therapy. Therefore, simultaneous targeting of multiple activated receptors or intracellular signaling effectors may be necessary to block downstream signaling pathways.

Several clinical trials have combined EGFR and mTOR inhibitors and are summarized in Table 2. Preclinical studies have reported a chemosensitizing effect of the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin on the effect of EGFR inhibitors in PTEN- and PTEN-intact GBM [179], and the addition of an mTOR inhibitor to EGFR blockade may augment downregulation of Akt [180]. However, a recent study suggests that EGFR signals to mTOR through PKC and independently of Akt, and inhibition of PKC may lead to decreased viability of glioma cells regardless of PTEN or EGFR status [181]. A preliminary clinical trial with the combination of gefitinib and sirolimus suggested only a modest effect when combining these agents [182], although studies are still in progress. In another study that combined everolimus and gefitinib, 26% of patients had a PR and 11% had disease stabilization, although the PFS was only 2.6 months, which was no better than historical controls [180]. Doherty et al. reported a PR of 19% and PFS6 of 25% in a pilot study combining gefitinib or erlotinib and sirolimus [183]. Studies combining mTOR inhibitors with other targeted agents, including AEE788 (EGFR and VEGFR inhibitor), EKB569 (EGFR inhibitor) and sorafenib (VEGFR, PDGFR and Raf kinase inhibitor) are also in progress. In Phase I/II studies of erlotinib and temsirolimus in patients with recurrent GBM, the authors concluded that the combination had a higher than expected incidence of toxicities and had minimal activity in recurrent MG (Table 2) [184]. The combination of sorafenib and temsirolimus was also examined [185] and, although moderately well tolerated, the investigators concluded that it did not exhibit sufficient activity in recurrent GBM to warrant further investigation.

Table 2
Combination therapies for malignant glioma.

Another strategy for improving the clinical efficacy of EGFR inhibitors is to suppress parallel signaling pathways, such as PDGFR, Raf or VEGFR. Several such trials are in progress and their results are eagerly anticipated (Table 2). In particular, a Phase II trial in progressive or recurrent MG is currently assessing the combined efficacy of erlotinib and sorafenib, which together inhibit EGFR, PDGFR, VEGFR and Raf [304]. Results from this trial will provide insight into the effect of inhibiting parallel growth factor signaling pathways in glioma. In a recent Phase I/II study of sorafenib and erlotinib for patients with recurrent GBM, response rates were modest and the combination was not without toxicity [186]. EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies have also been noted to enhance the effects of cisplatin [187], topotecan, gemcitabine [188] and taxol. Recent studies also suggest that small-molecule inhibitors of EGFR kinase activity, such as gefitinib [128,189], and of PDGFR kinase activity, such as imatinib [190,191], may achieve similar potentiation of conventional therapies.

Inhibition of angiogenesis

Bevacizumab has shown clinical promise as an inhibitor of tumor angiogenesis, and favorable outcomes using the combination of bevacizumab with irinotecan have inspired further interest in the inhibition of angiogenesis/VEGFR pathway with combination therapies (Table 2) [134,139]. The combinations of these therapies have achieved more favorable outcomes compared with historical controls, although it remains uncertain whether patients receiving combination therapy have better response rates than patients receiving bevacizumab alone [134,139]. In a noncomparative Phase II trial of bevacizumab alone or in combination with irinotecan in recurrent MG, median PFS was 23 weeks, OS6 was 72% and PFS6 was 38% for the combination. However, in a Phase II trial comparing the effect of bevacizumab alone or in combination with irinotecan, there was a nominal benefit in PFS6 in patients with recurrent GBM who received combination therapy, although this difference did not reach statistical significance [139]. These results provide encouraging evidence of efficacy with VEGFR inhibition, although selection of synergistic combinations will require further clinical trial developments. Clinical trials assessing the use of this agent in newly diagnosed MG and in combination with other agents are in progress.

Combination therapies targeting VEGFR and EGFR also hold promise for the treatment of MG. It is becoming increasingly evident that the EGFR pathway is involved in tumor angiogenesis [192]. Data from recent preclinical studies have shown upregulation of VEGF and matrix metalloproteinases when EGFR is activated in various cancers [193195], including human glioma, which may confer a subsequent resistance to EGFR inhibition [196,197]. Interestingly, inhibition of EGFR resulted in down-regulation of several angiogenic signaling molecules, including VEGFR, IL-8, bFGF and matrix metalloproteinase-9 [188,198201]. Thus, combined inhibition of these two pathways may interfere with a molecular feedback loop responsible for acquired resistance to EGFR inhibitors, promote cell death through apoptosis and ablate tumor angiogenesis [202].

Studies have also suggested that combined inhibition of these receptors may be clinically efficacious in tumors where targeting either EGFR or VEGFR alone is ineffective [172,203]. Given the favorable effect of bevacizumab and irinotecan against glioma and the frequent mutation/amplification status of EGFR in MG, one study assessed the efficacy of combining cetuximab with irinotecan and bevacizumab [305]. Results from this study and several ongoing antiangiogenesis combination therapy trials are eagerly awaited (Table 2). In a preliminary study, the combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib was reasonably well tolerated in recurrent MG, with radiographic responses reported in 12 out of 25 patients [204]. However, it remains uncertain whether the combination offers any benefit compared with therapy with bevacizumab alone. Additional studies will provide further direction for the use of this combination therapy [306].

Furthermore, the combination of thalidomide and chemotherapy appears to be more effective in patients with recurrent gliomas than either approach alone [143]. Patients with recurrent GBM who received thalidomide and carmustine had a response rate of 24%, which compared favorably with carmustine alone 143]. The combination of thalidomide and TMZ in patients with GBM was also more effective than thalidomide alone with respect to survival and response [205]. Additionally, the combination of endostatin and semaxanib (SU5416) has been reported to achieve superior tumor growth inhibition in preclinical models compared with treatment with either agent alone [206].

Other combination therapies

Several preclinical and clinical studies are currently testing the efficacy of combining other molecularly targeted agents. Preclinical studies have reported potentiation of proteasome inhibitor-induced apoptosis by HDAC inhibitors in a panel of GBM cell lines [207], which has provided a rationale for clinical trials with these agents [307]. Furthermore, a preclinical study found that the combination of irinotecan and a PKC inhibitor led to a decrease in proliferation and an increase in apoptosis in MG cells [208], which may provide a rationale for future clinical studies. As our understanding of the molecular underpinnings behind gliomagenesis deepens, we will develop novel combinations of molecularly targeted therapies that target these nodes of chemosensitivity.

Multimodality therapy

Combination therapies of molecularly targeted agents with surgery and radiation therapy have also been developed in MG. In general, conventional therapies for MG involve tumor resection, irradiation and systemic chemotherapy [14,209]. Unfortunately, most patients develop recurrence or progression after radiation treatment, and tumor radioresistance makes re-irradiation treatment less effective and potentially more toxic [209]. Thus, molecularly targeted therapies that can enhance radiation sensitivity may improve outcomes in these patients and may help reduce the antagonistic effects of conventional combination therapies. For instance, increased signaling through the EGFR pathway may confer glioma resistance to the combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Thus, a rational strategy for overcoming this resistance focuses on the inhibition of the EGFR pathway [210] and marked radiosensitization has been achieved by EGFR-specific monoclonal antibodies [211,212] and dominant negative transfection [213]. In recent Phase I/II studies of erlotinib and TMZ with radiation therapy in newly diagnosed GBM, patients treated with the combination did not have signs of benefit compared with TMZ controls in one study [214], although patients treated with the combination had better survival than historical controls in another study [215]. Additional studies with this combination are warranted. Furthermore, in a Phase I/II trial of gefitinib with radiotherapy in newly diagnosed GBM, there was no improved outcome compared with historical controls (Table 2) [216].

Therapies targeting angiogenesis may also sensitize tumors to radiation therapy, and combinations of VEGFR pathway inhibitors with irradiation have consistently demonstrated improved tumor growth delay [217]. In a recent preclinical study, the combination of antiangiogenic therapy with radiation therapy achieved better results in mice bearing human glioblastoma xenografts [218]. Combination studies of vandetanib or bevacizumab with radiation therapy are currently ongoing in patients with MG [308,309], and future studies will continue to evaluate the use of targeted therapies with conventional multimodality treatments in MG.

