"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead

Review article
peer-reviewed

Systematic Review of Pediatric Brain Tumors in Neurofibromatosis Type 1: Status of Gene Therapy



Abstract

As oncology practice is rapidly shifting away from toxic chemotherapy, gene therapy provides a highly specific therapeutic approach for brain tumors. In this systematic review, we investigate gene therapy’s status in pediatric brain tumors and future recommendations. The search was conducted systematically using PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. The field search used in the process was selected based on the keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), depending on the database used. We included cases of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) brain tumors in all age groups with the additional inclusion of English language, free full text, articles published within the last 20 years, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. We excluded case reports, case studies, and editorials. The search identified a total of 1,213 articles from the databases. We included 19 studies with 16 narrative reviews, one systematic review, and two randomized clinical trials with 43 patients. After reviewing all data in the articles, we found that gene therapy can improve standard treatment efficacy when used as adjuvant therapy. It can be used to overcome barriers such as chemotherapy resistance by downregulating resistance genes. It is associated with mild toxicity when compared with other available treatment options, but given the overall poor prognosis in pediatric brain tumors, further studies are warranted.

Introduction & Background

As oncology practice is rapidly shifting away from toxic chemotherapy, gene therapy provides a highly specific therapeutic approach for brain tumors. This treatment is rapidly evolving to deliver specific therapeutic genes or oncolytic viruses to eliminate the tumor, which can lead to tumor cell death and increased immune responses to tumor antigens, and disruption of the tumor microenvironment (TME), including angiogenesis/neovascularization inhibition [1]. Oncolytic virotherapy (OV), suicide gene therapy, tumor suppressor gene delivery, immunomodulatory strategies, and gene target therapies are the various types of gene therapies. Gene therapy delivery methods include direct delivery of therapeutic genes into the tumor site, which include virus-mediated adenovirus, herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV-1), adeno-associated virus-2, nonviral vector-based nanoparticles, liposomes, and micelles. Neural stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells are tumor-tropic cell carriers that express therapeutic gene(s) in the tumor site. PH-sensitive drug release, pH-sensitive liposomal carriers, and stimuli-responsive particles are examples of intelligent carriers [2].

According to the National Brain Tumor Society (NBTS), approximately 700,000 Americans have been diagnosed with a primary brain tumor, with 63% being benign and 37% being malignant. Brain tumors were the 10th leading cause of death in 2020 [3]. The pediatric brain tumors associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) are optic pathway gliomas (OPGs), brain stem gliomas, glioblastomas, and pilocytic astrocytoma [4]. Brain and central nervous system (CNS) tumors have been reported in approximately 20% of patients with NF1 and are typically discovered in childhood. Optic pathway gliomas (OPGs) account for approximately 70% of all CNS tumors in children with NF1, while brain stem glioma accounts for approximately 17% of all CNS tumors [5]. Despite recent advances in surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, brain tumor treatment regimens have only a limited impact on long-term disease control [6]. The price of the cure is frequently unacceptable, and it includes acute and chronic organ toxicity, resistance to therapy, and more concerning, an increased risk of secondary malignancy. As a result, new strategies are required to improve overall survival and reduce treatment-related morbidity [7]. To tackle this situation, a better understanding of the functions and control of genes was needed, which paved the way for the development of gene therapy in the last decades [6].

The current study aims to provide an advance in gene therapies for pediatric brain tumors with neurofibromatosis type 1. This includes different genomic alterations seen in brain tumors and gene delivery systems comprising viral and nonviral delivery platforms along with suicide/prodrug, oncolytic, cytokine, and tumor suppressor-mediated gene therapy approaches. Finally, we discuss the results of gene therapy-mediated human clinical trials and highlight the progress, prospects, and remaining challenges of gene therapies aiming at broadening our understanding and highlighting the therapeutic approach for pediatric brain tumors.

Review

Methods

This systematic review was performed in March 2022 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [8].

Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria were cases of neurofibromatosis type 1 brain tumors in all age groups with the additional inclusion of English language, free full text, articles published within the last 20 years, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. We excluded case reports, case studies, and editorials.

Databases and Search Strategy

The search was conducted systematically using PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases by the first and second authors separately. Table 1 summarizes the search strategy.

Databases Keywords/MeSH Filters Search results
PubMed Keywords: brain tumor, optic pathway glioma, brain stem glioma, glioblastoma, gene therapy, neurofibromatosis type 1, von Recklinghausen’s disease; MeSH: brain tumor OR optic pathway glioma OR brain stem glioma OR glioblastoma AND Gene therapy AND Neurofibromatosis type 1 OR von Recklinghausen’s disease AND Brain tumor (“Brain Neoplasms/therapy” (Majr)) OR “Brain Neoplasms/therapy” (Mesh:NoExp) AND Gene therapy ((“Genetic Therapy/methods” (Majr) OR “Genetic Therapy/statistics and numerical data” (Majr) OR “Genetic Therapy/therapy” (Majr))) OR (“Genetic Therapy/methods” (Mesh:NoExp) OR “Genetic Therapy/statistics and numerical data” (Mesh:NoExp) OR “Genetic Therapy/therapy” (Mesh:NoExp)) AND Neurofibromatosis type 1 (“Neurofibromatosis 1/classification” (Majr) OR “Neurofibromatosis 1/genetics” (Majr) OR “Neurofibromatosis 1/statistics and numerical data” (Majr) OR “Neurofibromatosis 1/therapy” (Majr)) OR (“Neurofibromatosis 1/classification” (Mesh:NoExp) OR “Neurofibromatosis 1/genetics” (Mesh:NoExp) OR “Neurofibromatosis 1/statistics and numerical data” (Mesh:NoExp) OR “Neurofibromatosis 1/therapy” (Mesh:NoExp)); advanced search: ((Brain tumor OR optic pathway glioma OR brain stem glioma OR glioblastoma) AND (gene therapy)) AND (Neurofibromatosis type 1 or von Recklinghausen’s disease) Last 20 years, free full text, English language 578
Google Scholar, Cochrane Keywords: brain tumor, optic pathway glioma, brain stem glioma, glioblastoma, gene therapy, neurofibromatosis type 1, von Recklinghausen’s disease Last 20 years, English language 587 and 48, respectively

