The Alcatraz-Strategy: a roadmap to break the connectivity barrier in malignant brain tumours.
Alcatraz
brain tumors
gap junctions
supramarginal resection
tumour microtubes
tumour networks
Journal
Molecular oncology
ISSN: 1878-0261
Titre abrégé: Mol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101308230
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Apr 2024
03 Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
19
01
2024
received:
17
10
2023
accepted:
15
03
2024
medline:
3
4
2024
pubmed:
3
4
2024
entrez:
3
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In recent years, the discovery of functional and communicative cellular tumour networks has led to a new understanding of malignant primary brain tumours. In this review, the authors shed light on the diverse nature of cell-to-cell connections in brain tumours and propose an innovative treatment approach to address the detrimental connectivity of these networks. The proposed therapeutic outlook revolves around three main strategies: (a) supramarginal resection removing a substantial portion of the communicating tumour cell front far beyond the gadolinium-enhancing tumour mass, (b) morphological isolation at the single cell level disrupting structural cell-to-cell contacts facilitated by elongated cellular membrane protrusions known as tumour microtubes (TMs), and (c) functional isolation at the single cell level blocking TM-mediated intercellular cytosolic exchange and inhibiting neuronal excitatory input into the malignant network. We draw an analogy between the proposed therapeutic outlook and the Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, where inmates faced an impassable sea barrier and experienced both spatial and functional isolation within individual cells. Based on current translational efforts and ongoing clinical trials, we propose the Alcatraz-Strategy as a promising framework to tackle the harmful effects of cellular brain tumour networks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38567664
doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13642
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Mildred Scheel School of Oncology
Organisme : German Cancer Aid
ID : 70113307
Organisme : German Cancer Aid
ID : 70114652
Organisme : Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen
ID : NW21-062H
Organisme : German Ministry of Education and Research
ID : 01EN2008
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.
Références
Ostrom QT, Patil N, Cioffi G, Waite K, Kruchko C, Barnholtz‐Sloan JS. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2013–2017. Neuro Oncol. 2020;22:iv1–iv96. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaa200
Louis DN, Perry A, Wesseling P, Brat DJ, Cree IA, Figarella‐Branger D, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23:1231–1251. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab106
Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W, Henriksson R, Saran F, Nishikawa R, et al. Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy‐temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:709–722. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1308345
Weller M, Wick W, Aldape K, Brada M, Berger M, Pfister SM, et al. Glioma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2015.17
Cuddapah VA, Robel S, Watkins S, Sontheimer H. A neurocentric perspective on glioma invasion. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15:455–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3765
Marusyk A, Janiszewska M, Polyak K. Intratumor heterogeneity: the Rosetta stone of therapy resistance. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:471–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.007
Wang L, Jung J, Babikir H, Shamardani K, Jain S, Feng X, et al. A single‐cell atlas of glioblastoma evolution under therapy reveals cell‐intrinsic and cell‐extrinsic therapeutic targets. Nat Cancer. 2022;3:1534–1552. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018‐022‐00475‐x
Venkataramani V, Schneider M, Giordano FA, Kuner T, Wick W, Herrlinger U, et al. Disconnecting multicellular networks in brain tumours. Nat Rev Cancer. 2022;22:481–491. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568‐022‐00475‐0
Osswald M, Jung E, Sahm F, Solecki G, Venkataramani V, Blaes J, et al. Brain tumour cells interconnect to a functional and resistant network. Nature. 2015;528:93–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16071
Weil S, Osswald M, Solecki G, Grosch J, Jung E, Lemke D, et al. Tumor microtubes convey resistance to surgical lesions and chemotherapy in gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19:1316–1326. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nox070
Venkataramani V, Yang Y, Schubert MC, Reyhan E, Tetzlaff SK, Wissmann N, et al. Glioblastoma hijacks neuronal mechanisms for brain invasion. Cell. 2022;185:2899–2917 e2831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.06.054