Expert commentary

Owing to the poor responsiveness of MGs to conventional therapies, there is a pressing need to implement new treatment approaches to improve the outcome of patients with these tumors. Studies have demonstrated that the proliferation and survival of MG cells is strongly influenced by several molecular pathways that stimulate tumor growth, promote angiogenesis and inhibit apoptosis. Therefore, these pathways have emerged as promising targets for therapy and have been effectively addressed by small-molecule inhibitors. However, MG arises from a culmination of multiple molecular genetic alterations that produces significant heterogeneity between and within these tumors. These mutations may confer an intrinsic or acquired resistance to specific agents, explaining why most single-targeted monotherapies have failed to demonstrate improvement in survival in unselected patients. Given these therapeutic challenges, it is unlikely that any single agent will have long-term efficacy in more than a subset of tumors. Accordingly, appropriate use of these agents will probably require combinations of molecularly targeted agents and conventional therapies or combinations of several molecularly targeted agents administered as a ‘cocktail’, incorporating a tumor-tailored combination regimen based on the unique molecular features of the individual tumor.

Identification of tumor genotypic and phenotypic features that predict response to specific agents holds future promise for selecting patients who are most likely to respond to specific molecularly targeted approaches. In fact, response to therapies may correlate better with genetic characteristics than with histopathology [11]. Genome-wide characterization studies of MG have begun to identify potentially useful and heretofore unrecognized genetic alterations for the classification and targeted therapy of GBMs [3]. The sensitivity of a tumor to a molecularly targeted therapy may be dependent on its specific molecular abnormalities within the tumor, and it is critical to identify markers of response to certain therapies through genomic characterization. For instance, GBM with loss of PTEN and tumors with increased expression of phospho-Akt may be resistant to EGFR inhibitors. However, such tumors may respond to mTOR inhibitors due to activation of the PI3K/Akt pathway. Ultimately, genotyping each patient’s tumor through genomescale characterization studies will increase our understanding of the molecular changes that drive malignant growth in a patient’s tumor and will guide the rational selection of combination molecular therapies for each patient.

In addition to cancer genetic characteristics, targeting various other aspects of tumor biology with combination therapies also holds promise for the future treatment of GBM. For instance, disruption and distortion of the tissue microenvironment is necessary for cancer progression, cancer growth, recruitment of nonmalignant cells, invasion and metastasis [219,220]. Thus, controlling cancer may be achieved indirectly by controlling blood vessels, immune and inflammatory cells, growth factors and the extracellular matrix, which all constitute the tumor micro-enviroment [219]. Targeting these aspects of tumor biology in concert with molecularly targeted therapies may provide deeper insight into the interplay between genes and environment in the formation and progression of GBM.

The presence of the BBB has complicated the development and implementation of treatments for GBM. Many small-molecule inhibitors and currently available anticancer therapies for GBM penetrate poorly into the CNS and into tumors. Since most current therapies are delivered systemically, therapeutic concentrations within the brain may be been difficult to attain. For agents with poor brain-tumor penetrance following systemic administration, improved efficacy of these therapies may require novel drug delivery methods to reach the site of disease. Convection-enhanced delivery may allow a more localized drug delivery to a greater volume of tissue [221] and nanobiotechnology using nanoparticles holds promise for improved systemic therapeutic delivery without interfering with the normal function of the brain [222,223]. Improvement in treatment efficacy will rely on future research efforts focusing on these and other avenues of treatment delivery.

During the development and initial applications of molecularly targeted therapies, it was expected that because of their potential selectivity for cancer cells and specificity of targeting, these agents would be safer and less toxic than traditional chemotherapeutic agents. However, these expectations have been tempered by the observed side effects and toxicities, possibly due to targeting of key pathways. In addition to the common drug side effects (e.g., diarrhea, infusion reactions and others), these targeted agents cause several agent-specific side effects, including proteinuria, hypertension, acneiform rash, dry skin and hair depigmentation [224,225]. The cutaneous and GI tract side effects of gefitinib and erlotinib, fatigue and cardiac side effects from sunitinib, and the need to take antihypertensive medications after bevacizumab may reduce the quality of life and impact activities of daily living in patients. When targeted therapies are combined with conventional therapies, the side-effect profile may further increase its range of toxicities [224]. As with other therapeutic agents, it will be important to balance the impact and possibility of side effects with potential benefits and disadvantages of treatments with targeted agents.

A final and essential consideration is the expense and cost–effectiveness of these molecularly targeted treatments. Although the discovery of these therapies has brought significant breakthroughs in neuro-oncology and related fields, targeted therapies are very expensive and the cost considerations of therapy are not inconsequential. For instance, the cost of initial systemic molecularly targeted therapy for advanced colorectal cancer has increased 340-fold in the past few years [226,227]. As more targeted agents become increasingly available, the issues of cost and cost–effectiveness relative to potential benefit will only continue to intensify. Thus, there is a continued need for evidence-based guidelines for the appropriate use of these agents and for a more comprehensive understanding of the financial impact of these therapies on both our society and our patients.

Five-year view

Improvements in clinical outcomes will depend on the synergistic effects of targeted therapies tailored for specific tumors based on their mutational profile. For many years, we have attempted to discover more effective drug combinations that reduce toxicity and improve chemosensitivity. To date, these combinations have been no more than trial and error, with the best method being rational combinations from known mechanisms of the individual drugs. However, the number of therapeutic combinations is limitless and we will need to develop robust and systematic strategies to rapidly identify promising combinations.

Genome-wide synthetic lethal screening is a promising approach for identifying novel therapeutic combinations. Synthetic lethality defines a genetic interaction where the combination of mutations in two or more genes leads to cell death [228], and identifying such combinations may confer a synergistic decrease in cancer cell survival. A high-throughput siRNA-based screening strategy has offered simultaneous and systematic genome-wide interrogation of the loss-of-function phenotypes associated with protein suppression without requiring a priori knowledge of gene functions or cellular pathways. In the preclinical setting, this screening strategy has lead to rapid identification of novel synergistic combinations in the context of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition [229], paclitaxel sensitivity [230] and interactions with the Ras oncogene [231]. Combining these preclinically derived therapeutic combinations with an understanding of the tumor’s mutational profile will facilitate the translation of these results into the clinical setting.

Future studies will also focus on restructuring clinical trials to stratify patients based on tumor genotyping. The integration of clinical and molecular information, which are now becoming available through gene arrays, proteomics and molecular imaging, will lead us to a more effective implementation of targeted treatments. Molecular imaging and mapping of each tumor’s genetic aberrations may ultimately determine the best rational combination of treatments and suggest ways to sensitize tumors otherwise resistant to conventional therapies. Future trials will incorporate tissue analysis to identify the mutations specific to the patient’s tumor, making it possible to determine which drug combinations the patient will respond to best. Correlating tumor genotype with response will provide insight into the efficacy of these molecularly targeted agents and next-generation clinical trials are already beginning to incorporate these design strategies. A recent study demonstrated that patients with GBM containing a methylated MGMT promoter benefited from TMZ, whereas those who did not have a methylated MGMT promoter did not experience such a benefit [232]. Future clinical studies utilizing single- and multi-agent molecularly targeted therapies will incorporate patient stratification based on clinical and molecular information.

Key issues

  • Despite the variability and heterogeneity of malignant glioma, common alterations in cellular signal transduction pathways occur within most of these tumors, including alterations in pathways mediated by growth factors, PI3K/Akt/PTEN/mTOR, Ras/Raf/MEK/MAPK and other vital pathways.
  • These genetic alterations drive tumor invasiveness, proliferation, cell survival, evasion of apoptosis, avoidance of immune surveillance and ability to form and sustain new blood vessels.
  • Molecularly targeted therapies can potentially provide novel cancer therapies by selectively inhibiting these aberrant pathways. These therapies target growth factor receptors, signal transduction pathways, tumor angiogenesis, gene transcription through histone deacetylases, protein processing through the ubiquitin-proteasome system and heat-shock proteins, and other cellular targets.
  • Given the molecular diversity and parallel signaling pathways associated with malignant glioma, first-generation single-agent clinical trials with these molecularly targeted therapies have been ineffective in more than a subset of tumors.
  • Effective use of these molecular therapies will require combinations of agents administered as a therapeutic ‘cocktail’, incorporating patient-specific therapy based on the molecular features of the tumor to guide treatment selection.
  • Combination therapies to date have consisted of molecularly targeted therapies and/or conventional therapies that largely focus on inhibition of growth factor receptor pathways and tumor angiogenesis.
  • Preclinical synthetic lethal screening holds promise for the unbiased elucidation of novel synergistic drug combinations, which may be rapidly translated into the clinical setting.
  • Optimal development of single-agent and combination molecularly targeted therapies will require a genotypic and phenotypic analysis of the patient’s tumor to determine the most appropriate therapy. Future clinical trial design will need to allow for patient stratification based on tumor genotype.