Results

The search identified a total of 1,213 articles from the databases. EndNote is used to remove duplicated articles. The remaining articles were screened manually by the first and second authors. A total of 145 articles from databases were sought for retrieval, and 25 articles from the databases were retrieved and sent for quality appraisal. The articles were assessed for quality by the first two authors separately using tools depending on the study type: Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) for randomized control trials [9], Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles 2 (SANRA 2) for narrative reviews [10], and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses [11]. Nineteen studies included in the review were scored above 70% (Figure 1).

Table 2 shows the result of the summary of the quality assessment of narrative reviews by authors.

Author, year Justification of the article’s importance for the readership Statement of concrete aims or formulation of questions Description of the literature search Referencing Scientific reasoning Appropriate presentation of data Sum score
Iwami et al., 2010 [6] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
King et al., 2005 [12] 2 2 1 2 2 2 11
Kane et al., 2015 [13] 2 2 1 2 2 2 11
Natsume et al., 2008 [14] 2 1 0 2 2 2 9
Okura et al., 2014 [15] 2 2 0 2 1 2 9
Li et al., 2021 [16] 2 1 0 2 2 2 9
Curtin et al., 2005 [17] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Biagi et al., 2003 [7] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Lucifero et al., 2020 [18] 2 1 2 2 2 1 10
Candolfi et al., 2009 [19] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Castro et al., 2011 [20] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Kroeger et al., 2010 [21] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Murphy et al., 2013 [1] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Fulci et al., 2007 [22] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Assi et al., 2012 [23] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10
Marsh et al., 2013 [24] 2 2 0 2 2 2 10

In the study by Immonen et al., compared to controls (n = 7 patients), there is a substantial rise in the mean number of tolerated O6-benzylguanine (O6BG)/temozolomide (TMZ) cycles (P = 0.05) with gene therapy. The median progression-free survival was nine months, and the overall survival was 20 months. The study revealed delayed tumor growth at lower cumulative TMZ doses in the study patients compared to those who received standard regimens, concluding that this supports the chemoprotective effect of gene therapy when used in combination with O6BG and TMZ [25]. In the study of Adair et al., treatment of adenovirus-mediated herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (AdvHSV-tk) resulted in a clinically and statistically significant increase in mean survival from 39.0 ± 19.7 (standard deviation) to 70.6 ± 52.9 weeks (P = 0.0095). From 37.7 to 62.4 weeks, the median survival time also increased, and treatment was well tolerated. The authors concluded that AdvHSV-tk gene therapy with ganciclovir (GCV) could be a promising new treatment [26]. Table 3 summarizes the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT).

Author, year Random sequence generation Allocation concealment Selective outcome reporting Other bias Blinding of participants and personnel
Immonen et al., 2004 [25] Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear risk
Adair et al., 2014 [26] Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk

Table 4 summarizes the result of critical appraisal for systematic reviews and meta-analyses by review authors.

Author, year #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 # 11 Total
Lucifero et al., 2021 [27] Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 8

Discussion

Brain tumors account for 21% of childhood malignancies and are the primary cause of solid tumor cancer death in children. Children affected with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) are prone to optic pathway gliomas, brain stem gliomas, glioblastomas, and pilocytic astrocytoma. Two-thirds of gliomas are found in the optic pathway, with the brain stem, cerebellum, cerebral hemispheres, and subcortical structures accounting for the remaining locations. Chemotherapy is used to treat clinical progression, but surgery and radiation are difficult to use in the case of NF1-associated optic pathway gliomas since surgical resection is usually unachievable due to the tumor’s position. Radiation is not suggested for children with NF1 because of the possibility of secondary tumors (glioma and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors) in the context of this tumor predisposition syndrome, as well as the risk of late neurocognitive sequelae in children. Vincristine and carboplatin are used in first-line optic pathway glioma treatment. Vinblastine, vinorelbine, and temozolomide are the second-line chemotherapy options [28].

Overall, five-year survival rates for children less than 15 years of age are currently around 75% and 77% for those aged 15-19. Despite these advancements in treatment, a considerable number of individuals continue to be resistant to typical treatments. Acute and chronic organ damage, as well as an increased risk of secondary malignancy, are all disadvantages. Successful glioma treatment is hampered by ineffective medication distribution across the blood-brain barrier (BBB), an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), and the development of drug resistance. Because gliomas are caused by the accumulation of genetic changes over time, gene therapy, which allows for the altering of the genetic makeup of target cells, appears to be a viable way to overcome the challenges that existing therapeutic strategies face [7].

