• Nery de Albuquerque RegoGabrielGHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil., da Hora AlvesAriellyA0000-0003-3570-0827Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil., Penteado NucciMarianaM0000-0002-1502-9215LIM44-Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 01246-903, Brazil., Bustamante MamaniJavierJHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil., Anselmo de OliveiraFernandoF0000-0002-7226-1694Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil., and GamarraLionel FernelLF0000-0002-3910-0047Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil..
• Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-900, Brazil.
• Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jun 24; 21 (12).

AbstractGlioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive tumor type whose resistance to conventional treatment is mediated, in part, by the angiogenic process. New treatments involving the application of nanoformulations composed of encapsulated drugs coupled to peptide motifs that direct drugs to specific targets triggered in angiogenesis have been developed to reach and modulate different phases of this process. We performed a systematic review with the search criterion (Glioblastoma OR Glioma) AND (Therapy OR Therapeutic) AND (Nanoparticle) AND (Antiangiogenic OR Angiogenesis OR Anti-angiogenic) in Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, in which 312 articles were identified; of these, only 27 articles were included after selection and analysis of eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data of the articles were analyzed in five contexts: the characteristics of the tumor cells; the animal models used to induce GBM for antiangiogenic treatment; the composition of nanoformulations and their physical and chemical characteristics; the therapeutic anti-angiogenic process; and methods for assessing the effects on antiangiogenic markers caused by therapies. The articles included in the review were heterogeneous and varied in practically all aspects related to nanoformulations and models. However, there was slight variance in the antiangiogenic effect analysis. CD31 was extensively used as a marker, which does not provide a view of the effects on the most diverse aspects involved in angiogenesis. Therefore, the present review highlighted the need for standardization between the different approaches of antiangiogenic therapy for the GBM model that allows a more effective meta-analysis and that helps in future translational studies.

26 keywords...

hide…