Acknowledgments

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This work was supported in part by National Institute of Health grant NSP0140923 and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Contributor Information

Nikhil G Thaker, Doris Duke Clinical Research Fellow, Departments of Neurosurgery, Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 and 6 Oakwood Place, Voorhees, NJ 08043, USA Tel.: +1 856 392 4727 Fax: +1 412 692 5921 ; ude.jndmu@gnrekaht.

Ian F Pollack, Department of Neurosurgery, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Brain Tumor Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Biomedical Science Tower 3, 3501 Fifth Avenue, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA Tel.: +1 412 692 5881 Fax: +1 412 692 5921 ; ude.phc@kcallop.nai.

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as:

• of interest

•• of considerable interest

1. Burger P, Vogel F, Green S, Strike T. Glioblastoma multiforme and anaplastic astrocytoma pathologic criteria and prognostic implications. Cancer. 1985;56:1106–1111. [PubMed]
2. Iorns E, Lord CJ, Turner N, Ashworth A. Utilizing RNA interference to enhance cancer drug discovery. Nature. 2007;6:556–568. [PubMed]
3. Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science. 2008;321:1807–1812. [PubMed] •• Describes the first genome-wide characterization of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). The authors discuss novel methods for determining the presence of amplifications and deletions in the cancer genome, and they also perform gene-expression analyses. They describe previously unknown, recurrent genetic mutations in GBM
4. Rich JN, Bigner DD. Development of novel targeted therapies in treatment of malignant glioma. Nature. 2004;3:430–446. [PubMed]
5. Wang L, Wei Q, Wang L-E, et al. Survival prediction in patients with glioblastoma multiforme by human telomerase genetic variation. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:1627–1632. [PubMed]
6. McLendon R, Friedman A, Bigner D, et al. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature. 2008;455:1061–1068. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Wen P, Kesari S. Malignant gliomas. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2004;4:218–227. [PubMed]
8. Kleihues P, Cavanee W. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors: Tumors of the Nervous System: Pathology and Genetics. Lyon, France: IRAC Press; 2000.
9. Konopka G, Bonni A. Signaling pathways regulating gliomagenesis. Curr. Mol. Med. 2003;3:73–84. [PubMed]
10. Kesari S, Ramakrishna N, Sauvageot C, Stiles C, Wen P. Targeted molecular therapy of malignant gliomas. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2006;8:58–70. [PubMed]
11. Collins VP. Mechanisms of disease: genetic predictors of response to treatment in brain tumors. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2007;4:362–374. [PubMed]
12. Sathornsumetree S, Rich J. New treatment strategies for malignant gliomas. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2006;6(7):1087–1104. [PubMed]
13. Pollack IF. Molecularly targeted therapies for childhood gliomas. In: Houghton P, editor. Molecularly Targeted Therapy for Childhood Cancer. NY, USA: Springer; 2009.
14. Sathornsumetree S, Reardon D, Desjardins A, Quinn J, Vredenburgh J, Rich J. Molecularly targeted therapy for malignant glioma. Cancer. 2007;110:13–24. [PubMed] • Recent review of molecularly targeted therapies in malignant glioma
15. Kapoor G, O’Rourke D. Mitogenic signaling cascades in glial tumors. Neurosurgery. 2003;52:1425–1434. [PubMed]
16. Nister M, Claesson-Welsh L, Eriksson A, Heldin CH, Westermark B. Differential expression of platelet-derived growth factor receptors in human malignant glioma cell lines. J. Biol. Chem. 1991;266:16755–16763. [PubMed]
17. Glick RP, Gettleman R, Patel K, Lakshman R, Tsibris JC. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor I in brain tumors: binding and in vitro effects. Neurosurgery. 1989;24:791–797. [PubMed]
18. Gross J, Morrison R, Eidsvoog K, Herblin W, Kornblith P, Dexter D. Basic fibroblast growth factor: a potential autocrine regulator of human glioma growth. J. Neurosci. Res. 1990;27:689–696. [PubMed]
19. Plate KH, Breier G, Weich HA, Risau W. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a potential tumour angiogenesis factor in human gliomas in vivo. Nature. 1992;359:845–848. [PubMed]
20. Constam DB, Philipp J, Malipiero UV, ten Dijke P, Schachner M, Fontana A. Differential expression of transforming growth factor-β1, -β 2, and -β 3 by glioblastoma cells, astrocytes, and microglia. J. Immunol. 1992;148:1404–1410. [PubMed]
21. Kjellman C, Olofsson S, Hansson O, et al. Expression of TGF-β isoforms, TGF-β receptors, and SMAD molecules at different stages of human glioma. Int. J. Cancer. 2000;89:251–258. [PubMed]
22. Ekstrand AJ, James CD, Cavenee WK, Seliger B, Pettersson RF, Collins VP. Genes for epidermal growth factor receptor, transforming growth factor α, and epidermal growth factor and their expression in human gliomas in vivo. Cancer Res. 1991;51:2164–2172. [PubMed]
23. Libermann TA, Nusbaum HR, Razon N, et al. Amplification, enhanced expression and possible rearrangement of EGF receptor gene in primary human brain tumors of glial origin. Nature. 1985;313:44–47. [PubMed]
24. Wong AJ, Ruppert JM, Bigner SH, et al. Structural alterations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in human gliomas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1992;89:2965–2969. [PubMed]
25. Pelloski CE, Ballman KV, Furth AF, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor variant III status defines clinically distinct subtypes of glioblastoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:2288–2294. [PubMed]
26. Wakeling AE, Guy SP, Woodburn JR, et al. ZD1839 (Iressa): an orally active inhibitor of epidermal growth factor signaling with potential for cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 2002;62:5749–5754. [PubMed] • Early description and implementation of the now popular EGF receptor (EGFR) inhibitor Iressa. These preclinical studies laid the foundation for the eventual clinical translational of the drug
27. Albanell J, Rojo F, Averbuch S, et al. Pharmacodynamic studies of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor ZD1839 in skin from cancer patients: histopathologic and molecular consequences of receptor inhibition. J. Clin. Oncol. 2002;20:110–124. [PubMed]
28. Baselga J, Rischin D, Ranson M, et al. Phase I safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic trial of ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with five selected solid tumor types. J. Clin. Oncol. 2002;20:4292–4302. [PubMed]
29. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G, et al. Multi-institutional randomized Phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003;21:2237–2246. [PubMed]
30. Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al. Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Phase III trial – INTACT 2. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:785–794. [PubMed]
31. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;350:2129–2139. [PubMed] ••Demonstrated that responsiveness of lung cancer to EGFR inhibition depends upon activated mutations in the EGFR
32. Lieberman FS, Cloughesy T, Fine H, et al. NABTC Phase I/II trial of ZD-1839 for recurrent malignant gliomas and unresectable meningiomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:1510. [PubMed]
33. Rich JN, Reardon DA, Peery T, et al. Phase II trial of gefitinib in recurrent glioblastoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:133–142. [PubMed]
34. Uhm JH, Ballman KV, Giannini C, et al. Phase II study of ZD1839 in patients with newly diagnosed grade 4 astrocytoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:1505.
35. Pollack VA, Savage DM, Baker DA, et al. Inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor-associated tyrosine phosphorylation in human carcinomas with CP-358,774: dynamics of receptor inhibition in situ and antitumor effects in athymic mice. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1999;291:739–748. [PubMed]
36. Hidalgo M, Siu LL, Nemunaitis J, et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001;19:3267–3279. [PubMed]
37. Perez-Soler R. The role of erlotinib (Tarceva, OSI 774) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004;10:S4238–S4240. [PubMed]
38. Prados MD, Lamborn KR, Chang S, et al. Phase 1 study of erlotinib HCl alone and combined with temozolomide in patients with stable or recurrent malignant glioma. Neuro. Oncol. 2006;8:67–78. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Cloughesy T, Yung A, Vrendenberg J, et al. Phase II study of erlotinib in recurrent GBM: molecular predictors of outcome. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1507. [PubMed]
40. van den Bent MJ, Brandes AA, Rampling R, et al. Randomized Phase II trial of erlotinib versus temozolomide or carmustine in recurrent glioblastoma: EORTC Brain Tumor Group Study 26034. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:1268–1274. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Raizer J, Abrey L, Wen P, et al. A Phase II trial of erlotinib (OSI-774) in patients (pts) with recurrent malignant gliomas (MG) not on EIAEDs. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2004;23:1502.
42. Vogelbaum MA, Peereboom D, Stevens G, Barnett G, Brewer C, et al. Phase II trial of the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib for single agent therapy of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: interim results. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:1558.
43. Peereboom DM, Brewer CJ, Suh JH, et al. Phase II trial of erlotinib with temozolomide and concurrent radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: final results. Neuro. Oncol. 2006;8:448. [PubMed]
44. Lassman AB, Rossi MR, Razier JR, et al. Molecular study of malignant gliomas treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors: tissue analysis from North American Brain Tumor Consortium Trials 01-03 and 00-01. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005;11:7841–7850. [PubMed]
45. Haas-Kogan DA, Prados MD, Tihan T, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor, protein kinase B/Akt, and glioma response to erlotinib. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:880–887. [PubMed]
