Next Article in Journal
Androgen Receptor-Activated Enhancers Simultaneously Regulate Oncogene TMPRSS2 and lncRNA PRCAT38 in Prostate Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
The Prospect and Challenges to the Flow of Liquid Biopsy in Africa
Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceReview

Current and Future Trends on Diagnosis and Prognosis of Glioblastoma: From Molecular Biology to Proteomics

1
N. I. Pirogov Russian National Medical University, Russian Federal Ministry of Health, 117997 Moscow, Russia
2
Federal State Institution V. P. Serbsky Federal Medical Research Center of Psychiatry and Narcology National Scientific Research Center on Addictions of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 119002 Moscow, Russia
3
Department of Biomedical and Biotechnlogical Sciences, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy
4
Research Center for Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy
5
Department of Fundamental and Applied Neurobiology, Serbsky National Research Center for Social and Forensic Psychiatry, Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, 119034 Moscow, Russia
6
Laboratory of Anatomy-Histology-Embryology, Medical School of Heraklion, University of Crete, Voutes, 71110 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
7
Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov, First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University), 119048 Moscow, Russia
8
Institute of Cancer Therapeutics, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK
9
Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
10
Department of Neurology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
11
Centre of Toxicology Science and Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, 71003 Heraklion, Greece
12
Department of Analytical Toxicology, Sechenov University, 119048 Moscow, Russia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contribute equally to this work.
Cells 2019, 8(8), 863; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8080863
Received: 5 July 2019 / Revised: 2 August 2019 / Accepted: 6 August 2019 / Published: 9 August 2019

Abstract

Glioblastoma multiforme is the most aggressive malignant tumor of the central nervous system. Due to the absence of effective pharmacological and surgical treatments, the identification of early diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers is of key importance to improve the survival rate of patients and to develop new personalized treatments. On these bases, the aim of this review article is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the application of molecular biology and proteomics techniques for the identification of novel biomarkers through the analysis of different biological samples obtained from glioblastoma patients, including DNA, microRNAs, proteins, small molecules, circulating tumor cells, extracellular vesicles, etc. Both benefits and pitfalls of molecular biology and proteomics analyses are discussed, including the different mass spectrometry-based analytical techniques, highlighting how these investigation strategies are powerful tools to study the biology of glioblastoma, as well as to develop advanced methods for the management of this pathology.
Keywords: molecular biology; proteomics; metabolomics; glioblastoma; mass spectrometry; biomarkers; miRNAs; DNA; proteins molecular biology; proteomics; metabolomics; glioblastoma; mass spectrometry; biomarkers; miRNAs; DNA; proteins

1. Introduction: Glioblastoma Multiforme

Glioblastoma multiforme is characterized by poor prognosis, low survival rates, and extremely limited opportunities for therapy. Malignant gliomas are the third leading cause of cancer death for people aged between 15 to 34, accounting for 2.5% of the global cancer death toll. Among gliomas, glioblastoma multiforme represents the 50%, with a maximum incidence in patients aged more than 65 years [1,2,3,4]. Due to the absence of effective surgical and medical treatments currently available for glioblastoma, an early diagnosis coupled with an accurate tumor classification is of key importance to select a personalized treatment [5,6].
Gliomas are tumors with neuroectodermal origin, showing a considerable variability in age of onset, grade of severity, histological features, and ability to progress, as well as to metastasize [7,8]. According to the WHO classification, astrocytomas are histologically and clinically classified into four types: Pilocytic astrocytoma, diffuse astrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, and glioblastoma multiforme. Pilocytic astrocytoma and diffuse astrocytoma are characterized by a relatively low growth rate, while for anaplastic astrocytoma and glioblastoma multiforme by common uncontrolled proliferation, diffuse tissue penetration, and neurodegeneration [9,10,11]. In turn, glioblastomas are classified into three subtypes, depending on the status of the IDH gene mutation: Primary glioblastomas (IDH-wild-type), secondary glioblastomas (IDH-mutant), and unclassified glioblastomas (NOS) [12]. It is important to note that unclassified glioblastomas (NOS) do not belong to a specific glioblastoma category, given their diagnostic and genetic heterogeneity; for that reason, they cannot be classified within any other group [7].

