MicroRNA deregulation is a consistent feature of glioblastoma, yet the biological effect of each single gene is generally modest, and therapeutically negligible. Here we describe a module of microRNAs, constituted by miR-124, miR-128 and miR-137, which are co-expressed during neuronal differentiation and simultaneously lost in gliomagenesis. Each one of these miRs targets several transcriptional regulators, including the oncogenic chromatin repressors EZH2, BMI1 and LSD1, which are functionally interdependent and involved in glioblastoma recurrence after therapeutic chemoradiation. Synchronizing the expression of these three microRNAs in a gene therapy approach displays significant anticancer synergism, abrogates this epigenetic-mediated, multi-protein tumor survival mechanism and results in a 5-fold increase in survival when combined with chemotherapy in murine glioblastoma models. These transgenic microRNA clusters display intercellular propagation in vivo, via extracellular vesicles, extending their biological effect throughout the whole tumor. Our results support the rationale and feasibility of combinatorial microRNA strategies for anticancer therapies.

PURPOSE: The Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) is a phase II platform trial that uses response adaptive randomization and genomic profiling to efficiently identify novel therapies for phase III testing. Three initial experimental arms (abemaciclib [a cyclin-dependent kinase [CDK]4/6 inhibitor], neratinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitor], and CC-115 [a deoxyribonucleic acid–dependent protein kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor]) were simultaneously evaluated against a common control arm. We report the results for each arm and examine the feasibility and conduct of the adaptive platform design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed O⁶-methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase-unmethylated glioblastoma were eligible if they had tumor genotyping to identify prespecified biomarker subpopulations of dominant glioblastoma signaling pathways (EGFR, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and CDK). Initial random assignment was 1:1:1:1 between control (radiation therapy and temozolomide) and the experimental arms. Subsequent Bayesian adaptive randomization was incorporated on the basis of biomarker-specific progression-free survival (PFS) data. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and one-sided P values are reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02977780 ). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients were treated (71 control; 73 abemaciclib; 81 neratinib; 12 CC-115) in years 2017-2021. Abemaciclib and neratinib were well tolerated, but CC-115 was associated with ≥ grade 3 treatment-related toxicity in 58% of patients. PFS was significantly longer with abemaciclib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.06; one-sided P = .046) and neratinib (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.02; one-sided P = .033) relative to the control arm but there was no PFS benefit with CC-115 (one-sided P = .523). None of the experimental therapies demonstrated a significant OS benefit ( P > .05). CONCLUSION: The INSIGhT design enabled efficient simultaneous testing of three experimental agents using a shared control arm and adaptive randomization. Two investigational arms had superior PFS compared with the control arm, but none demonstrated an OS benefit. The INSIGhT design may promote improved and more efficient therapeutic discovery in glioblastoma. New arms have been added to the trial.

Glioblastoma is immunologically “cold” and resistant to single-agent immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Our previous study of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in surgically-accessible recurrent glioblastoma identified a molecular signature of response to ICI and suggested that neoadjuvant pembrolizumab may improve survival. To increase the power of this observation, we enrolled an additional 25 patients with a primary endpoint of evaluating the cell cycle gene signature associated with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and performed bulk-RNA seq on resected tumor tissue (NCT02852655). Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with suppression of cell cycle/cancer proliferation genes and upregulation of T-cell/interferon-related gene expression. This signature was unique to patients treated with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and was an independent positive risk factor for survival. Our results demonstrate a clear pharmacodynamic effect of anti-PD1 therapy in glioblastoma and identify pathways that may mediate resistance. However, we did not confirm a survival benefit to neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in recurrent glioblastoma and our secondary endpoint of PFS-6 was 19.5% (95% CI: 9.29-41.2%) for the pooled neoadjuvant cohorts. Our new data suggests some patients may exhibit innate resistance to pre-surgical ICI and require other concomitant therapies to sensitize effectively.

The assortment of cellular microRNAs (“microRNAome”) is a vital readout of cellular homeostasis, but the mechanisms that regulate the microRNAome are poorly understood. The microRNAome of glioblastoma is substantially down-regulated in comparison to the normal brain. Here, we find malfunction of the posttranscriptional maturation of the glioblastoma microRNAome and link it to aberrant nuclear localization of DICER, the major enzymatic complex responsible for microRNA maturation. Analysis of DICER’s nuclear interactome reveals the presence of an RNA binding protein, RBM3, and of a circular RNA, circ2082, within the complex. Targeting of this complex by knockdown of circ2082 results in the restoration of cytosolic localization of DICER and widespread derepression of the microRNAome, leading to transcriptome-wide rearrangements that mitigate the tumorigenicity of glioblastoma cells in vitro and in vivo with correlation to favorable outcomes in patients with glioblastoma. These findings uncover the mechanistic foundation of microRNAome deregulation in malignant cells.

Glioblastoma is the most common and lethal central nervous system malignancy with a median survival after progression of only 6–9 months. Major biochemical mechanisms implicated in glioblastoma recurrence include aberrant molecular pathways, a recurrence-inducing tumor microenvironment, and epigenetic modifications. Contemporary standard-of-care (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and tumor treating fields) helps to control the primary tumor but rarely prevents relapse. Cytoreductive treatment such as surgery has shown benefits in recurrent glioblastoma; however, its use remains controversial. Several innovative treatments are emerging for recurrent glioblastoma, including checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, oncolytic virotherapy, nanoparticle delivery, laser interstitial thermal therapy, and photodynamic therapy. This review seeks to provide readers with an overview of (1) recent discoveries in the molecular basis of recurrence; (2) the role of surgery in treating recurrence; and (3) novel treatment paradigms emerging for recurrent glioblastoma.

Oncolytic virotherapy is a rapidly progressing field that uses oncolytic viruses (OVs) to selectively infect malignant cells and cause an antitumor response through direct oncolysis and stimulation of the immune system. Despite demonstrated pre-clinical efficacy of OVs in many cancer types and some favorable clinical results in glioblastoma (GBM) trials, durable increases in overall survival have remained elusive. Recent evidence has emerged that tumor-associated macrophage/microglia (TAM) involvement is likely an important factor contributing to OV treatment failure. It is prudent to note that the relationship between TAMs and OV therapy failures is complex. Canonically activated TAMs (i.e., M1) drive an antitumor response while also inhibiting OV replication and spread. Meanwhile, M2 activated TAMs facilitate an immunosuppressive microenvironment thereby indirectly promoting tumor growth. In this focused review, we discuss the complicated interplay between TAMs and OV therapies in GBM. We review past studies that aimed to maximize effectiveness through immune system modulation—both immunostimulatory and immunosuppressant—and suggest future directions to maximize OV efficacy.