Figure 2 explains the pathways involved in oncogenesis. By converting the active form of guanosine triphosphate (GTP)-bound Kirsten rat sarcoma virus (KRAS) to its inactive, guanosine diphosphate (GDP)-bound state, neurofibromin directly suppresses KRAS activation. Mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) and extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1 and ERK2) are activated by GTP-bound KRAS. The activation of rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma gene (RAF)/MAPK causes transcription and cell proliferation to increase. Unchecked KRAS activation can also result in the cross-activation of the phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K)-mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, which is critical for cell proliferation and survival. GTP-bound KRAS, for example, can bind and activate PI3K, resulting in survival and proliferation effects via AK strain transforming (AKT) and mTOR activity. As a result, neurofibromin deficiency can cause disease in a variety of ways. In gliomas, the KRAS, PI3K/phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)/AKT pathways and neurogenic locus notch homolog protein (NOTCH) signaling are linked to cancer cell proliferation [29].

Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)

Complete resection of GBM is virtually impossible due to its intrusive nature and sensitive location. The current standard of care is a maximum surgical resection followed by radiation and temozolomide chemotherapy; however, the median survival time is still fewer than 15 months. This necessitates the creation of gene therapy, which delivers oncolytic viruses to the tumor in a precise manner to destroy it and lead to tumor cell death as well as increased immune responses to tumor antigens and disturbance of the tumor microenvironment, including angiogenesis/neovascularization inhibition [1]. The common gene targets that are mutated or upregulated in glioblastoma are neurofibromin, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), phosphate and tensin (PTEN) homolog, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptor-alpha, isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1), and tumor suppressor p53. GBM is a suitable candidate for gene therapy for several reasons: tumors remain within the brain with only rare metastases to other tissues; most cells in the brain are postmitotic, which allows for precise targeting of dividing tumor cells; tumors are often accessible neurosurgically for vector administration; sophisticated imaging paradigms are available; and standard therapies are minimally successful.

Delivery Methods for Gene Therapy

Table 5 summarizes the advantages, limitations, and clinical trials of the viral vectors used for gene therapy.

Viral vector Agent Clinical trial number and phase Advantages Disadvantages  
Retrovirus HSV-tk NCT00001328, phase 1 Transfer to dividing cells, sustained expression of the vector Elicit immune response, risk of insertion, low transfection rate in vivo, unable to transfect nondividing cells  
TOCA511 (vocimagene amiretrorepvec) - retroviral replicating vector (RRV) that selectively infects cancer cells and delivers cytosine deaminase (CD) NCT02414165, phase II/III  
Lentivirus shRNA lentivirus   More stable and less prone to insertion mutation    
MGMT gene Case Western Reserve University, USA, phase I  
sh-SirT1 lentivirus - a lentivirus vector silencing sirtuin (silent mating type information regulation 2 homolog) 1    
miR-100 lentivirus - a lentivirus vector with microRNA transfer    
GAS1-PTEN lentivirus    
Adenovirus SCH-58500 - recombinant, replication-deficient adenoviral vector containing the cloned human wild-type (normal) tumor suppressor gene p53 NCT00004080, phase I Deliver large DNA, intrinsic tumor cell death capabilities, synergism with cargo Transient gene expression, elicit an immune response, and tumor targeting capabilities are limited  
Ad-p53 NCT00004041, phase I  
AdV-tk NCT00589875, phase IIa  
AdV-tk NCT00751270, phase I  
Herpes simplex virus HSV1716 - replication restricted oncolytic herpes simplex virus with antitumor effects in multiple cell lines   Demonstrated safety in the clinic Limited distribution within tumor  
C134 - genetically engineered herpes simplex virus  
 
G207 - neuroattenuated, replication-competent, recombinant herpes simplex virus-1  
rQNestin34.5v.2 - an oncolytic viral vector made from the herpes simplex virus type 1  
 

Table 6 summarizes the advantages and limitations of the nonviral vectors used for gene therapy.

Vector Clinical trial number and phase Advantages Disadvantages
Gold nanoparticles - NU-0129 NCT03020017, early phase I Multimodal use for tumor imaging and therapy, ability to functionalize for targeting Nonbiodegradable, trafficking the tumor tissue can be inefficient
Dendrimer and dendrigraft   Self-assemble with nucleic acids Increased cytotoxicity for cationic dendrimers
Ability to functionalize for targeting Limited release of therapeutics
Non-immunogenic  
Polymeric micelles   Self-assemble with nucleic acids Increased cytotoxicity
Ability to functionalize for targeting Low loading efficiency
Poly (β-amino ester)   Biodegradable Limited control over the release of therapeutics
Lower cytotoxicity than other cationic polymers
High transfection efficiency

Table 7 summarizes the advantages and limitations of tumor-tropic cell carriers expressing therapeutic gene(s) in the tumor site.

Vector Advantages Disadvantages  
Neural stem cells Multiple administration routes are possible Genetic material can be toxic to stem cells  
Mesenchymal stem cells Traffic efficiently to the brain Can be rejected by the immune system if not autologous  
Can carry therapeutics, including viruses, across the BBB Possibility of tumor formation  
Intelligent carriers      
 
 
pH-sensitive drug release Temporal release of therapeutics prevents toxicity to surrounding tissues Research in its infancy  
pH-sensitive liposomal carriers Extensive modification possible The efficiency of intelligent release in vivo is still uncertain  
Stimuli-responsive particles Can carry therapeutics across the BBB    

Oncolytic Virotherapy (OV)

OVs are intended to particularly infect cancer cells, self-replicate, induce oncolysis, and amplify therapeutic genes at tumor sites [27]. The advantages of OV include its high transduction efficiency and intra-tumoral viral spread, the capability of producing high viral titers, accessibility to genetic engineering, and adding additional therapeutic transgenes. Its limitations include host immune rejection/suppression of the virus, safety risks surrounding replication-competent viruses, and requirement of local administration during surgery [30]. Figure 3 explains the mechanism of action of oncolytic virotherapy.