1.1. Diagnosis and Treatment of Glioblastoma

One of the main problems of glioblastoma management is related to the lack of effective diagnostic strategies. Currently, the main diagnostic methods for the detection of gliomas rely on neurological tests and neuroimaging methods, performed when the disease is already at an advanced stage [13,14]. Late diagnosis of glioblastoma is mainly caused by the slow dissemination process typical of brain tumors, which allows structures to gradually adapt to both compression and deformation caused by the tumor mass. For this reason, even in the case of pronounced morphological signs of tumor penetration into brain tissue, clinical manifestations may be completely absent [15]. However, a major drawback comes in patients which make use of antiangiogenic drugs or chemo-radiotherapy, that can significantly deceive the results coming from neuroimaging analyses, thus making the follow-up even more difficult [16,17,18,19].
A typical treatment for glioblastoma involves surgical resection of the tumor mass, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatments. However, such therapies are often proved to be ineffective, given the high rate of relapse, general tumor resistance appearance over time, coupled with a serious neurological deterioration of the patient [20].
Regardless its radicality, the surgical resection of glioblastomas is often inadequate, given the frequent residual presence of microscopic foci, leading to relapse or even recurrence of the disease [21,22]. This is mainly due to their infiltrative growth, as well as their high proliferative abilities. However, numerous studies have highlighted the importance of maximizing tumor removal to increase life expectancy of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients. In fact, it is of key importance to remove the tumor mass up to the borders with the healthy surrounding tissue, in order to have a beneficial effect on patient survival rate [23,24]. However, even radical tumor resection is not conclusive since it is often followed by a relapse of the disease [25,26]. These findings explain why glioblastoma is not a surgically treatable disease [27,28,29,30,31,32].
More recently, based on the results obtained with other tumors [33,34], new treatments based on nitric oxide-releasing HIV protease inhibitors have been administered to glioblastoma patients [35,36]. Other studies have shown that despite the high vascularization of glioblastoma, treatments with the anti-VEGF bevacizumab do not significantly improve patients’ overall survival [37]. Finally, although several clinical trials have characterized the usage of carmustine wafers implants (Gliadel, generated 20 years ago) following tumor resection as adjuvant therapy, their clinical application has remained low [38,39].

1.2. Localization of Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma development occurs in the trans-barrier space of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which prevents the translocation of polarized and/or high-molecular-weight substances from the bloodstream towards the brain [20]. Disturbances in BBB function linked with glioma malignancies are often observed, significantly affecting peripheral blood detectable levels of tumor biomarkers [40]. The rapid growth of glioblastoma cells creates areas of local hypoxia, which triggers the process of angiogenesis [41]. In addition to enhanced angiogenesis, changes in the expression of proteins of the aquaporin family in the components of the BBB have been linked with the tumor progression of the glioblastoma [42,43,44,45]. During tumor-induced angiogenesis, neo-formed vases show an abnormal structure, lacking the specific barrier function of normal BBB blood vessels. Surprisingly, this effect is stronger in those high-grade gliomas lacking almost totally the BBB barrier functionality, and weaker in diffuse gliomas and low-grade gliomas [46,47,48]. Noteworthy, all gliomas, including glioblastoma, show intact BBB areas, especially at the periphery of the tumor, representing one of the main obstacles against their response to drug treatments [49,50].

