Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and lethal tumor of the central nervous system. The natural history of treated GBM remains very poor with 5-year survival rates of 5 %. Survival has not significantly improved over the last decades. Currently, the best that can be offered is a modest 14-month overall median survival in patients undergoing maximum safe resection plus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Prognostic factors involved in survival include age, performance status, grade, specific markers (MGMT methylation, mutation of IDH1, IDH2 or TERT, 1p19q codeletion, overexpression of EGFR, etc.) and, likely, the extent of resection. Certain adjuncts to surgery, especially cortical mapping and 5-ALA fluorescence, favor higher rates of gross total resection with apparent positive impact on survival. Recurrent tumors can be offered re-intervention, participation in clinical trials, anti-angiogenic agent or local electric field therapy, without an evident impact on survival. Molecular-targeted therapies, immunotherapy and gene therapy are promising tools currently under research.

The management of diffuse supratentorial WHO grade II glioma remains a challenge because of the infiltrative nature of the tumor, which precludes curative therapy after total or even supratotal resection. When possible, functional-guided resection is the preferred initial treatment. Total and subtotal resections correlate with increased overall survival. High-risk patients (age >40, partial resection), especially IDH-mutated and 1p19q-codeleted oligodendroglial lesions, benefit from surgery plus adjuvant chemoradiation. Under the new 2016 WHO brain tumor classification, which now incorporates molecular parameters, all diffusely infiltrating gliomas are grouped together since they share specific genetic mutations and prognostic factors. Although low-grade gliomas cannot be regarded as benign tumors, large observational studies have shown that median survival can actually be doubled if an early, aggressive, multi-stage and personalized therapy is applied, as compared to prior wait-and-see policy series. Patients need an honest long-term therapeutic strategy that should ideally anticipate neurological, cognitive and histopathologic worsening.

The assessment of response to therapy in glioblastoma remains a challenge, because the surrogate measures of survival are subject to radiographic misinterpretation. A solid and reliable definition of progression is needed for both clinical decision-making and for evaluating response within the clinical trials. Historically, assessment criteria have used radiologic and clinical features aimed to correctly classify patients into progressive or non-progressive disease. The widely used RANO criteria are a valuable tool in disease evaluation, both in the clinical setting and in the clinical trials. However, assessment criteria have certain limitations that emerging image techniques have tried to overcome. Differentiating true progression from treatment-related changes (like pseudoprogression or pseudoresponse) is crucial in order not to prematurely discontinue adjuvant chemotherapy or redirect the patient to second-line options. This fact underscores the need for advanced radiologic techniques, like specific diffusion and perfusion MRI sequences, MR spectroscopy and PET, which seem to play a role in distinguishing these phenomena.

In the last decade, electronic media has irrupted physician’s clinical practice. Patients increasingly use Internet and social media to obtain enormous amounts of unsupervised data about cancer. Blogs, social networking sites, online support groups and forums are useful channels for medical education and experience sharing but also perfect environments for misinformation, quackery, violation of privacy and lack of professionalism. The widespread availability of such electronic resources allows some followers of the alternative oncology to spread useless irrational and controversial remedies for cancer, like false medicaments, miraculous diets, electronic devices, and even psychic therapies, as did charlatans in the past, providing false expectations about cancer treatments. Moreover, so-called predatory journals have introduced confusion and malpractice within the academic biomedical publishing system. This is a rising editorial phenomenon affecting all fields of biomedicine, including oncology that jeopardizes the quality of scientific contribution and damages the image of open access publication.

No abstract