46. Mellinghoff IK, Wang MY, Vivanco I, et al. Molecular determinants of the response of glioblastomas to EGFR kinase inhibitors. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;353:2012–2024. [PubMed] •• This important study concluded that coexpression of EGFRvIII and PTEN by glioblastoma cells is associated with responsiveness to EGFR inhibition
47. Burris H. Dual kinase inhibition in the treatment of breast cancer: initial experience with the EGFR/ErbB-2 inhibitor lapatinib. Oncologist. 2004;9:10–15. [PubMed]
48. Rusnak DW, Affleck K, Cockerill SG, et al. The characterization of novel, dual ErbB-2/EGFR, tyrosine kinase inhibitors: potential therapy for cancer. Cancer Res. 2001;61:7196–7203. [PubMed]
49. Kuhn J, Robins I, Mehta M, et al. ET-05. Tumor sequestration of lapatinib. Neuro Oncol. 2008;10:783. NABTC 04-01.
50. Eller J, Longo S, Kyle M, Bassano D, Hicklin D, Canute G. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab augments radiation effects in glioblastoma multiforme in vitro and in vivo. Neurosurgery. 2005;56:155–162. [PubMed]
51. Neyns B, Sadones J, Joosens E, et al. Stratified Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. Ann. Oncol. 2009;20(9):1596–1603. [PubMed]
52. Maher EA, Furnari FB, Bachoo RM, et al. Malignant glioma: genetics and biology of a grave matter. Genes Dev. 2001;15:1311–1333. [PubMed]
53. Hermanson M, Funa K, Koopmann J, et al. Association of loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 17p with high platelet-derived growth factor α receptor expression in human malignant gliomas. Cancer Res. 1996;56:164–171. [PubMed]
54. Pollack IF, Randall MS, Kristofik MP, Kelly RH, Selker RG, Vertosick FT. Response of low-passage human malignant gliomas in vitro to stimulation and selective inhibition of growth factor-mediated pathways. J. Neurosurg. 1991;75:284–293. [PubMed]
55. Lokker NA, Sullivan CM, Hollenbach SJ, Israel MA, Giese NA. Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) autocrine signaling regulates survival and mitogenic pathways in glioblastoma cells: evidence that the novel PDGF-C and PDGF-D ligands may play a role in the development of brain tumors. Cancer Res. 2002;62:3729–3735. [PubMed]
56. Ostman A. PDGF receptors-mediators of autocrine tumor growth and regulators of tumor vasculature and stroma. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2004;15:275–286. [PubMed]
57. Kilic T, Alberta JA, Zdunek PR, et al. Intracranial inhibition of platelet-derived growth factor-mediated glioblastoma cell growth by an orally active kinase inhibitor of the 2-phenylaminopyrimidine class. Cancer Res. 2000;60:5143–5150. [PubMed]
58. Geng L, Shinohara E, Kim D, et al. STI571 (Gleevec) improves tumor growth delay and survival in irradiated mouse models of glioblastoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006;64:263–271. [PubMed]
59. Druker BJ, Talpaz M, Resta DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR–ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001;344:1031–1037. [PubMed]
60. O’Brien SG, Guilhot F, Larson RA, et al. Imatinib compared with interferon and low-dose cytarabine for newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:994–1004. [PubMed]
61. Joensuu H, Roberts PJ, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al. Effect of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571 in a patient with a metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001;344:1052–1056. [PubMed]
62. Buchdunger E, Cioffi CL, Law N, et al. Abl protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571 inhibits in vitro signal transduction mediated by c-Kit and platelet-derived growth factor receptors. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2000;295:139–145. [PubMed]
63. Wen PY, Yung WKA, Lamborn KR, et al. Phase I/II study of imatinib mesylate for recurrent malignant gliomas: North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study 99-08. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006;12:4899–4907. [PubMed]
64. Pietras K, Ostman A, Sjoquist M, et al. Inhibition of platelet-derived growth factor receptors reduces interstitial hypertension and increases transcapillary transport in tumors. Cancer Res. 2001;61:2929–2934. [PubMed]
65. Raymond E, Brandes AA, Dittrich C, et al. Phase II study of imatinib in patients with recurrent gliomas of various histologies: a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor Group Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:4659–4665. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
66. Marosi C, Vedadinejad M, Haberler C, et al. Imatinib mesylate in the treatment of patients with recurrent high grade gliomas expressing PDGF-R. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:1526.
67. Schmidt E, Ichimura K, Goike H, Moshref A, Liu L, Collins V. Mutational profile of the PTEN gene in primary human astrocytic tumors and cultivated xenografts. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 1999;58:1170–1183. [PubMed]
68. Cheney IW, Johnson DE, Vaillancourt M-T, et al. Suppression of tumorigenicity of glioblastoma cells by adenovirus-mediated MMAC1/PTEN gene transfer. Cancer Res. 1998;58:2331–2334. [PubMed]
69. Choe G, Horvath S, Cloughesy TF, et al. Analysis of the phosphatidylinositol 3′-kinase signaling pathway in glioblastoma patients in vivo. Cancer Res. 2003;63:2742–2746. [PubMed]
70. Steck PA, Pershouse MA, Jasser SA, et al. Identification of a candidate tumour suppressor gene, MMAC1, at chromosome 10q23.3 that is mutated in multiple advanced cancers. Nat. Genet. 1997;15:356–362. [PubMed]
71. Pollack IF, Bredel M, Erff M. The application of signal transduction inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for central nervous system tumors. Pediatr. Neurosurg. 1998;29:228–244. [PubMed]
72. Peddanna N, Mendis R, Holt S, Verma R. Genetics of colorectal cancer. Int. J. Oncol. 1996;9:327–335. [PubMed]
73. Prigent SA, Nagane M, Lin H, et al. Enhanced tumorigenic behavior of glioblastoma cells expressing a truncated epidermal growth factor receptor is mediated through the Ras-Shc-Grb2 pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 1996;271:25639–25645. [PubMed]
74. Guha A, Feldkamp M, Lau N, Boss G, Pawson A. Proliferation of human malignant astrocytomas is dependent on Ras activation. Oncogene. 1997;15:2755–2765. [PubMed]
75. Bredel M, Pollack IF, Freund JM, Hamilton AD, Sebti SM. Inhibition of Ras and related G-Proteins as a therapeutic strategy for blocking malignant glioma growth. Neurosurgery. 1998;43:124–131. [PubMed]
76. Rowinsky EK, Windle JJ, Von Hoff DD. Ras protein farnesyltransferase: a strategic target for anticancer therapeutic development. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999;17:3631–3652. [PubMed]
77. Lebowitz P, Prendergast G. Non-Ras targets of farnesyltransferase inhibitors: focus on Rho. Oncogene. 1998;17:1439–1445. [PubMed]
78. Jiang K, Coppola D, Crespo NC, et al. The phosphoinositide 3-OH kinase/AKT2 pathway as a critical target for farnesyltransferase inhibitor-induced apoptosis. Mol. Cell Biol. 2000;20:139–148. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
79. Feldkamp M, Lau N, Guha A. Growth inhibition of astrocytoma cells by farnesyl transferase inhibitors is mediated by a combination of anti-proliferative, pro-apoptotic and anti-angiogenic effects. Oncogene. 1999;18:7514–7526. [PubMed]
80. End DW, Smets G, Todd AV, et al. Characterization of the antitumor effects of the selective farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor R115777 in vivo and in vitro. Cancer Res. 2001;61:131–137. [PubMed]
81. Alsina M, Fonseca R, Wilson E, et al. Farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib is well tolerated, induces stabilization of disease, and inhibits farnesylation and oncogenic/tumor survival pathways in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. Blood. 2004;103:3271–3277. [PubMed]
82. Rao S, Cunningham D, de Gramont A, et al. Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled study of farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in patients with refractory advanced colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:3950–3957. [PubMed]
83. Van Cutsem E, van de Velde H, Karasek P, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus tipifarnib compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:1430–1438. [PubMed]
84. Cloughesy TF, Wen PY, Robins HI, et al. Phase II trial of tipifarnib in patients with recurrent malignant glioma either receiving or not receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:3651–3656. [PubMed]
85. Lustig R, Mikkelsen T, Lesser G, et al. Phase II preradiation R115777 (tipifarnib) in newly diagnosed GBM with residual enhancing disease. Neuro. Oncol. 2008;10(6):1004–1009. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
86. Kieran MW, Packer RJ, Onar A, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the oral farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib administered twice daily to pediatric patients with advanced central nervous system tumors using a modified continuous reassessment method: a pediatric brain tumor consortium study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:3137–3143. [PubMed]
87. Sharma S, Kemeny N, Kelsen DP, et al. A Phase II trial of farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor SCH 66336, given by twice-daily oral administration, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan. Ann. Oncol. 2002;13:1067–1071. [PubMed]
88. Kim E, Kies M, Fossella F, et al. Phase II study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib with paclitaxel in patients with taxane-refractory/resistant nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104:561–569. [PubMed]
89. Fields AP, Tyler G, Kraft AS, May WS. Role of nuclear protein kinase C in the mitogenic response to platelet-derived growth factor. J. Cell Sci. 1990;96:107–114. [PubMed]
90. Kolch W, Heidecker G, Kochs G, et al. Protein kinase Cα activates RAF-1 by direct phosphorylation. Nature. 1993;364:249–252. [PubMed]
91. Marais R, Light Y, Mason C, Paterson H, Olson MF, Marshall CJ. Requirement of Ras-GTP-Raf complexes for activation of Raf-1 by protein kinase C. Science. 1998;280:109–112. [PubMed]
92. Couldwell WT, Uhm JH, Antel JP, Yong VW. Enhanced protein kinase C activity correlates with the growth rate of malignant gliomas in vitro. Neurosurgery. 1991;29:880–887. [PubMed]