Neftel C, Laffy J, Filbin MG, Hara T, Shore ME, Rahme GJ, et al. An integrative model of cellular states, plasticity, and genetics for glioblastoma. Cell. 2019;178:835–849 e821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.06.024
Richards LM, Whitley OKN, MacLeod G, Cavalli FMG, Coutinho FJ, Jaramillo JE, et al. Gradient of developmental and injury response transcriptional states defines functional vulnerabilities underpinning glioblastoma heterogeneity. Nat Cancer. 2021;2:157–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018‐020‐00154‐9
Yang Y, Schubert MC, Kuner T, Wick W, Winkler F, Venkataramani V. Brain tumor networks in diffuse glioma. Neurotherapeutics. 2022;19:1832–1843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311‐022‐01320‐w
Schneider M, Vollmer L, Potthoff AL, Ravi VM, Evert BO, Rahman MA, et al. Meclofenamate causes loss of cellular tethering and decoupling of functional networks in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23:1885–1897. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab092
Ratliff M, Karimian‐Jazi K, Hoffmann DC, Rauschenbach L, Simon M, Hai L, et al. Individual glioblastoma cells harbor both proliferative and invasive capabilities during tumor progression. Neuro Oncol. 2023;25:2150–2162. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noad109
Jung E, Osswald M, Blaes J, Wiestler B, Sahm F, Schmenger T, et al. Tweety‐homolog 1 drives brain colonization of gliomas. J Neurosci. 2017;37:6837–6850. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3532‐16.2017
Skene JH, Jacobson RD, Snipes GJ, McGuire CB, Norden JJ, Freeman JA. A protein induced during nerve growth (GAP‐43) is a major component of growth‐cone membranes. Science. 1986;233:783–786. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3738509
Aigner L, Caroni P. Absence of persistent spreading, branching, and adhesion in GAP‐43‐depleted growth cones. J Cell Biol. 1995;128:647–660. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.128.4.647
Wang CY, Lin HC, Song YP, Hsu YT, Lin SY, Hsu PC, et al. Protein kinase C‐dependent growth‐associated protein 43 phosphorylation regulates gephyrin aggregation at developing GABAergic synapses. Mol Cell Biol. 2015;35:1712–1726. https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.01332‐14
Rekart JL, Meiri K, Routtenberg A. Hippocampal‐dependent memory is impaired in heterozygous GAP‐43 knockout mice. Hippocampus. 2005;15:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20045
Aasen T, Mesnil M, Naus CC, Lampe PD, Laird DW. Gap junctions and cancer: communicating for 50 years. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17:74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2016.142
Sontheimer H. Brain cancer: tumour cells on neighbourhood watch. Nature. 2015;528:49–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15649
Hausmann D, Hoffmann DC, Venkataramani V, Jung E, Horschitz S, Tetzlaff SK, et al. Autonomous rhythmic activity in glioma networks drives brain tumour growth. Nature. 2023;613:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‐022‐05520‐4
Gritsenko PG, Atlasy N, Dieteren CEJ, Navis AC, Venhuizen JH, Veelken C, et al. p120‐catenin‐dependent collective brain infiltration by glioma cell networks. Nat Cell Biol. 2020;22:97–107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556‐019‐0443‐x
Joseph JV, Magaut CR, Storevik S, Geraldo LH, Mathivet T, Latif MA, et al. TGF‐beta promotes microtube formation in glioblastoma through thrombospondin 1. Neuro Oncol. 2022;24:541–553. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab212
Osswald M, Solecki G, Wick W, Winkler F. A malignant cellular network in gliomas: potential clinical implications. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18:479–485. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now014
Li B, Hoel CM, Brohawn SG. Structures of tweety homolog proteins TTYH2 and TTYH3 reveal a Ca(2+)‐dependent switch from intra‐ to intermembrane dimerization. Nat Commun. 2021;12:6913. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467‐021‐27283‐8
Stefaniuk M, Swiech L, Dzwonek J, Lukasiuk K. Expression of Ttyh1, a member of the Tweety family in neurons in vitro and in vivo and its potential role in brain pathology. J Neurochem. 2010;115:1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471‐4159.2010.07023.x
Dalvin S, Anselmo MA, Prodhan P, Komatsuzaki K, Schnitzer JJ, Kinane TB. Expression of Netrin‐1 and its two receptors DCC and UNC5H2 in the developing mouse lung. Gene Expr Patterns. 2003;3:279–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1567‐133x(03)00047‐4
Cirulli V, Yebra M. Netrins: beyond the brain. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007;8:296–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2142