1.3. Characteristic and Carcinogenesis of Glioblastoma

During the past 20 years, an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma has been observed. This increase can be attributed both to the improvement of diagnostic investigations for brain tumors, and to an actual higher GBM incidence due to various occupational and environmental risk factors which may increase the incidence of all tumors, including glioblastomas [51,52,53,54,55,56]. Even though it is difficult to make a correlation between brain tumors and the exposure to environmental or lifestyle factors, numerous risk factors have been described to predispose to gliomas and glioblastomas [57]. Several studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiota is also correlated with tumor development [58,59,60]. Recently, different reports have described the existence of a so called “gut-brain axis”, showing that the dysregulation of the gut microbiota may lead to the alterations of several processes predisposing to the development of a number of nervous system diseases, including cancer [61,62]. Moreover, individual genetic background may be linked to the prognosis of patients. Generally, Asian glioblastoma patients survive longer compared with Caucasian, African, or Latin American patients [63]. Glioblastoma is more common in adult patients, mainly affecting the cerebral hemispheres; much less common in children and, as rule, localized in the region of the brain stem [64]. Radiographic contrast enhancement brain tissues studies have revealed significant infiltrates of tumor cells outside the contrasted tumor. This observation provides incontrovertible evidence that a clinically significant tumor burden also exists outside the tumor volume, thereby supporting the classification of GBM as a whole brain disease [65].
Histologically indistinguishable grade IV gliomas, affecting heterogeneous age groups, are a consequence of the accumulation of several genetic mutations affecting tumor development [66]. In accordance with the assessment of defined genetic parameters, GBM can be classified into primary or secondary. Approximately 90% of all cases of GBM are primary and occur in elderly patients (Table 1), in which tumor progression is more rapid due to the higher accumulation of gene mutations compared with young individuals. Generally, patients affected by primary GBM experience complication and consequently die 9–12 months after the diagnosis. In contrast, secondary GBMs develop from primary astrocytomas, bearing a lower degree of malignancy and typical of younger patients (<45 years). At the same time, there is a gradual increase in the rate of tumor cells’ proliferation, angiogenesis, drug resistance, and other parameters, which leads to an increased severity [66] (Figure 1).
An important aspect that should be taken into account in the diagnosis of GBM is its high internal heterogeneity, which is characteristic of both newly detected and recurrent tumors [86,87]. Evaluation of the internal heterogeneity of GBM, using imaging techniques such as MRI, may give important prognostic information [88,89]. The ability of dividing into subgroups GBM tumor cells within the same tumor mass, based on their spatial and temporal variability, needs to be developed [90]. The heterogeneous nature of this tumor makes it difficult to identify and validate potential biomarkers [91]. For example, morphologically different glioblastoma cells exhibit different in vitro invasion, as well as cell migration abilities, depending on the nature of the surrounding microenvironment [92]. Furthermore, the complex crosstalk between tumor cells and the microenvironment may enhance tumor growth and reduce the chances of successful drug therapy [5,93,94]. In several tumors, including glioblastoma, it was demonstrated that the alteration of the extracellular matrix (ECM) composition and the over-expression of proteolytic enzymes, due to genetic and epigenetic modifications, are responsible for a more aggressive tumor phenotype and a worse prognosis [95,96,97,98,99,100].
It is assumed that many of the invasive signs of gliomas depend on their pathological metabolism, which may either promote tumor cells invasion or create an environment in which glioma cells might gain growth advantage over normal cells [101,102].

