Background Standard treatment for glioblastoma is radiation with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for 6 cycles, although the optimal number of cycles of adjuvant temozolomide has long been a subject of debate. We performed a phase II randomized trial investigating whether extending adjuvant temozolomide for more than 6 cycles improved outcome. Methods Glioblastoma patients treated at 20 Spanish hospitals who had not progressed after 6 cycles of adjuvant temozolomide were centrally randomized to stop (control arm) or continue (experimental arm) temozolomide up to a total of 12 cycles at the same doses they were receiving in cycle 6. Patients were stratified by MGMT methylation and measurable disease. The primary endpoint was differences in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02209948). Results From August 2014 to November 2018, 166 patients were screened, 7 of whom were ineligible. Seventy-nine patients were included in the stop arm and 80 in the experimental arm. All patients were included in the analyses of outcomes and of safety. There were no differences in 6-month PFS (control 55.7%; experimental 61.3%), PFS, or OS between arms. MGMT methylation and absence of measurable disease were independent factors of better outcome. Patients in the experimental arm had more lymphopenia (P < 0.001), thrombocytopenia (P < 0.001), and nausea and vomiting (P = 0.001). Conclusions Continuing temozolomide after 6 adjuvant cycles is associated with greater toxicity but confers no additional benefit in 6-month PFS. Key Points 1. Extending adjuvant temozolomide to 12 cycles did not improve 6-month PFS. 2. Extending adjuvant temozolomide did not improve PFS or OS in any patient subset. 3. Extending adjuvant temozolomide was linked to increased toxicities.

Glioblastoma is the most aggressive form of brain tumor in adults and is characterized by the presence of hypervascularization and necrosis, both caused by a hypoxic microenvironment. In this review, we highlight that hypoxia-induced factor 1 (HIF-1), the main factor activated by hypoxia, is an important driver of tumor progression in GB patients. HIF-1α is a transcription factor regulated by the presence or absence of O2. The expression of HIF-1 has been related to high-grade gliomas and aggressive tumor behavior. HIF-1 promotes tumor progression via the activation of angiogenesis, immunosuppression, and metabolic reprogramming, promoting cell invasion and survival. Moreover, in GB, HIF-1 is not solely modulated by oxygen but also by oncogenic signaling pathways, such as MAPK/ERK, p53, and PI3K/PTEN. Therefore, the inhibition of the hypoxia pathway could represent an important treatment alternative in a disease with very few therapy options. Here, we review the roles of HIF-1 in GB progression and the inhibitors that have been studied thus far, with the aim of shedding light on this devastating disease.

Oncolytic viruses represent a unique type of agents that combine self-amplification, lytic and immunostimulatory properties against tumors. A local and locoregional clinical benefit has been demonstrated upon intratumoral injections of an oncolytic herpes virus in melanoma patients, leading to its approval in USA and Europe for patients without visceral disease (up to stage IVM1a). However, in order to debulk and change the local immunosuppressive environment of tumors that cannot be injected directly, oncolyitc viruses need to be administered systemically. Among different viruses, adenovirus has been extensively used in clinical trials but with few evidences of activity upon systemic administration. Preclinical efficacy of a single intravenous administration of our oncolytic adenovirus ICOVIR5, an adenovirus type 5 responsive to the pRB pathway commonly deregulated in tumors, led us to use this virus in a dose-escalation phase I trial in metastatic melanoma patients. The results in 12 patients, treated with a single infusion of a dose up to 1E13 viral particles, show that ICOVIR5 can reach melanoma metastases upon a single intravenous administration but fails to induce tumor regressions. These results support the systemic administration of armed oncolytic viruses to treat disseminated cancer.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy characterized by a rapid progression and a high resistance to treatments. Unlike other solid tumors, there has been a scarce improvement in emerging treatments and survival during the last years. A better understanding of SCLC biology has allowed for the establishment of a molecular classification based on four transcription factors, and certain therapeutic vulnerabilities have been proposed. The universal inactivation of TP53 and RB1, along with the absence of mutations in known targetable oncogenes, has hampered the development of targeted therapies. On the other hand, the immunosuppressive microenvironment makes the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which have achieved a modest improvement in overall survival in patients with extensive disease, difficult. Currently, atezolizumab or durvalumab, in combination with platinum–etoposide chemotherapy, is the standard of care in first-line setting. However, the magnitude of the benefit is scarce and no predictive biomarkers of response have yet been established. In this review, we describe SCLC biology and molecular classification, examine the SCLC tumor microenvironment and the challenges of predictive biomarkers of response to new treatments, and, finally, assess clinical and molecular characteristics of long-term survivor patients in order to identify possible prognostic factors and treatment vulnerabilities.