Oncolytic herpes simplex virus (oHSV) are double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) viruses, a human pathogen with neurotropic properties. The challenge in designing oHSVs is to provide tumor selectivity while maintaining an acceptable safety profile [27]. Early clinical trial results showed that numerous oHSV vectors had high safety profiles with no signs of encephalitis but poor therapeutic effectiveness [31].

Conditionally replicating adenovirus (CRAd) are nonenveloped DNA viruses capable of infecting both the dividing and nondividing cells. An important advantage of CRAd viruses is that they are naturally non-neurotropic and have an enhanced safety profile over the oHSV vector. ONYX-015 and Ad5-Delta24 bare the most widely studied CRAd [14]. ONYX-015 contains a deletion in the viral protein early region 1B-55K (E1B-55K), which normally binds to and inactivates the host cell p53 protein. Therefore, it is assumed that cells with functional p53 cannot support viral replication in the absence of this protein, whereas tumor cells with a nonfunctional support viral replication.

Oncolytic measles, reovirus vectors, and recombinant nonpathogenic polio rhinovirus (PVS-RIPO) are reoviruses that only replicate in glioma cells because platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) or EGFR stimulation of the KRAS pathway suppresses ribonucleic acid (RNA)-activated protein kinase activation. Clinical trial demonstrates that they are safe and well-tolerated with no evidence of clinical encephalitis. Measles virus (MV) exhibits the mutated hemagglutinin envelope glycoprotein H, which targets the cluster of differentiation 46 (CD46) on glioma cells. The circulating carcinogenic embryonic antigen (CEA) was modified into MV, which can be used to measure virus replication and oncolytic function [27]. PVS-tumor RIPO’s cell tropism is determined by the poliovirus receptor CD155, which is expressed on high-grade glioma cells. The clinical trials’ findings revealed satisfactory antitumor effectiveness but a low safety profile. Table 8 summarizes clinical trials and results on oncolytic virotherapy.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Title Result Phase, status, and number of patients enrolled Diseases  
NCT00028158 Safety and Effectiveness Study of G207, a Tumor-Killing Virus, in Patients with Recurrent Brain Cancer There are few side effects and a synergistic effect with concurrent radiotherapy, but efficacy remains limited I/II, completed, 65 Glioma, astrocytoma, glioblastoma  
NCT00157703 G207 Followed by Radiation Therapy in Malignant Glioma There are few side effects and a synergistic effect with concurrent radiotherapy, but efficacy remains limited I, completed, 9 Malignant glioma  
NCT02031965 Oncolytic HSV-1716 in Treating Younger Patients With Refractory or Recurrent High-Grade Glioma That Can Be Removed by Surgery Good tolerance, the major weakness lies in the deletion of γ34.5, which reduces viral activity and efficacy I, terminated, 1 Brain and central nervous system tumors  
 
NCT02197169 DNX-2401 With Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) for Recurrent Glioblastoma or Gliosarcoma Brain Tumors No significant difference in survival was reported between the two groups I, completed, 37 Glioblastoma, gliosarcoma  
NCT00390299 Viral Therapy in Treating Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme No severe side effects were reported I, completed, 23 Anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, mixed glioma, recurrent glioblastoma  
NCT02062827 Genetically Engineered HSV-1 Phase 1 Study for the Treatment of Recurrent Malignant Glioma Showing relevant oncolytic activity against HGGs I, recruiting, 36 Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, progressive glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma or gliosarcoma  
NCT03911388 HSV G207 in Children with Recurrent or Refractory Cerebellar Brain Tumors There are few side effects and a synergistic effect with concurrent radiotherapy, but efficacy remains limited I, recruiting, 15 Brain and central nervous system tumors  
NCT00805376 DNX-2401 (Formerly Known as Delta-24-RGD-4C) for Recurrent Malignant Gliomas Median overall survival (OS) was 9.5 months and 13 months for group 1 and 2, respectively I, completed, 37 Brain cancer, central nervous system diseases  
NCT02986178 PVSRIPO in Recurrent Malignant Glioma Sufficient anticancer efficacy, but a low safety profile II, active, not recruiting, 122 Malignant glioma  
 
NCT03973879 Combination of PVSRIPO and Atezolizumab for Adults with Recurrent Malignant Glioma Sufficient anticancer efficacy, but a low safety profile I/II, withdrawn Malignant glioma  
 
NCT03043391 Phase 1b Study PVSRIPO for Recurrent Malignant Glioma in Children Sufficient anticancer efficacy, but a low safety profile I, recruiting, 12 Brain and central nervous system tumors  
NCT02457845 HSV G207 Alone or With a Single Radiation Dose in Children With Progressive or Recurrent Supratentorial Brain Tumors There are few side effects and a synergistic effect with concurrent radiotherapy, but efficacy remains limited I, active, not recruiting, 12 Brain and central nervous system tumors, head and neck cancer, oropharyngeal cancer  

Suicide Gene Therapies 

The suicide gene technique is based on virally delivering “suicide genes” to target cells, which produce enzymes that convert prodrugs to active compounds. The inert prodrug is given systematically and then activated by suicide enzymes at the tumor site, resulting in tumor cell apoptosis [27]. Its advantages include achieving a “bystander effect,” requiring short-term gene expression, selective tumor cell targeting, and enhancing sensitivity to conventional therapy. It is restricted by the limited spatial distribution of gene transfer vectors, poor gene transfer efficiency into tumor cells in vivo, inability to target dispersed tumor cells, and restricted intra-tumoral distribution. Figure 4 explains the mechanism of action of suicide gene therapy.

Herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (HSV-tk) enzyme catalyzes ganciclovir/valacyclovir monophosphorylation, which occurs after the triphosphorylation and activation of intracellular kinases. The active medication inhibits DNA synthesis and tumor lysis by blocking the S phase and arresting the cell circle. Cytosine deaminase (CD) catalyzes the activation of the prodrug 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC). A replication-competent retrovirus called Toca 511 loads the CD and transinfects tumor cells. It stimulates the expression of CD, which activates the 5-FU, which blocks DNA synthesis irreversibly and causes cell death. Escherichia coli-derived purine nucleoside phosphorylase (PNP) transforms adenosine ribonucleosides, such as fludarabine, into the active adenine molecule, 2-fluoroadenine, which disrupts RNA replication and the cell cycle. Antibiotic therapy, which suppresses intestinal flora, may over-activate the PNP gene therapy, resulting in increased prodrug conversion [27]. Table 9 summarizes clinical trials and results on suicide gene therapies.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Title Results Phase, status, number of patients enrolled Diseases
NCT03596086 HSV-tk + Valacyclovir + SBRT + Chemotherapy for Recurrent GBM Results demonstrated the safety of this strategy with promising antitumoral efficacy I/II, recruiting, 62 Glioblastoma multiforme, astrocytoma grade III
NCT00589875 Phase 2a Study of AdV-tk with Standard Radiation Therapy for Malignant Glioma (BrTK02) Results demonstrated the efficiency in the use of adenovirus as the carrier II, completed, 52 Malignant glioma, glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma
NCT03603405 HSV-tk and XRT and Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed GBM Results demonstrated the safety of this strategy with promising antitumoral efficacy I/II, recruiting, 62 Glioblastoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, neoplasm metastasis
NCT01470794 Study of a Retroviral Replicating Vector Combined with a Prodrug to Treat Patients Undergoing Surgery for a Recurrent Malignant Brain Tumor Results showed a good safety profile and a median overall survival of 12-14 months I, completed, 58 Glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, anaplastic oligoastrocytoma
NCT00390299 Viral Therapy in Treating Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme No severe side effects were reported I, completed, 23 Anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, mixed glioma, recurrent glioblastoma
NCT02414165 The Toca 5 Trial: Toca 511 & Toca FC Versus Standard of Care in Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma Therapeutic failure of Toca 511/5-FC compared to the standard of care II/III, terminated, 403 Glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma

Tumor Suppressor Gene Therapies 

High-grade gliomas frequently have deletions and mutations in tumor suppressor genes such as p53, p16, and phosphatase and tensin homologs (PTEN) [2]. Tumor suppressor gene techniques aim to restore normal function by transferring antitumoral functional genes to glioma cells. The advantages are safety in clinical trials, the potential to induce senescence within tumors, and the potential to sensitize tumor cells to other therapies. The limitations are as follows: multiple redundant pathways in tumors hinder efficacy, poor in vivo gene transfer, and limited distribution of therapy. Figure 5 explains the mechanism of action of tumor suppressor gene therapy.

P53 is involved in the inhibition of angiogenesis and DNA repair pathways. E1 gene is replaced by wild-type p53 in adenovirus and transmitted via a cytomegalovirus promoter (Ad5CMV-p53), which is the most widely used method. The E1 deletion prevents the virus from starting the infectious phase, while the cytomegalovirus promoter boosts the production of the p53 gene [27].

P16 prevents uncontrolled replication and oncogenesis by arresting the cell cycle during the G1-S transition [32]. Restoration of p16 function through an adenoviral vector has been found to decrease glioma growth and locoregional dissemination while also inhibiting matrix metalloprotease activity in the glioma microenvironment [33]. The adenovirus-mediated p16 gene was used to drive p16-null human glioma cell lines to enter phase G1 of the cell cycle. In HGG cells, data revealed that p16 expression is linked to tumor radiosensitivity through mechanisms of aberrant nucleation [34]. It is worth noting that the efficiency of the p16 gene approach is contingent on maintaining retinoblastoma protein (pRB) activity [35].