93. Pollack IF, Kawecki S, Lazo JS. 7-hydroxystaurosporine (UCN-01), a selective protein kinase C inhibitor, exhibits cytotoxicity against cultured glioma cells and potentiates the antiproliferative effects of BCNU and cisplatin. J. Neurosurg. 1996;84:1024–1032. [PubMed]
94. Hui A-M, Zhang W, Chen W, et al. Agents with selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulator activity induce apoptosis in vitro and in vivo in ER-negative glioma cells. Cancer Res. 2004;64:9115–9123. [PubMed]
95. Brandes AA, Ermani M, Turazzi S, et al. Procarbazine and high-dose tamoxifen as a second-line regimen in recurrent high-grade gliomas: a Phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 1999;17:645. [PubMed]
96. Spence AM, Peterson RA, Scharnhorst JD, Silbergeld DL, Rostomily RC. Phase II study of concurrent continuous temozolomide (TMZ) and tamoxifen (TMX) for recurrent malignant astrocytic gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2004;70:91–95. [PubMed]
97. Hercbergs A, Goyal L, Suh J, et al. Propylthiouracil-induced chemical hypothyroidism with high-dose tamoxifen prolongs survival in recurrent high grade glioma: a Phase I/II study. Anticancer Res. 2003;23:617–626. [PubMed]
98. Keyes K, Mann L, Sherman M, et al. LY317615 decreases plasma VEGF levels in human tumor xenograft-bearing mice. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2004;53:133–140. [PubMed]
99. Graff JR, McNulty AM, Hanna KR, et al. The protein kinase Cβ-selective inhibitor, enzastaurin (LY317615.HCl), suppresses signaling through the AKT pathway, induces apoptosis, and suppresses growth of human colon cancer and glioblastoma xenografts. Cancer Res. 2005;65:7462–7469. [PubMed]
100. Carducci MA, Musib L, Kies MS, et al. Phase I dose escalation and pharmacokinetic study of enzastaurin, an oral protein kinase C β inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:4092–4099. [PubMed]
101. Fine HA, Kim L, Royce C, et al. Results from Phase II trial of enzastaurin (LY317615) in patients with recurrent high grade gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1504.
102. Freed E, Symons M, Macdonald SG, McCormick F, Ruggieri R. Binding of 14-3–3 proteins to the protein kinase Raf and effects on its activation. Science. 1994;265:1713–1716. [PubMed]
103. Howe L, Leevers S, Gómez N, Nakielny S, Cohen P, Marshall C. Activation of the MAP kinase pathway by the protein kinase raf. Cell. 1992;71:335–342. [PubMed]
104. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, et al. BAY 43–9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2004;64:7099–7109. [PubMed]
105. Jane EP, Premkumar DR, Pollack IF. Coadministration of sorafenib with rottlerin potently inhibits cell proliferation and migration in human malignant glioma cells. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2006;319:1070–1080. [PubMed]
106. Sathornsumetee S, Hjelmeland AB, Keir ST, et al. AAL881, a novel small molecule inhibitor of RAF and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor activities, blocks the growth of malignant glioma. Cancer Res. 2006;66:8722–8730. [PubMed]
107. Chakravarti A, Zhai G, Suzuki Y, et al. The prognostic significance of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway activation in human gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:1926–1933. [PubMed]
108. Cross D, Alessi D, Cohen P, Andjelkovich M, Hemmings B. Inhibition of glycogen synthase kinase-3 by insulin mediated by protein kinase B. Nature. 1995;378:785–789. [PubMed]
109. Cardone MH, Roy N, Stennicke HR, et al. Regulation of cell death protease caspase-9 by phosphorylation. Science. 1998;282:1318–1321. [PubMed]
110. Cantley LC, Neel BG. New insights into tumor suppression: PTEN suppresses tumor formation by restraining the phosphoinositide 3-kinase/AKT pathway. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1999;96:4240–4245. [PubMed]
111. Li D-M, Sun H. PTEN/MMAC1/TEP1 suppresses the tumorigenicity and induces G1 cell cycle arrest in human glioblastoma cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1998;95:15406–15411. [PubMed]
112. Nakamura J, Karlsson A, Arvold N, et al. PKB/Akt mediates radiosensitization by the signaling inhibitor LY294002 in human malignant gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2005;71:215–222. [PubMed]
113. Momota H, Nerio E, Holland EC. Perifosine inhibits multiple signaling pathways in glial progenitors and cooperates with temozolomide to arrest cell proliferation in gliomas in vivo. Cancer Res. 2005;65:7429–7435. [PubMed]
114. Newton H. Molecular neuro-oncology and development of targeted therapeutic strategies for brain tumors. Part 2: PI3K/Akt/PTEN, mTOR, SHH/PTCH and angiogenesis. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2004;4(1):105–128. [PubMed]
115. Chang SM, Wen P, Cloughesy T, et al. Phase II study of CCI-779 in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Invest. New Drugs. 2005;23:357–361. [PubMed]
116. Geoerger B, Kerr K, Tang CB, et al. Antitumor activity of the rapamycin analog CCI-779 in human primitive neuroectodermal tumor/medulloblastoma models as single agent and in combination chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2001;61:1527–1532. [PubMed]
117. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, et al. Phase II trial of temsirolimus (CCI-779) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:5294–5304. [PubMed]
118. Schnell CR, Stauffer F, Allegrini PR, et al. Effects of the dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor NVP-BEZ235 on the tumor vasculature: implications for clinical imaging. Cancer Res. 2008;68:6598–6607. [PubMed]
119. Serra V, Markman B, Scaltriti M, et al. NVP-BEZ235, a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, prevents PI3K signaling and inhibits the growth of cancer cells with activating PI3K mutations. Cancer Res. 2008;68:8022–8030. [PubMed]
120. Cao P, Maira SM, Garcia-Echeverria C, Hedley DW. Activity of a novel, dual PI3-kinase/mTOR inhibitor NVP-BEZ235 against primary human pancreatic cancers grown as orthotopic xenografts. Br. J. Cancer. 2009;100:1267–1276. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
121. Maira S-M, Stauffer F, Brueggen J, et al. Identification and characterization of NVP-BEZ235, a new orally available dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor with potent in vivo antitumor activity. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2008;7:1851–1863. [PubMed]
Kieran M. Anti-angiogenic chemotherapy in central nervous system tumors. Cancer Treat Res. 2004;117:337–349. [PubMed] • Review of anti-angiogenesis chemotherapy in gliomas and CNS tumors
123. Purow B, Fine H. Antiangiogenic therapy for primary and metastatic brain tumors. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am. 2004;18:1161–1181. [PubMed]
124. Nakada M, Nakada S, Demuth T, Tran N, Hoelzinger D, Berens M. Molecular targets of glioma invasion. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2007;64:458–478. [PubMed]
125. Kaur B, Tan C, Brat DJ, Van meir EG. Genetic and hypoxic regulation of angiogenesis in gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2004;70:229–243. [PubMed]
126. Maity A, Pore N, Lee J, Solomon D, O’Rourke DM. Epidermal growth factor receptor transcriptionally up-regulates vascular endothelial growth factor expression in human glioblastoma cells via a pathway involving phosphatidylinositol 3′-kinase and distinct from that induced by hypoxia. Cancer Res. 2000;60:5879–5886. [PubMed]
127. Ciardiello F, Caputo R, Bianco R, et al. Inhibition of growth factor production and angiogenesis in human cancer cells by ZD1839 (Iressa), a selective epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Clin. Cancer Res. 2001;7:1459–1465. [PubMed]
128. Huang S-M, Li J, Armstrong EA, Harari PM. Modulation of radiation response and tumor-induced angiogenesis after epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition by ZD1839 (Iressa) Cancer Res. 2002;62:4300–4306. [PubMed]
129. Yancopoulos GD, Davis S, Gale NW, Rudge JS, Wiegand SJ, Holash J. Vascular-specific growth factors and blood vessel formation. Nature. 2000;407:242–248. [PubMed]
130. Wang D, Huang HJS, Kazlauskas A, Cavenee WK. Induction of vascular endothelial growth factor expression in endothelial cells by platelet-derived growth factor through the activation of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase. Cancer Res. 1999;59:1464–1472. [PubMed]
131. Conrad C, Friedman H, Reardon D, et al. A Phase I/II trial of single-agent PTK 787/ZK 222584 (PTK/ZK), a novel, oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 2004;22(14S):1512.
132. Conrad C, Friedman H, Reardon D, et al. A Phase I/II trial of PTK787/ZK222584 (PTK/ZK), a novel, oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in combination with either temozolomide or lomustine for patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:1512.
133. Batchelor TT, Sorensen AG, di Tomaso E, et al. AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell. 2007;11:83–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
134. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab and irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007;13:1253–1259. [PubMed] • • Important study that showed that the combination of bevacizumab and irinotecan is an active regimen for recurrent grade III–IV glioma with acceptable toxicity.
135. Ignoffo RJ. Overview of bevacizumab: a new cancer therapeutic strategy targeting vascular endothelial growth factor. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2004;61:S21–S26. [PubMed]
136. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbache L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;350:2335–2342. [PubMed]
137. Yang JC, Haworth L, Sherry RM, et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, for metastatic renal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;349:427–434. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
138. Vredenburgh JJ, Desjardins A, Herndon JE, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:4722–4729. [PubMed]
139. Cloughesy TF, Prados MD, Wen PY, et al. A Phase II, randomized, non-comparative clinical trial of the effect of bevacizumab (BV) alone or in combination with irinotecan (CPT) on 6-month progression free survival (PFS6) in recurrent, treatment-refractory glioblastoma (GBM) J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 2008;26:2010b.