Venkatesh HS, Morishita W, Geraghty AC, Silverbush D, Gillespie SM, Arzt M, et al. Electrical and synaptic integration of glioma into neural circuits. Nature. 2019;573:539–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‐019‐1563‐y
Venkataramani V, Tanev DI, Strahle C, Studier‐Fischer A, Fankhauser L, Kessler T, et al. Glutamatergic synaptic input to glioma cells drives brain tumour progression. Nature. 2019;573:532–538. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‐019‐1564‐x
Zeng Q, Michael IP, Zhang P, Saghafinia S, Knott G, Jiao W, et al. Synaptic proximity enables NMDAR signalling to promote brain metastasis. Nature. 2019;573:526–531. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586‐019‐1576‐6
Varoqueaux F, Aramuni G, Rawson RL, Mohrmann R, Missler M, Gottmann K, et al. Neuroligins determine synapse maturation and function. Neuron. 2006;51:741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.09.003
Venkatesh HS, Johung TB, Caretti V, Noll A, Tang Y, Nagaraja S, et al. Neuronal activity promotes glioma growth through Neuroligin‐3 secretion. Cell. 2015;161:803–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.012
Venkatesh HS, Tam LT, Woo PJ, Lennon J, Nagaraja S, Gillespie SM, et al. Targeting neuronal activity‐regulated neuroligin‐3 dependency in high‐grade glioma. Nature. 2017;549:533–537. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24014
Taylor KRBT, Zhang H, Hui A, Hartmann G, Ni L, Venkatesh HS, et al. Glioma synapses recruit mechanisms of adaptive plasticity. BioRxiv 2021 https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.467325
Giese A, Bjerkvig R, Berens ME, Westphal M. Cost of migration: invasion of malignant gliomas and implications for treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1624–1636. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.05.063
Glas M, Rath BH, Simon M, Reinartz R, Schramme A, Trageser D, et al. Residual tumor cells are unique cellular targets in glioblastoma. Ann Neurol. 2010;68:264–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22036
Tombal B, Denmeade SR, Gillis JM, Isaacs JT. A supramicromolar elevation of intracellular free calcium ([Ca(2+)](i)) is consistently required to induce the execution phase of apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2002;9:561–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4400999
Chen Q, Boire A, Jin X, Valiente M, Er EE, Lopez‐Soto A, et al. Carcinoma‐astrocyte gap junctions promote brain metastasis by cGAMP transfer. Nature. 2016;533:493–498. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18268
Matsukado Y, Maccarty CS, Kernohan JW. The growth of glioblastoma multiforme (astrocytomas, grades 3 and 4) in neurosurgical practice. J Neurosurg. 1961;18:636–644. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1961.18.5.0636
Silbergeld DL, Chicoine MR. Isolation and characterization of human malignant glioma cells from histologically normal brain. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:525–531. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1997.86.3.0525
Kageji T, Nagahiro S, Uyama S, Mizobuchi Y, Toi H, Nakamura M, et al. Histopathological findings in autopsied glioblastoma patients treated by mixed neutron beam BNCT. J Neurooncol. 2004;68:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:neon.0000024725.31515.22
de Leeuw CN, Vogelbaum MA. Supratotal resection in glioma: a systematic review. Neuro Oncol. 2019;21:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noy166
Guerrini F, Roca E, Spena G. Supramarginal resection for glioblastoma: it is time to set boundaries! A critical review on a hot topic. Brain Sci. 2022;12:652. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12050652
Pessina F, Navarria P, Cozzi L, Ascolese AM, Simonelli M, Santoro A, et al. Maximize surgical resection beyond contrast‐enhancing boundaries in newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: is it useful and safe? A single institution retrospective experience. J Neurooncol. 2017;135:129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060‐017‐2559‐9
Eyupoglu IY, Hore N, Merkel A, Buslei R, Buchfelder M, Savaskan N. Supra‐complete surgery via dual intraoperative visualization approach (DiVA) prolongs patient survival in glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7:25755–25768. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.8367
Vivas‐Buitrago T, Domingo RA, Tripathi S, De Biase G, Brown D, Akinduro OO, et al. Influence of supramarginal resection on survival outcomes after gross‐total resection of IDH‐wild‐type glioblastoma. J Neurosurg. 2022;136:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.10.JNS203366
Jakola AS. Supramarginal resection in patients with glioblastoma: a randomised controlled trial. Availabe from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04243005. Accessed 3 Nov 2023.