The PTEN gene has been shown to suppress glioma proliferation and induce oncolysis when delivered through an adenoviral vector [27]. Adenoviral vector transfer of the PTEN gene into glioma cells improved tumor sensitivity to temozolomide and radiation [36]. Table 10 summarizes clinical trials and results on tumor suppressor gene therapies.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Title Results Phase, status Diseases
NCT00004041 Gene Therapy in Treating Patients With Recurrent Malignant Gliomas Progression-free survival (PFS) of 13 weeks and OS of 44 weeks Phase I, completed Brain and CNS tumors
NCT00004080 Gene Therapy in Treating Patients With Recurrent or Progressive Brain Tumors PFS of 13 weeks and OS of 44 weeks Phase I, completed Brain and CNS tumors

Immunomodulatory Gene Therapies 

The objective of anti-glioma immunomodulatory gene therapy is to induce or augment the T-cell-mediated immune response against tumors using the delivery of genes for immunostimulatory cytokines and interferon beta/gamma (IFN-β/γ) [27]. Its advantages include the following: this therapy can achieve passive or active tumor immunity, it has the possibility to eliminate tumor cells that remain post-surgery, and it regulates the tumor microenvironment. This therapy is limited by tumor-induced immunosuppression, lack of antigen-presenting dendritic cells within the brain, and overcoming the presence of immune-suppressive regulatory T-cells and cytokines. Figure 6 explains the mechanism of action of immunomodulatory gene therapy.

The stimulation of natural killer cells and macrophages demonstrated potential antitumoral action [37]. INF-β was also transferred using nanoparticles and liposomes. Clinical trial shows a reduction in volumetric glioma and mild toxicity [38]. Histological findings reported an elevated level of immune activation [39]. IFN-β inhibits cancer cell proliferation and interactions with the extracellular matrix [40].

Interleukin-12 (IL-12) is one of the most important immunostimulant cytokines for strengthening the immune system and attracting cytotoxic cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nonreplicating adenoviruses and HSV were used in an earlier phase of research to deliver IL-12 to malignant glioma cells. Preclinical research revealed tumor cell death, active microglia cell infiltration, a favorable safety profile, and a significant local immune response [27].

Several clinical trials have shown that chemotherapy has a synergistic impact when combined with immunotherapy, challenging the conventional dogma that chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression prevents the formation of antitumor immune responses. In a limited phase I clinical trial, three pediatric patients with recurring brain tumors were given a combination of high-dose chemotherapy and adoptive immunotherapy [41]. Accumulating preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that combining tumor cell killing techniques with immunotherapy results in synergism between the two therapies, resulting in improved efficacy and lower toxicity. This collection of evidence refutes the conventional notion that tumor cell killing tactics hinder the immune system’s ability to recognize and eradicate a brain tumor, and it supports the use of combined cytotoxic-immunotherapeutic strategies in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme patients [42]. Table 11 summarizes clinical trials and results on immunomodulatory gene therapy.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Title Results Phase, status, number of patients enrolled Diseases
NCT00031083 Dose Escalation Study to Determine the Safety of IFN-Beta Gene Transfer in the Treatment of Grade III & Grade IV Gliomas The findings supported the activation of the immune cascade and the recruitment of T and NK cells in the tumor microenvironment I, completed, 12 Glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, mixed gliosarcoma
NCT02026271 A Study of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 With Veledimex in Subjects with Glioblastoma or Malignant Glioma The study discovered a significant increase in antitumor infiltrating lymphocytes I, active, 48 Glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, pediatric brain tumor
NCT03330197 A Study of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 + Veledimex in Pediatric Subjects with Brain Tumors Including DIPG The study discovered a significant increase in antitumor infiltrating lymphocytes I/II, recruiting, 45 Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma

Gene Target Therapies 

Gene target medicines directly bind specific tumor antigens to block oncogenic pathways irreversibly. Figure 7 explains the target gene mechanism of action.

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRvIII) variation, which is prevalent in 30% of high-grade gliomas, is involved in oncogenesis and tumor development processes. Antisense or short interfering RNA (siRNA) directed exclusively targeting the thymidine kinase domain of glioma EGFRvIII was delivered by viral vectors and nanoparticles [43]. The delivery of EGFRvIII siRNA using cyclodextrin-modified dendritic polyamine complexes (DexAMs) exhibited promising effects in malignant glioma cells, even when combined with erlotinib [44].

Direct intra-tumoral inoculation of polyethylenimine (PEI)/VEGF siRNA had a substantial antiangiogenic impact on xenografts [44]. In the Matrigel plug experiment, Ad-DeltaB7-shVEGF, an adenovirus construct, was developed, expressing a short hairpin RNA against VEGF; it showed excellent antiangiogenic action and better bioavailability than replication-incompetent adenoviruses [45]. In a human xenografted glioma model, Ad-DeltaB7-KOX, an oncolytic adenovirus, showed strong anticancer efficacy [46]. Another study looked at HGGs infected with adenovirus expressing vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and the oncolytic virus dl922/947. This combination therapy was more successful than monotherapy [27].

Conclusions

Despite recent advances in surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, brain tumor treatment regimens have only a limited impact on long-term disease control. Requirement for the development of novel treatments such as gene therapy arose over the past decades. We still have a long way to go before we can honestly say that gene therapy for pediatric cancer has had a significant impact on these diseases, but gene therapy can improve standard treatment efficacy when used as adjuvant therapy. It can be used to overcome barriers such as chemotherapy resistance by downregulating resistance genes or using approaches such as suicide gene therapy. Gene therapy is a better option in this age of precision medicine, and although the phase three clinical study lacks gene therapy advancements, it can make a drastic improvement in brain tumor treatment. It is associated with mild toxicity compared with other available treatment options, and given the overall poor prognosis in pediatric brain tumors, further studies are warranted.