140. Kreisl TN, Kim L, Moore K, et al. Phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus irinotecan at tumor progression in recurrent glioblastoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:740–745. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
141. Holash J, Davis S, Papadopoulos N, et al. VEGF-Trap: a VEGF blocker with potent antitumor effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:11393–11398. [PubMed]
142. Fine HA, Figg WD, Jaeckle K, et al. Phase II trial of the antiangiogenic agent thalidomide in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000;18:708–715. [PubMed]
143. Fine HA, Wen PY, Maher EA, et al. Phase II trial of thalidomide and carmustine for patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003;21:2299–2304. [PubMed]
144. Plate K. Mechanisms of angiogenesis in the brain. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 1999;58:313–320. [PubMed]
145. Reardon DA, Fink KL, Mikkelsen T, et al. Randomized Phase II study of cilengitide, an integrin-targeting arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide, in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:5610–5617. [PubMed]
146. Reardon DA, Wen PY. Therapeutic advances in the treatment of glioblastoma: rationale and potential role of targeted agents. Oncologist. 2006;11:152–164. [PubMed] • Recent review of newer targeted treatments for GBM.
147. Reardon D, Li J, Quinn J, Vredenburgh J, et al. Phase II trial of irinotecan plus celecoxib in adults with recurrent malignant glioma. Cancer. 2005;103:329–338. [PubMed]
148. Tuettenberg J, Grobholz R, Korn T, Wenz F, Erber R, Vajkoczy P. Continuous low-dose chemotherapy plus inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 as an antiangiogenic therapy of glioblastoma multiforme. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2005;131:31–40. [PubMed]
149. Badie B, Schartner J, Hagar A, et al. Microglia cyclooxygenase-2 activity in experimental gliomas: possible role in cerebral edema formation. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003;9:872–877. [PubMed]
150. Barnett FH, Scharer-Schuksz M, Wood M, Yu X, Wagner TE, Friedlander M. Intra-arterial delivery of endostatin gene to brain tumors prolongs survival and alters tumor vessel ultrastructure. Gene Ther. 2004;11:1283–1289. [PubMed]
151. Phuphanich S, Carson K, Grossman S, et al. A Phase I evaluation of the safety of escalating doses of atrasentan in adults with recurrent malignant glioma (MG) J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1526. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
152. Taga T, Suzuki A, Gonzalez-Gomez I, et al. A v-integrin antagonist EMD 121974 induces apoptosis in brain tumor cells growing on vitronectin and tenascin. Int. J. Cancer. 2002;98:690–697. [PubMed]
153. Marks PA, Richon VM, Rifkind RA. Histone deacetylase inhibitors: inducers of differentiation or apoptosis of transformed cells. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1210–1216. [PubMed]
154. Gray S, Ekström T. The human histone deacetylase family. Exp. Cell Res. 2001;262:75–83. [PubMed]
155. Yoshida M, Horinouchi S, Beppu T. Trichostatin A and trapoxin: novel chemical probes for the role of histone acetylation in chromatin structure and function. Bioessays. 1995;17:423–430. [PubMed]
156. Gilbert J, Baker SD, Bowling MK, et al. A Phase I dose escalation and bioavailability study of oral sodium phenylbutyrate in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies. Clin. Cancer Res. 2001;7:2292–2300. [PubMed]
157. Baker MJ, Brem S, Daniels S, Sherman B, Phuphanich S. Complete response of a recurrent, multicentric malignant glioma in a patient treated with phenylbutyrate. J. Neurooncol. 2002;59:239–242. [PubMed]
158. Plumb JA, Finn PW, Williams RJ, et al. Pharmacodynamic response and inhibition of growth of human tumor xenografts by the novel histone deacetylase inhibitor PXD101. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2003;2:721–728. [PubMed]
159. Chinnaiyan P, Vallabhaneni G, Armstrong E, Huang S-M, Harari P. Modulation of radiation response by histone deacetylase inhibition. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005;62:223–229. [PubMed]
160. Galanis E, Jaeckle KA, Maurer MJ, et al. Phase II trial of vorinostat in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:2052–2058. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
161. Adams J. The proteasome: a suitable antineoplastic target. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2004;4:349–360. [PubMed]
162. Yin D, Zhou H, Kumagai T, et al. Proteasome inhibitor PS-341 causes cell growth arrest and apoptosis in human glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) Oncogene. 2004;24:344–354. [PubMed]
163. Phuphanich S, Supko J, Carson KA, et al. Phase I trial of bortezomib in adults with recurrent malignant glioma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:1567.
164. Graner MW, Bigner DD. Chaperone proteins and brain tumors: potential targets and possible therapeutics. Neuro. Oncol. 2005;7:260–278. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
165. Premkumar D, Arnold B, Pollack I. Cooperative inhibitory effect of ZD1839 (Iressa) in combination with 17-AAG on glioma cell growth. Mol. Carcinog. 2006;45:288–301. [PubMed]
166. Hutchinson L. Targeted therapies: the answer to individualized treatment? Nature. 2007;4:323. [PubMed]
167. Stommel JM, Kimmelman AC, Ying H, et al. Coactivation of receptor tyrosine kinases affects the response of tumor cells to targeted therapies. Science. 2007;318:287–290. [PubMed]
168. Gan H, Kaye A, Luwor R. The EGFRvIII variant in glioblastoma multiforme. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2009;16:748–754. [PubMed]
169. Giaccone G. EGFR point mutation confers resistance to gefitinib in a patient with non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat. Clin. Prac. Oncol. 2005;2:296–297. [PubMed]
170. Shih J, Gow C, Yang P. EGFR mutation conferring primary resistance to gefitinib in non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;353:207–208. [PubMed]
171. Goudar RK, Shi Q, Hjelmeland MD, et al. Combination therapy of inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (AEE788) and the mammalian target of rapamycin (RAD001) offers improved glioblastoma tumor growth inhibition. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2005;4:101–112. [PubMed]
172. Rich JN, Sathornsumetee S, Keir ST, et al. ZD6474, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor, inhibits tumor growth of multiple nervous system tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005;11:8145–8157. [PubMed]
173. Schueneman AJ, Himmelfarb E, Geng L, et al. SU11248 maintenance therapy prevents tumor regrowth after fractionated irradiation of murine tumor models. Cancer Res. 2003;63:4009–4016. [PubMed]
174. Neyns B, Chaskis C, Dujardin M, et al. Phase II trial of sunitinib malate in patients with temozolomide refractory recurrent high-grade glioma. J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 2009;27:2038.
175. Liu T-J, Koul D, LaFortune T, et al. NVP-BEZ235, a novel dual phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, elicits multifaceted antitumor activities in human gliomas. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009;8(8):2204–2210. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
176. Kamoun WS, Ley CD, Farrar CT, et al. Edema control by cediranib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted kinase inhibitor, prolongs survival despite persistent brain tumor growth in mice. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:2542–2552. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
177. Laurie SA, Gauthier I, Arnold A, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of daily oral AZD2171, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinases, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:1871–1878. [PubMed]
178. Learn CA, Hartzell TL, Wikstrand CJ, et al. Resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibition by mutant epidermal growth factor receptor variant III contributes to the neoplastic phenotype of glioblastoma multiforme. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004;10:3216–3224. [PubMed]
179. Wang MY, Lu KV, Zhu S, et al. Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition promotes response to epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitors in PTEN-deficient and PTEN-intact glioblastoma cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66:7864–7869. [PubMed]
180. Nguyen TD, Lassman AB, Lis E, et al. A pilot study to assess the tolerability and efficacy of RAD-001 (everolimus) with gefitinib in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:1507. [PubMed]
181. Fan QW, Cheng C, Knight ZA, et al. EGFR signals to mTOR through PKC and independently of Akt in glioma. Sci. Signal. 2009;2(55):ra4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
182. Reardon DA, Quinn JA, Vredenburgh JJ, et al. Phase 1 trial of gefitinib plus sirolimus in adults with recurrent malignant glioma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006;12:860–868. [PubMed]
183. Doherty L, Gigas DC, Kesari S, et al. Pilot study of the combination of EGFR and mTOR inhibitors in recurrent malignant gliomas. Neurology. 2006;67:156–158. [PubMed]
184. Chang SM, Kuhn J, Lamborn K, et al. Phase I/II study of erlotinib and temsirolimus for patients with recurrent malignant gliomas (MG) (NABTC 04-02) J. Clin. Oncol.(Meeting Abstracts) 2009;27:2004.
185. Wen PY, Cloughesy T, Kuhn J, et al. Phase I/II study of sorafenib and temsirolimus for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) (NABTC 05-02) J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 2009;27:2006.
186. Prados M, Gilbert M, Kuhn J, et al. Phase I/II study of sorefenib and erlotinib for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) (NABTC 05-02) J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 2009;27:2005.
187. Baselga J, Pfister D, Cooper MR, et al. Phase I studies of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor chimeric antibody C225 alone and in combination with cisplatin. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000;18:904. [PubMed]
188. Bruns CJ, Harbison MT, Davis DW, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor blockade with C225 plus gemcitabine results in regression of human pancreatic carcinoma growing orthotopically in nude mice by antiangiogenic mechanisms. Clin. Cancer Res. 2000;6:1936–1948. [PubMed]