2. Perspective Biomarkers

An ideal tumor marker should be easily accessible for analysis, be detected by the simplest analytical method, and be able to provide accurate information about both the presence of the disease and its severity. The ideal marker should have 100% sensitivity and specificity, sufficient half-life for detection, the ability to dynamically reflect the tumor load, and its analysis should be economically acceptable for introduction into routine practice [103,104]. However, clinical biomarkers and their respective analysis do not have to be “ideal” in order to be clinically useful for diagnostic purposes. Glioblastoma is usually clinically characterized and diagnosed with diverse physico-chemical analyses, through the use of both tissue and circulating biomarkers [3,105,106].
However, most biomarkers lack either sensitivity or specificity. Several studies have proven that screening for certain nucleic acids may have higher specificity in glioblastomas, compared with individual proteins analysis. In the same manner, low-molecular weight metabolites and lipids have shown a low specificity for systemic diagnostic tasks [3,107,108,109]. However, conflicting results were generated on this matter.
Glioblastoma characterization based on tumor genetic properties is widely accepted. In fact, since 2016, brain tumors, including glioblastomas, are internationally classified based on their molecular genetic properties, as well as the histological features linked with these properties [7].
In general, a series of mutations of DNA and de-regulation of non-coding RNA have been characterized for gliomas; the frequency of their occurrence is different and correlates with the type of brain tumor [110]. Evaluation of genetic mutations in glioma cells by genotyping circulating tumor nucleic acids allows the classification of specific tumors and the definition of the prognosis and tumor burden. Importantly, circulating tumor nucleic acid analysis enables the selection and evaluation of patients’ therapeutic efficacy window [7,111].
Currently, the assessment of genetic parameters in biopsy specimens from glioma patients is of key importance for the formulation of a refined diagnosis and the choice of the best treatment strategy [7,112]. In addition, circulating nucleic acids found in blood and other biological fluids, either free or associated with extracellular vesicles, might be used as markers for brain tumors’ early diagnosis and classification [31,111]. In particular, a number of clinically significant glioma genetic biomarkers are currently analyzed as routine practice. Among these biomarkers, the most representative are: IDH1/2 mutation status, MGMT promoter methylation, 1p/19q co-deletion, and ATRX loss [7,75,113,114]. Widely diffused molecular methods for the analysis of these genetic biomarkers and the identification of nucleic acid mutations include: Direct sequencing, high-resolution melting (HRM), immunohistochemistry, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), and several others [110,115,116,117]. Through the use of these advanced techniques, it is nowadays possible to classify histologically indistinguishable GBM by the presence/absence of genetic mutations, which has an important therapeutic, prognostic, and experimental value [64,118]. The issues with the analysis of nucleic acids in peripheral blood are similar with the problems encountered when searching for high-molecular polar central nervous system (CNS)-derived compounds. In particular, low concentration, low abundance of the compounds in the systemic circulation, coupled with their weak penetration thought the BBB, make brain tumor-derived nucleic acids difficult to be identified as circulating molecules [31,119,120,121,122,123,124].

2.1. microRNAs (miRNAs)

In the last decade, a growing body of evidence has shown that a class of small non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), called miRNAs, are involved in several physiological and pathological processes. Specifically, miRNAs are ncRNAs 20–22 nucleotides long able to modulate the expression of specific genes by degrading the corresponding mRNAs or by blocking their access to the ribosomal machinery. Thanks to the advancement of new high throughput technologies, a great amount of molecular data regarding the expression profile of miRNAs in several cancers has been generated [125]. Furthermore, through the development of innovative prediction bioinformatics tools, specific sets of miRNAs have been found modulated in a wide variety of tumors, including brain cancers [126,127,128,129,130,131]. Different research groups have identified specific miRNAs associated to glioma and glioblastoma diagnosis and prognosis. Recently, Jesionek-Kupnicka and co-workers validated a panel of five miRNAs—miR-21, miR-125b, miR-34a, miR-181d, and miR-648—strictly involved in MGMT and TP53 alterations, therefore responsible for the progression of glioblastoma [132]. Among these miRNAs, miR-21 and miR-181d were also found de-regulated in other studies, suggesting their potential involvement in glioblastoma carcinogenesis [133,134,135,136]. Additionally, miR-144 and miR-29a were also associated with glioblastoma development [137,138,139]. Although many data have been generated on this matter, further validation studies are needed in a wide cohort of glioblastoma patients in order to confirm the diagnostic and prognostic significances of these miRNAs.
Although evaluation of miRNA expression levels in patients represents an innovative strategy for the early detection of various diseases, including tumors, even today, miRNAs cannot be used yet as reliable cancer diagnostic markers, given their low specificity and selectivity. In fact, the main disadvantage of the use of miRNAs as biomarkers is related with the fact that their modulation is often involved in different physiological and pathological conditions (e.g., chronic inflammation or other non-tumor pathologies) [140]. Additionally, although involved in glioblastoma development, the aforementioned miRNAs were found to be able to modulate a higher number of genes involved in several different processes at the same time. Therefore, the use of miRNAs as biomarkers needs to be coupled with an accurate clinical evaluation of the patient and other molecular analyses which are essential for a correct diagnosis of glioblastoma.