References

  1. Murphy AM, Rabkin SD: Current status of gene therapy for brain tumors. Transl Res. 2013, 161:339-54. 10.1016/j.trsl.2012.11.003
  2. Hossain JA, Marchini A, Fehse B, Bjerkvig R, Miletic H: Suicide gene therapy for the treatment of high-grade glioma: past lessons, present trends, and future prospects. Neurooncol Adv. 2020, 2:vdaa013. 10.1093/noajnl/vdaa013
  3. Reddelle AK: Innovation in brain tumor treatment: a nurse perspective. Cureus. 2021, 13:e20037. 10.7759/cureus.20037
  4. Ullrich NJ: Neurofibromatosis type 1-associated brain tumors. J Rare Dis Res Treat. 2016, 1:11-6. 10.29245/2572-9411/2016/2.1017
  5. Peltonen S, Kallionpää RA, Rantanen M, et al.: Pediatric malignancies in neurofibromatosis type 1: a population-based cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2019, 145:2926-32. 10.1002/ijc.32187
  6. Iwami K, Natsume A, Wakabayashi T: Gene therapy for high-grade glioma. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2010, 50:727-36. 10.2176/nmc.50.727
  7. Biagi E, Bollard C, Rousseau R, Brenner M: Gene therapy for pediatric cancer: state of the art and future perspectives. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2003, 2003:13-24. 10.1155/S1110724303209025
  8. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021, 372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71
  9. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al.: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011, 343:d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928
  10. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S: SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019, 4:5. 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
  11. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al.: AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017, 358:j4008. 10.1136/bmj.j4008
  12. King GD, Curtin JF, Candolfi M, Kroeger K, Lowenstein PR, Castro MG: Gene therapy and targeted toxins for glioma. Curr Gene Ther. 2005, 5:535-57. 10.2174/156652305774964631
  13. Kane JR, Miska J, Young JS, Kanojia D, Kim JW, Lesniak MS: Sui generis: gene therapy and delivery systems for the treatment of glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2015, 17 Suppl 2:ii24-36. 10.1093/neuonc/nou355
  14. Natsume A, Yoshida J: Gene therapy for high-grade glioma: current approaches and future directions. Cell Adh Migr. 2008, 2:186-91. 10.4161/cam.2.3.6278
  15. Okura H, Smith CA, Rutka JT: Gene therapy for malignant glioma. Mol Cell Ther. 2014, 2:21. 10.1186/2052-8426-2-21
  16. Li J, Wang W, Wang J, Cao Y, Wang S, Zhao J: Viral gene therapy for glioblastoma multiforme: a promising hope for the current dilemma. Front Oncol. 2021, 11:678226. 10.3389/fonc.2021.678226
  17. Curtin JF, King GD, Candolfi M, Greeno RB, Kroeger KM, Lowenstein PR, Castro MG: Combining cytotoxic and immune-mediated gene therapy to treat brain tumors. Curr Top Med Chem. 2005, 5:1151-70. 10.2174/156802605774370856
  18. Giotta Lucifero A, Luzzi S, Brambilla I, Guarracino C, Mosconi M, Foiadelli T, Savasta S: Gene therapies for high-grade gliomas: from the bench to the bedside. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91:32-50. 10.23750/abm.v91i7-S.9953
  19. Candolfi M, Kroeger KM, Muhammad AK, et al.: Gene therapy for brain cancer: combination therapies provide enhanced efficacy and safety. Curr Gene Ther. 2009, 9:409-21. 10.2174/156652309789753301
  20. Castro MG, Candolfi M, Kroeger K, et al.: Gene therapy and targeted toxins for glioma. Curr Gene Ther. 2011, 11:155-80. 10.2174/156652311795684722
  21. Kroeger KM, Ghulam Muhammad AK, Baker GJ, et al.: Gene therapy and virotherapy: novel therapeutic approaches for brain tumors. Discov Med. 2010, 10:293-304.
  22. Fulci G, Chiocca EA: The status of gene therapy for brain tumors. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2007, 7:197-208. 10.1517/14712598.7.2.197
  23. Assi H, Candolfi M, Baker G, Mineharu Y, Lowenstein PR, Castro MG: Gene therapy for brain tumors: basic developments and clinical implementation. Neurosci Lett. 2012, 527:71-7. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.08.003
  24. Marsh JC, Goldfarb J, Shafman TD, Diaz AZ: Current status of immunotherapy and gene therapy for high-grade gliomas. Cancer Control. 2013, 20:43-8. 10.1177/107327481302000107
  25. Immonen A, Vapalahti M, Tyynelä K, et al.: AdvHSV-tk gene therapy with intravenous ganciclovir improves survival in human malignant glioma: a randomised, controlled study. Mol Ther. 2004, 10:967-72. 10.1016/j.ymthe.2004.08.002
  26. Adair JE, Johnston SK, Mrugala MM, et al.: Gene therapy enhances chemotherapy tolerance and efficacy in glioblastoma patients. J Clin Invest. 2014, 124:4082-92. 10.1172/JCI76739
  27. Giotta Lucifero A, Luzzi S: Against the resilience of high-grade gliomas: gene therapies (part II). Brain Sci. 2021, 11:10.3390/brainsci11080976
  28. Campen CJ, Gutmann DH: Optic pathway gliomas in neurofibromatosis type 1. J Child Neurol. 2018, 33:73-81. 10.1177/0883073817739509
  29. Aihara Y, Chiba K, Eguchi S, Amano K, Kawamata T: Pediatric optic pathway/hypothalamic glioma. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2018, 58:1-9. 10.2176/nmc.ra.2017-0081
