Radiation is an important component of cancer treatment with more than half of all patients receive radiotherapy during their cancer experience. While the impact of radiation on tumour morphology is routinely examined in the pre-clinical and clinical setting, the impact of radiation on the tumour microenvironment and more specifically the inflammatory/immune response is less well characterised. Inflammation is a key contributor to short- and long-term cancer eradication, with significant tumour and normal tissue consequences. Therefore, the role of radiation in modulating the inflammatory response is highly topical given the current wave of targeted and immuno-therapeutic treatments for cancer. This review provides a general overview of how radiation modulates the inflammatory and immune response—(i) how radiation induces the inflammatory/immune system, (ii) the cellular changes that take place, (iii) how radiation dose delivery affects the immune response, and (iv) a discussion on research directions to improve patient survival, reduce side effects, improve quality of life, and reduce financial costs in the immediate future. Harnessing the benefits of radiation on the immune response will enhance its maximal therapeutic benefit and reduce radiation-induced toxicity.

Heterogeneity is a hallmark of glioblastoma with intratumoral heterogeneity contributing to variability in responses and resistance to standard treatments. Promoter methylation status of the DNA repair enzyme O⁶-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) is the most important clinical biomarker in glioblastoma, predicting for therapeutic response. However, it does not always correlate with response. This may be due to intratumoral heterogeneity, with a single biopsy unlikely to represent the entire lesion. Aberrations in other DNA repair mechanisms may also contribute. This study investigated intratumoral heterogeneity in multiple glioblastoma tumors with a particular focus on the DNA repair pathways. Transcriptional intratumoral heterogeneity was identified in 40% of cases with variability in MGMT methylation status found in 14% of cases. As well as identifying intratumoral heterogeneity at the transcriptional and epigenetic levels, targeted next generation sequencing identified between 1 and 37 unique sequence variants per specimen. In-silico tools were then able to identify deleterious variants in both the base excision repair and the mismatch repair pathways that may contribute to therapeutic response. As these pathways have roles in temozolomide response, these findings may confound patient management and highlight the importance of assessing multiple tumor biopsies.

While treatment with surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy may prolong life for patients with glioblastoma, recurrence is inevitable. What is still being discovered is how much these treatments and recurrence of disease affect the molecular profiles of these tumors and how these tumors adapt to withstand these treatment pressures. Understanding such changes will uncover pathways used by the tumor to evade destruction and will elucidate new targets for treatment development. Nineteen matched pre-treatment and post-treatment glioblastoma tumors were subjected to gene expression profiling (Fluidigm, TaqMan assays), MGMT promoter methylation analysis (pyrosequencing) and protein expression analysis of the DNA repair pathways, known to be involved in temozolomide resistance (immunohistochemistry). Gene expression profiling to molecularly subtype tumors revealed that 26% of recurrent post-treatment specimens did not match their primary diagnostic specimen subtype. Post-treatment specimens had molecular changes which correlated with known resistance mechanisms including increased expression of APEX1 (p < 0.05) and altered MGMT methylation status. In addition, genes associated with immune suppression, invasion and aggression (GPNMB, CCL5, and KLRC1) and polarization toward an M2 phenotype (CD163 and MSR1) were up-regulated in post-treatment tumors, demonstrating an overall change in the tumor microenvironment favoring aggressive tumor growth and disease recurrence. This was confirmed by in vitro studies that determined that glioma cell migration was enhanced in the presence of M2 polarized macrophage conditioned media. Further, M2 macrophage-modulated migration was markedly enhanced in post-treatment (temozolomide resistant) glioma cells. These findings highlight the ability of glioblastomas to evade not only the toxic onslaught of therapy but also to evade the immune system suggesting that immune-altering therapies may be of value in treating this terrible disease.

Pancreatic cancer has poor survival despite modern-day advances in its management. At present, there are no available biomarkers that can predict chemotherapy response or help inform prognosis. In more recent years, there has been increased interest in potential inflammatory biomarkers, with studies revealing a worse prognosis of patients with a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in a range of tumour types. Our aim was to assess the role of three inflammatory biomarkers in peripheral blood in predicting chemotherapy response in patients with earlier disease treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and as a prognostic marker in all patients that underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. Using retrospective records, we discovered that patients with a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (>5) at the time of diagnosis had worse median overall survival than those with ratios ≤5 at 13 and 32.4 months (p = 0.001, HR 2.43), respectively. We were able to appreciate a correlation between a higher platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and increased residual tumour in the histopathological specimen in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy; however, the association was weak (p = 0.03, coefficient 0.21). Due to the dynamic relationship between the immune system and pancreatic cancer, it is unsurprising that immune markers may be useful as potential biomarkers; however, larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Genomic alterations of CDKN2A and CDKN2B in astrocytomas have been an evolving area of study for decades. Most recently, there has been considerable interest in the effect of CDKN2A and/or CDKN2B (CDKN2A/B) homozygous deletions (HD) on the prognosis of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant astrocytomas. This is highlighted by the adoption of CDKN2A/B HD as an essential criterion for astrocytoma and IDH-mutant central nervous system (CNS) WHO grade 4 in the fifth edition of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Classification of Central Nervous System Tumours (2021). The CDKN2A and CDKN2B genes are located on the short arm of chromosome 9. CDKN2A encodes for two proteins, p14 and p16, and CDKN2B encodes for p15. These proteins regulate cell growth and angiogenesis. Interpreting the impact of CDKN2A/B alterations on astrocytoma prognosis is complicated by recent changes in tumour classification and a lack of uniform standards for testing CDKN2A/B. While the prognostic impact of CDKN2A/B HD is established, the role of different CDKN2A/B alterations—heterozygous deletions (HeD), point mutations, and promoter methylation—is less clear. Consequently, how these alternations should be incorporated into patient management remains controversial. To this end, we reviewed the literature on different CDKN2A/B alterations in IDH-mutant astrocytomas and their impact on diagnosis and management. We also provided a historical review of the changing impact of CDKN2A/B alterations as glioma classification has evolved over time. Through this historical context, we demonstrate that CDKN2A/B HD is an important negative prognostic marker in IDH-mutant astrocytomas; however, the historical data is challenging to interpret given changes in tumour classification over time, variation in the quality of evidence, and variations in the techniques used to identify CDKN2A/B deletions. Therefore, future prospective studies using uniform classification and detection techniques are required to improve the clinical interpretation of this molecular marker.

Background: High grade gliomas (HGG) are incapacitating and prematurely fatal diseases. To overcome the poor prognosis, novel therapies must overcome the selective and restricted permeability of the blood–brain barrier (BBB). This study critically evaluated whether in vitro human normal BBB and tumor BBB (BBTB) are suitable alternatives to “gold standard” in vivo models to determine brain permeability. Methods: A systematic review utilizing the PRISMA guidelines used English and full-text articles from the past 5 years in the PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus databases. Experimental studies employing human cell lines were included. Results: Of 1335 articles, the search identified 24 articles for evaluation after duplicates were removed. Eight in vitro and five in vivo models were identified with the advantages and disadvantages compared within and between models, and against patient clinical data where available. The greatest in vitro barrier integrity and stability, comparable to in vivo and clinical permeability data, were achieved in the presence of all cell types of the neurovascular unit: endothelial cells, astrocytes/glioma cells, pericytes and neurons. Conclusions: In vitro co-culture BBB models utilizing stem cell-derived or primary cells are a suitable proxy for brain permeability studies in order to reduce animal use in medical research.