2.2. Proteins

Proteins can be used as diagnostic and prognostic markers in patients with brain tumor. They can be detected both in glioblastoma tissues [120] and in liquid matrices: blood and its derivatives [107,141,142], cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) [108], and urine [69]. The main approach currently used for searching for glioblastoma multiforme protein tumor markers is the study of the proteomic profile (bottom-up or top-down) [66] coupled with gene expression study [72,143]. Importantly, single tumor cell protein expression profiling does not provide a complete picture of the proteomic profile for the whole tumor bulk. The comparison of full proteomic tumor profiles takes into account both the nature and frequency of post-translational changes during cancer development, and allows to fully characterize the object of study. In brain tumors, including glioblastomas, differences in post-translational changes between pathological and normal cells populating the nervous system have been reported. It should also be noted that the study of protein post-translational modifications in GBM contributes to the search for new markers and therapeutic approaches to treat this disease [144,145].
Currently, many proteins have been characterized and changes in their qualitative or quantitative composition are currently associated with tumor progression in cancer patients [146,147]. Several glioblastoma protein markers have been reported in literature. Among these proteins, the most representative are: VEGF and angiogenesis-associated proteins (FGF-b; IGFBP-2; Ang2; EGF and others), extracellular matrix proteins (TSP1/2; TNC; Cyr61/CCN1; OPN, etc.), matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-2; MMP-9; AEG-1), cell line associated proteins (GFAP), macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), and functionally-related proteins (DD-T; CD74, CD44, CXCR2 and CXCR4) [148,149,150]. Additionally, embryonic antigens and other proteins can be used for the diagnosis and the prognostic evaluation of glioblastoma development [108,120,151,152,153]. Many of these proteins are used for the diagnosis of other tumors [114]. However, other proteins, as for example VEGF, are low-specific, since a change in their expression level is observed not only during brain tumors development, but also in other oncological as well as non-tumoral conditions [154,155,156,157]. In order to avoid false-negative and false-positive results due to the lack of specificity of protein markers, nowadays the better approach is performing an integrated multi-parametric evaluation, based on the qualitative and/or quantitative analysis of several different protein markers at the same time [66,108]. The advantages of multi-parametric evaluation include the possibility of implementing this approach based on the existing scientific and technical base and the high differentiating ability of this method, which allows, in addition to binary analysis (healthy/ill), to diagnose the specific tumor subtype [108,151,158]. A disadvantage in the identification of tumor-derived proteins in patients’ biological fluids, such as blood serum or CSF, can be their low concentration and their relative abundance compared with other proteins present in the blood serum (matrix effect). To increase the sensitivity, concentrating patients’ samples might be necessary. Moreover, to ensure a higher specificity of the detection methods used, extensive validation of the selected methodology is further needed [1,152].

2.3. Small Molecules

The identification of changes in concentrations of small molecules or low-molecular compounds in glioblastoma cells, compared with normal cells, can be used as diagnostic and prognostic markers, as well as for a correct classification of glioblastoma [159,160]. The category of small molecules includes cell lipids, metabolites, organic compound, and monomers able to rapidly diffuse across cell membranes, thus reaching intracellular and extracellular spaces. However, given their low specificity and low molecular weight, their use as a marker is little informative. Therefore, they can be successfully used only to refine the diagnosis when coupled with more specific methods such as MRI [105].
Despite the fact that small molecule metabolites have low diagnostic potential for systemic diagnosis, this class of substances is the most promising as rapid diagnostics tools in the context of navigation surgery. The use of mass spectrometry methods helps to successfully define the brain tumor boundaries, the surgical field, and the exploration of the postoperative cavity, both ex vivo and in real-time [159,161].