  30. Banerjee K, Núñez FJ, Haase S, et al.: Current approaches for glioma gene therapy and virotherapy. Front Mol Neurosci. 2021, 14:621831. 10.3389/fnmol.2021.621831
  31. Tobias A, Ahmed A, Moon KS, Lesniak MS: The art of gene therapy for glioma: a review of the challenging road to the bedside. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013, 84:213-22. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302946
  32. Kanu OO, Hughes B, Di C, et al.: Glioblastoma multiforme oncogenomics and signaling pathways. Clin Med Oncol. 2009, 3:39-52. 10.4137/cmo.s1008
  33. Chintala SK, Fueyo J, Gomez-Manzano C, et al.: Adenovirus-mediated p16/CDKN2 gene transfer suppresses glioma invasion in vitro. Oncogene. 1997, 15:2049-57. 10.1038/sj.onc.1201382
  34. Hama S, Matsuura S, Tauchi H, et al.: p16 Gene transfer increases cell killing with abnormal nucleation after ionising radiation in glioma cells. Br J Cancer. 2003, 89:1802-11. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601299
  35. Xande JG, Dias AP, Tamura RE, et al.: Bicistronic transfer of CDKN2A and p53 culminates in collaborative killing of human lung cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. Gene Ther. 2020, 27:51-61. 10.1038/s41434-019-0096-1
  36. Inaba N, Kimura M, Fujioka K, et al.: The effect of PTEN on proliferation and drug-, and radiosensitivity in malignant glioma cells. Anticancer Res. 2011, 31:1653-8.
  37. Qin XQ, Beckham C, Brown JL, Lukashev M, Barsoum J: Human and mouse IFN-beta gene therapy exhibits different anti-tumor mechanisms in mouse models. Mol Ther. 2001, 4:356-64. 10.1006/mthe.2001.0464
  38. Yoshida J, Mizuno M, Fujii M, et al.: Human gene therapy for malignant gliomas (glioblastoma multiforme and anaplastic astrocytoma) by in vivo transduction with human interferon beta gene using cationic liposomes. Hum Gene Ther. 2004, 15:77-86. 10.1089/10430340460732472
  39. Wakabayashi T, Natsume A, Hashizume Y, Fujii M, Mizuno M, Yoshida J: A phase I clinical trial of interferon-beta gene therapy for high-grade glioma: novel findings from gene expression profiling and autopsy. J Gene Med. 2008, 10:329-39. 10.1002/jgm.1160
  40. Knüpfer MM, Poppenborg H, Van Gool S, Domula M, Wolff JE: Interferon-gamma inhibits proliferation and adhesion of T98G human malignant glioma cells in vitro. Klin Padiatr. 1997, 209:271-4. 10.1055/s-2008-1043961
  41. Peres E, Wood GW, Poulik J, et al.: High-dose chemotherapy and adoptive immunotherapy in the treatment of recurrent pediatric brain tumors. Neuropediatrics. 2008, 39:151-6. 10.1055/s-0028-1093333
  42. Bruserud Ø, Wendelboe Ø: Biological treatment in acute myelogenous leukaemia: how should T-cell targeting immunotherapy be combined with intensive chemotherapy?. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2001, 1:1005-16. 10.1517/14712598.1.6.1005
  43. Kang CS, Zhang ZY, Jia ZF, et al.: Suppression of EGFR expression by antisense or small interference RNA inhibits U251 glioma cell growth in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Gene Ther. 2006, 13:530-8. 10.1038/sj.cgt.7700932
  44. Kim C, Shah BP, Subramaniam P, Lee KB: Synergistic induction of apoptosis in brain cancer cells by targeted codelivery of siRNA and anticancer drugs. Mol Pharm. 2011, 8:1955-61. 10.1021/mp100460h
  45. Im SA, Gomez-Manzano C, Fueyo J, et al.: Antiangiogenesis treatment for gliomas: transfer of antisense-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibits tumor growth in vivo. Cancer Res. 1999, 59:895-900.
  46. Niola F, Evangelisti C, Campagnolo L, et al.: A plasmid-encoded VEGF siRNA reduces glioblastoma angiogenesis and its combination with interleukin-4 blocks tumor growth in a xenograft mouse model. Cancer Biol Ther. 2006, 5:174-9. 10.4161/cbt.5.2.2317

Review article
peer-reviewed

Systematic Review of Pediatric Brain Tumors in Neurofibromatosis Type 1: Status of Gene Therapy


Author Information

Sonu Thomas Corresponding Author

Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Viktoriya Bikeyeva

Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Ahmed Abdullah

Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Aleksandra Radivojevic

Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Anas A. Abu Jad

Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Anvesh Ravanavena

Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Chetna Ravindra

General Surgery, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Emmanuelar O. Igweonu-Nwakile

Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Safina Ali

Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Salomi Paul

Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Shreyas Yakkali

Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Sneha Teresa Selvin

Internal Medicine, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA

Pousette Hamid

Neurology, California Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences & Psychology, Fairfield, USA


Ethics Statement and Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.



Review article
peer-reviewed

Systematic Review of Pediatric Brain Tumors in Neurofibromatosis Type 1: Status of Gene Therapy


Figures etc.

SIQ
4.5
RATED BY 3 READERS
CONTRIBUTE RATING

Scholarly Impact Quotient™ (SIQ™) is our unique post-publication peer review rating process. Learn more here.