189. Ciardiello F, Caputo R, Bianco R, et al. Antitumor effect and potentiation of cytotoxic drugs activity in human cancer cells by ZD-1839 (Iressa), an epidermal growth factor receptor-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Clin. Cancer Res. 2000;6:2053–2063. [PubMed]
190. Topaly J, Zeller W, Fruehauf S. Synergistic activity of the new ABL-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571 and chemotherapeutic drugs on BCR-ABL-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia cells. Leukemia. 2001;15:342–347. [PubMed]
191. Pietras K, Rubin K, Sjoblom T, et al. Inhibition of PDGF receptor signaling in tumor stroma enhances antitumor effect of chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2002;62:5476–5484. [PubMed]
192. Ellis L. Epidermal growth factor receptor in tumor angiogenesis. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am. 2004;18:1007–1021. [PubMed]
193. O-charoenrat P, Rhys-Evans P, Archer D, Eccles S. C-erbB receptors in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: clinical significance and correlation with matrix metalloproteinases and vascular endothelial growth factors. Oral Oncol. 2002;38:73–80. [PubMed]
194. Goldman CK, Kim J, Wong WL, King V, Brock T, Gillespie GY. Epidermal growth factor stimulates vascular endothelial growth factor production by human malignant glioma cells: a model of glioblastoma multiforme pathophysiology. Mol. Biol. Cell. 1993;4:121–133. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
195. Ravindranath N, Wion D, Brachet P, Djakiew D. Epidermal growth factor modulates the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in the human prostate. J. Androl. 2001;22:432–443. [PubMed]
196. Frederick B, Gustafson D, Bianco C, Ciardiello F, Dimery I, Raben D. ZD6474, an inhibitor of VEGFR and EGFR tyrosine kinase activity in combination with radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006;64:33–37. [PubMed]
197. Bianco R, Rosa R, Damiano V, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 contributes to resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor drugs in human cancer cells. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008;14:5069–5080. [PubMed]
198. Petit A, Rak J, Hung M, et al. Neutralizing antibodies against epidermal growth factor and ErbB-2/neu receptor tyrosine kinases down-regulate vascular endothelial growth factor production by tumor cells in vitro and in vivo: angiogenic implications for signal transduction therapy of solid tumors. Am. J. Pathol. 1997;151:1523–1530. [PubMed]
199. Perrotte P, Matsumoto T, Inoue K, et al. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody C225 inhibits angiogenesis in human transitional cell carcinoma growing orthotopically in nude mice. Clin. Cancer Res. 1999;5:257–264. [PubMed]
200. Ciardiello F, Bianco R, Damiano V, et al. Antiangiogenic and antitumor activity of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor C225 monoclonal antibody in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor antisense oligonucleotide in human GEO colon cancer cells. Clin. Cancer Res. 2000;6:3739–3747. [PubMed]
201. Inoue K, Slaton JW, Perrotte P, et al. Paclitaxel enhances the effects of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody ImClone C225 in mice with metastatic human bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2000;6:4874–4884. [PubMed]
202. Tortora G, Ciardiello F, Gasparini G. Combined targeting of EGFR-dependent and VEGF-dependent pathways: rationale, preclinical studies and clinical applications. Nat. Clin. Prac. Oncol. 2008;5:521–530. [PubMed]
203. Lamszus K, Brockmann MA, Eckerich C, et al. Inhibition of glioblastoma angiogenesis and invasion by combined treatments directed against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and vascular endothelial-cadherin. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005;11:4934–4940. [PubMed]
204. Sathornsumetee S, Desjardins A, Vredenburgh JJ, et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab plus erlotinib for recurrent malignant gliomas. J. Clin. Oncol. (Meeting Abstracts) 2009;27:2045.
205. Baumann F, Bjeljac M, Kollias S, et al. Combined thalidomide and temozolomide treatment in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J. Neurooncol. 2004;67:191–200. [PubMed]
206. Abdollahi A, Lipson K, Sckell A, et al. Combined therapy with direct and indirect angiogenesis inhibition results in enhanced antiangiogenic and antitumor effects. Cancer Res. 2003;63:8890–8898. [PubMed]
207. Friday B, Yu C, Yang L, Wigle D, Sarkaria J. Potentiation of proteasome inhibitor-induced apoptosis in glioma cells by histone deacetylase inhibitors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:2038.
208. Chen T, Su S, Fry D, Liebes L. Combination therapy with irinotecan and protein kinase C inhibitors in malignant glioma. Cancer. 2003;97:2363–2373. [PubMed]
209. Butowski NA, Sneed PK, Chang SM. Diagnosis and treatment of recurrent high-grade astrocytoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:1273–1280. [PubMed]
210. Chakravarti A, Chakladar A, Delaney MA, Latham DE, Loeffler JS. The epidermal growth factor receptor pathway mediates resistance to sequential administration of radiation and chemotherapy in primary human glioblastoma cells in a RAS-dependent manner. Cancer Res. 2002;62:4307–4315. [PubMed]
211. Huang S-M, Bock JM, Harari PM. Epidermal growth factor receptor blockade with C225 modulates proliferation, apoptosis, and radiosensitivity in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer Res. 1999;59:1935–1940. [PubMed]
212. Milas L, Mason K, Hunter N, et al. In vivo enhancement of tumor radioresponse by C225 antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody. Clin. Cancer Res. 2000;6:701–708. [PubMed]
213. O’Rourke DM, Kao GD, Singh N, et al. Conversion of a radioresistant phenotype to a more sensitive one by disabling erbB receptor signaling in human cancer cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1998;95:10842–10847. [PubMed]
214. Brown PD, Krishnan S, Sarkaria JN, et al. Phase I/II trial of erlotinib and temozolomide with radiation therapy in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: North Central Cancer Treatment Group study N0177. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:5603–5609. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
215. Prados MD, Chang SM, Butowski N, et al. Phase II study of erlotinib plus temozolomide during and after radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme or gliosarcoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:579–584. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
216. Chakravarti A, Berkey B, Robins H, et al. An update of Phase II results from RTOG 0211: a Phase I/II study of gefitinib with radiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Program and Abstracts of the American Association for Cancer Research 97th Annual Meeting; 1–5 April 2006; Washington, DC, USA.
217. Carsten N, Nicole W, Nicolaus A, Michael M. Current status of angiogenesis inhibitors combined with radiation therapy. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2006;32:348–364. [PubMed]
218. Winkler F, Kozin SV, Tong RT, et al. Kinetics of vascular normalization by VEGFR2 blockade governs brain tumor response to radiation: role of oxygenation, angiopoietin-1, and matrix metalloproteinases. Cancer Cell. 2004;6:553–563. [PubMed]
219. Barcellos-Hoff M, Newcomb E, Zagzag D, Narayana A. Therapeutic targets in malignant glioblastoma microenvironment. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2009;19:163–170. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
220. Aharinejad S, Sioud M, Lucas T, Abraham D. Targeting stromal-cancer cell interactions with siRNAs. Methods Mol. Biol. 2009;487:243–266. [PubMed]
221. Stukel JM, Caplan MR. Targeted drug delivery for treatment and imaging of glioblastoma multiforme. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2009;6:705–718. [PubMed]
222. Jain KK. Use of nanoparticles for drug delivery in glioblastoma multiforme. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2007;7:363–372. [PubMed]
223. Barbu E, Molnar E, Tsibouklis J, Gorecki DC. The potential for nanoparticle-based drug delivery to the brain: overcoming the blood-brain barrier. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2009;6:553–565. [PubMed]
224. DeAngelis C. Side effects related to systemic cancer treatment: are we changing the Promethean experience with molecularly targeted therapies? Curr. Oncol. 2008;15:198–199. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
225. Mulder S, Punt C. Managing toxicities of targeted therapies. Eur. J. Cancer Suppl. 2007;15:394–397.
226. Sleijfer S, Verweij J. The price of success: cost–effectiveness of molecularly targeted agents. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009;85:136–138. [PubMed]
227. Schrag D. The price tag on progress – chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;351:317–319. [PubMed]
228. Le Meur N, Gentleman R. Modeling synthetic lethality. Genome Biol. 2008;9:R135. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
229. Turner NC, Lord CJ, Iorns E, et al. A synthetic lethal siRNA screen identifying genes mediating sensitivity to a PARP inhibitor. EMBO J. 2008;27:1368–1377. [PubMed]
230. Whitehurst AW, Bodemann BO, Cardenas J, et al. Synthetic lethal screen identification of chemosensitizer loci in cancer cells. Nature. 2007;446:815–819. [PubMed] •• Popular synthetic lethal paper that describes the development of synergistic drug combinations using a siRNA-based screen in lung cancer
231. Luo J, Emanuele MJ, Li D, et al. A genome-wide RNAi screen identifies multiple synthetic lethal interactions with the Ras oncogene. Cell. 2009;137:835–848. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
232. Hegi ME, Diserens A-C, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;352:997–1003. [PubMed]
233. Lassen U, Grunnet K, Kosteljanetz M, Hasselbalch B, Laursen H, Poulsen H. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and irinotecan for treatment of recurrent primary malignant brain tumors in adults. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:12503.
234. Krishnan S, Brown PD, Ballman KV, et al. Phase I trial of erlotinib with radiation therapy in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: results of North Central Cancer Treatment Group protocol N0177. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006;65:1192–1199. [PubMed]