2.4. Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs)

Circulating tumor cells are separated from the primary tumor or metastasis and enter the systemic circulation. Approaches for the detection of circulating tumor cells include the use of antibodies for immunohistochemical evaluation and subsequent genetic analysis [162], visual methods for research [73], and evaluation of cell sizes [70]. The mechanism of penetration of circulating brain-derived tumor cells into the bloodstream is not fully understood; however, it is assumed that the glioma tumor cells penetrate into the bloodstream due to great invasiveness, which helps to overcome the BBB or even disrupt the BBB function during tumor development [70,163].
The detection of circulating tumor cells in patients’ blood samples has a significant clinical potential in CNS malignant neoplasms, thanks to the advantage of performing disease diagnosis and prognosis using blood specimens without any invasive and risky neurosurgical procedure [164,165,166].
Even though GBM tends to be a cranial-restricted tumor with distant metastases accounting 0.5–2% of all GBM patients, several research groups have demonstrated the isolation of CTCs from GBM cells, both in vivo and in vitro, with a variety of methods (glial fibrillary acidic protein-GFAP-based assay, immunomagnetic and immunofluorescence-based cell selection) [164,167,168]. Nonetheless, more researches are needed in this area, since it is not clear yet whether CTCs are actually able to explain GBM behavior, its extremely low percentage of metastases, or if they are truly indicative, at least of the majority, of the tumor genetic aberrations [104].

2.5. Extracellular Vesicles

Extracellular vesicles are naturally occurring cellular products composed of an outer hydrophobic lipid bilayer surrounding a hydrophilic aqueous core. Varying in diameter they can be categorized as exosomes (30–100 nm), microvesicles (50 nm–1.5 μm), oncosomes (100–400 nm), apoptotic bodies (50 nm–2 μm), and large oncosomes (1–10 μm). They serve as transporting vehicles for lipids, proteins, genetic elements, and various soluble intracellular material. Their role is to regulate the homeostasis of cell microenvironment by regulating neighboring cells and transducing them specific functional messages. It is well documented that extracellular vesicles are closely related to cancer progression by mediating the transportation of special factors able to control and deregulate proliferation, drug resistance, migration, angiogenesis induction, and invasion. It is proved that glioma cells are capable of producing all types of extracellular vesicles [169].
In particular, glioblastoma cells secrete extracellular vesicles, the molecular composition of which reflects the characteristics of the parental cells, which makes extracellular vesicles a promising object of analysis for diagnostic purposes [31]. Glioma cells are capable of producing several types of extracellular vesicles such as exosomes, microvesicles, and apoptotic bodies, as well as oncosomes, an atypically large type of vesicle produced selectively by tumor cells [170]. Extracellular vesicles are able to overcome the BBB, both in physiological and pathological conditions. They can be found in the bloodstream, as well as in CSF [15,171]. Modern theories of oncogenesis consider extracellular vesicles as a mechanism of intercellular communication, allowing tumor cells to acquire various properties necessary for tumor development [170]. Moreover, tumor-derived extracellular vesicles bear the ability to selectively suppress the host’s immune response and to sustain tumor carcinogenesis [15,172].
Extracellular vesicles, as well as circulating tumor cells, are carriers for oncogenic growth factors, receptors, enzymes, transcription factors, signaling and immunomodulating molecules, DNA of mutated and non-mutant oncogenes, RNA (including non-coding RNA, miRNA, and retrotransposons), proteins, lipids, and metabolites whose composition reflects the cell of origin, which makes them excellent biomarker reservoirs [162].
Finally, some of the main biomarkers identified in extracellular vesicles and linked with GDM exosomes is the glioma-specific receptor of epidermal growth factor (EGFRvIII), which is a piece of mRNA with the receptor (found in serum), miR21 which is an essential miRNA for GBM diagnosis (found in serum), and the mutant IDH1 mRNA found in CSF [173,174,175,176].
Overall, the above paragraphs showed that several biomarkers from different sources and of different nature were identified for glioblastoma diagnosis and prognosis (Table 2). However, there are still no concordant guideline about the use of single or multiple biomarkers evaluation in clinical setting.