Roh TH, Kang SG, Moon JH, Sung KS, Park HH, Kim SH, et al. Survival benefit of lobectomy over gross‐total resection without lobectomy in cases of glioblastoma in the noneloquent area: a retrospective study. J Neurosurg. 2019;132:895–901. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.12.JNS182558
Shah AH, Mahavadi A, Di L, Sanjurjo A, Eichberg DG, Borowy V, et al. Survival benefit of lobectomy for glioblastoma: moving towards radical supramaximal resection. J Neurooncol. 2020;148:501–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060‐020‐03541‐5
Schneider M, Potthoff AL, Keil VC, Guresir A, Weller J, Borger V, et al. Surgery for temporal glioblastoma: lobectomy outranks oncosurgical‐based gross‐total resection. J Neurooncol. 2019;145:143–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060‐019‐03281‐1
Wiebe S, Blume WT, Girvin JP, Eliasziw M, Effectiveness and Efficiency of Surgery for Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Study Group. A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal‐lobe epilepsy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:311–318. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200108023450501
Schneider M, Ilic I, Potthoff AL, Hamed M, Schafer N, Velten M, et al. Safety metric profiling in surgery for temporal glioblastoma: lobectomy as a supra‐total resection regime preserves perioperative standard quality rates. J Neurooncol. 2020;149:455–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060‐020‐03629‐y
Borger V, Hamed M, Ilic I, Potthoff AL, Racz A, Schafer N, et al. Seizure outcome in temporal glioblastoma surgery: lobectomy as a supratotal resection regime outclasses conventional gross‐total resection. J Neurooncol. 2021;152:339–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060‐021‐03705‐x
Borger V, Schneider M, Taube J, Potthoff AL, Keil VC, Hamed M, et al. Resection of piriform cortex predicts seizure freedom in temporal lobe epilepsy. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021;8:177–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51263
Duffau H. Stimulation mapping of white matter tracts to study brain functional connectivity. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11:255–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.51
Yordanova YN, Moritz‐Gasser S, Duffau H. Awake surgery for WHO grade II gliomas within “noneloquent” areas in the left dominant hemisphere: toward a “supratotal” resection. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2011;115:232–239. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.3.JNS101333
Duffau H. Long‐term outcomes after supratotal resection of diffuse low‐grade gliomas: a consecutive series with 11‐year follow‐up. Acta Neurochir. 2016;158:51–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701‐015‐2621‐3
Valdes PA, Ng S, Bernstock JD, Duffau H. Development of an educational method to rethink and learn oncological brain surgery in an “a la carte” connectome‐based perspective. Acta Neurochir. 2023;165:2489–2500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701‐023‐05626‐2
Duffau H. Is supratotal resection of glioblastoma in noneloquent areas possible? World Neurosurg. 2014;82:e101–e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.02.015
Duffau H. Awake surgery for incidental WHO grade II gliomas involving eloquent areas. Acta Neurochir. 2012;154:575–584; discussion 584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701‐011‐1216‐x
Yordanova YN, Duffau H. Supratotal resection of diffuse gliomas – an overview of its multifaceted implications. Neurochirurgie. 2017;63:243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2016.09.006
Ng S, Duffau H. Brain plasticity profiling as a key support to therapeutic decision‐making in low‐grade glioma oncological strategies. Cancer. 2023;15:3698. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15143698
Silva M, Vivancos C, Duffau H. The concept of «Peritumoral zone» in diffuse low‐grade gliomas: oncological and functional implications for a connectome‐guided therapeutic attitude. Brain Sci. 2022;12:504. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12040504
Rech F, Duffau H. Beyond avoiding hemiplegia after glioma surgery: the need to map complex movement in awake patient to preserve conation. Cancer. 2023;15:1528. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15051528
Duffau H, Thiebaut de Schotten M, Mandonnet E. White matter functional connectivity as an additional landmark for dominant temporal lobectomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79:492–495. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2007.121004