Websites

301. A Phase I/II study of BEZ235 in patients with advanced solid malignancies enriched by patients with advanced breast cancer. Novartis. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00620594.
302. Irinotecan plus lenalidomide in adult patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. MD Anderson Cancer Center. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00671801.
303. Sutent (Sunitinib, SU11248) in Patients With Recurrent or Progressive Glioblastoma Multiforme (SURGE01-07) Innsbruck. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00535379.
304. Erlotinib and sorafenib in treating patients with progressive or recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. NIH. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00445588.
305. Cetuximab, bevacizumab and irinotecan for patients with malignant glioblastomas. NIH. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00463073.
306. Bevacizumab, temozolomide, and erlotinib in treating patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme or gliosarcoma previously treated with radiation therapy and temozolomide. NIH. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00535249/2009_02_08.
307. Vorinostat and bortezomib in treating patients with progressive, recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. National Cancer Institute. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00641706.
308. Bevacizumab in the radiation treatment of recurrent malignant glioma. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00595322.
309. Vandetanib and radiation therapy in treating young patients with newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma. National Cancer Institute. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00472017.
310. Ph I Zactima + imatinib mesylate & hydroxyurea for pts w recurrent MG. NIH. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00613054.
311. Pazopanib in combination with lapatinib in adult patients with relapsed malignant glioma. NIH. 2006. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00350727. [PubMed]
312. Ph I dasatinib + erlotinib in recurrent MG. NIH. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609999.
313. San Francisco: University of California; 2007. Study of bevacizumab plus temodar and tarceva in patients with glioblastoma or gliosarcoma. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00525525.
314. Erlotinib and sirolimus in treating patients with recurrent malignant glioma. National Cancer Institute. 2007. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0000509431.
315. Ph I gleevec in combo w RAD001 + hydroxyurea for pts w recurrent MG. NIH. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00613132.
316. Bevacizumab and sorafenib in treating patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. NIH. 2008. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00621686.
317. Sorafenib and temsirolimus in treating patients with recurrent glioblastoma. NIH. 2006. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00329719.