Ng S, Herbet G, Moritz‐Gasser S, Duffau H. Return to work following surgery for incidental diffuse low‐grade glioma: a prospective series with 74 patients. Neurosurgery. 2020;87:720–729. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz513
Pallud J, Audureau E, Blonski M, Sanai N, Bauchet L, Fontaine D, et al. Epileptic seizures in diffuse low‐grade gliomas in adults. Brain. 2014;137:449–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt345
Ng PR, Choi BD, Aghi MK, Nahed BV. Surgical advances in the management of brain metastases. Neurooncol Adv. 2021;3:v4–v15. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdab130
Berghoff AS, Rajky O, Winkler F, Bartsch R, Furtner J, Hainfellner JA, et al. Invasion patterns in brain metastases of solid cancers. Neuro Oncol. 2013;15:1664–1672. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not112
Siam L, Bleckmann A, Chaung HN, Mohr A, Klemm F, Barrantes‐Freer A, et al. The metastatic infiltration at the metastasis/brain parenchyma‐interface is very heterogeneous and has a significant impact on survival in a prospective study. Oncotarget. 2015;6:29254–29267. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.4201
Yoo H, Kim YZ, Nam BH, Shin SH, Yang HS, Lee JS, et al. Reduced local recurrence of a single brain metastasis through microscopic total resection. J Neurosurg. 2009;110:730–736. https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.8.JNS08448
Agboola O, Benoit B, Cross P, Da Silva V, Esche B, Lesiuk H, et al. Prognostic factors derived from recursive partition analysis (RPA) of radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials applied to surgically resected and irradiated brain metastatic cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360‐3016(98)00198‐9
Lee CH, Kim DG, Kim JW, Han JH, Kim YH, Park CK, et al. The role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastasis: a 17‐year longitudinal study. Acta Neurochir. 2013;155:389–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701‐013‐1619‐y
Horne EA, Diaz P, Cimino PJ, Jung E, Xu C, Hamel E, et al. A brain‐penetrant microtubule‐targeting agent that disrupts hallmarks of glioma tumorigenesis. Neurooncol Adv. 2021;3:vdaa165. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa165
Winkler F. Silencing glioblastoma networks to make temozolomide more effective. Neuro Oncol. 2021;23:1807–1809. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab186
Zeyen T, Potthoff AL, Nemeth R, Heiland DH, Burger MC, Steinbach JP, et al. Phase I/II trial of meclofenamate in progressive MGMT‐methylated glioblastoma under temozolomide second‐line therapy‐the MecMeth/NOA‐24 trial. Trials. 2022;23:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063‐021‐05977‐0
Westhoff MA, Zhou S, Bachem MG, Debatin KM, Fulda S. Identification of a novel switch in the dominant forms of cell adhesion‐mediated drug resistance in glioblastoma cells. Oncogene. 2008;27:5169–5181. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2008.148
Murphy SF, Varghese RT, Lamouille S, Guo S, Pridham KJ, Kanabur P, et al. Connexin 43 inhibition sensitizes Chemoresistant glioblastoma cells to Temozolomide. Cancer Res. 2016;76:139–149. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008‐5472.CAN‐15‐1286
Potthoff AL, Heiland DH, Evert BO, Almeida FR, Behringer SP, Dolf A, et al. Inhibition of gap junctions sensitizes primary glioblastoma cells for Temozolomide. Cancer. 2019;11:858. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11060858
Schneider M, Potthoff AL, Evert BO, Dicks M, Ehrentraut D, Dolf A, et al. Inhibition of intercellular cytosolic traffic via gap junctions reinforces Lomustine‐induced toxicity in glioblastoma independent of MGMT promoter methylation status. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14:195. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14030195
Iwamoto FM, Kreisl TN, Kim L, Duic JP, Butman JA, Albert PS, et al. Phase 2 trial of talampanel, a glutamate receptor inhibitor, for adults with recurrent malignant gliomas. Cancer. 2010;116:1776–1782. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24957
Grossman SA, Ye X, Chamberlain M, Mikkelsen T, Batchelor T, Desideri S, et al. Talampanel with standard radiation and temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4155–4161. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6895
Rogawski MA, Hanada T. Preclinical pharmacology of perampanel, a selective non‐competitive AMPA receptor antagonist. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2013;127:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12100
Gidal BE, Ferry J, Majid O, Hussein Z. Concentration‐effect relationships with perampanel in patients with pharmacoresistant partial‐onset seizures. Epilepsia. 2013;54:1490–1497. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.12240