3. Other Biological Specimens

Glioblastoma multiforme can be further evaluated using physicochemical analysis, in particular mass spectrometry methods, both in tumor tissue samples and biological fluids (blood, CSF, or urine).

3.1. Tumor Tissues

Glioma tissue samples can be precisely characterized through the identification of tumor-specific protein, lipid, genetic, or metabolic molecules for diagnostic or navigational surgery [106,108,159,176,178]. However, the biopsy procedure itself can have harmful effects for patients, as even moderate hemorrhage might occur during the procedure, leading to neurological function impairment or even life-threatening effects [179]. However, molecular analysis of glioma tissues with intraoperative mass spectrometry might overcome the above listed issues, allowing a safer intraoperative diagnosis, characterized by a quicker and more accurate identification and characterization of the lesion [71,180]. Existing models built on protein analysis, such as PROTGLIO, demonstrate higher accuracy in predicting the course of the disease through tumor tissues analysis [91]. The formulation of such a diagnosis is based on the qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of tumor-specific molecules and oncometabolites [181,182].
For example, glioma cells’ lipid profile compared with the neighboring normal brain cells’ one, demonstrates significant qualitative and quantitative differences. Intraoperative diagnosis of gliomas by using rapid detection tools for low-molecular tumor-cell components are well studied and can be introduced into clinical practice; however, the value of their practical application, especially in relation to the surgical treatment of GBM, is significantly reduced by brain tumor invasiveness [31,33]. Although this difference in biomolecules produced selectively by brain tumor cells cannot be used as a diagnostic biomarker since it lacks of specificity [183,184], it can be used intraoperatively to increase the efficacy of surgical intervention [106]. For example, Pirro et al. demonstrated the efficiency of the electrospray desorption ionization method (DESI-MS) as an intraoperative tool to accurately assess brain tumor boundaries. The degree of tumor infiltration into the white or gray matter of the brain was assessed by detecting the signal of N-acetylaspartate and membrane lipid complexes, while the mutation status of tumor isocitrate dehydrogenase was assessed by detecting 2-hydroxyglutarate [109]. Low-molecular tumor markers are the most promising candidates as local intraoperative markers, both to precisely define tumor boundaries and to improve navigation surgery [185,186].
Moreover, the identification and quantification of metabolic products such as trimetilamin-N-oxide, N-atsetilputrestsin, and uridine by mass spectrometry helps to identify key differences between healthy and tumor tissue, making a step ahead for a correct tumor staging and a fast identification of IDH mutations [187,188].

3.2. Biological Fluids

A promising approach for glioma diagnosis comes from the study of biological fluids using liquid biopsy. Compared with conventional tissue sampling, liquid biopsy is minimally invasive, safe, and reproducible. Due to the heterogeneity of glioblastomas, circulating markers, such as extracellular DNA, might be more representative of the entire tumor cellular population compared with classical tumor biopsies [189,190]. Common limitations of liquid biopsy are: the high variability of the genetic mutations encountered, low concentration and low representation of target analytes. The main circulating biomarkers found in biological fluids from GBM patients are circulating tumor cells [117], extracellular vesicles (microvesicles and exosomes) [191,192], circulating tumor nucleic acids [193,194,195,196], and tumor-specific proteins [197,198,199,200].
The fact that the CSF is in direct contact with brain tumor cells and the significantly lower background level of matrix substances, primarily cerebrospinal proteins, makes it a potentially valuable patient specimen for specific gliomas biomarkers identification [119,146,201]. Based on cerebrospinal protein’s proteomic profile, a diagnostic model (fingerprint diagnostic model) was built to identify the profile of glioma-specific cerebrospinal proteins. This experimental model showed high sensitivity and specificity for both diagnosis and differentiation of glioma from extra-cerebral tumor processes and benign brain tumors [108]. Also, tumor-specific metabolites and circulating tumor nucleic acids could be detected in the spinal fluid. As a limitation, both the complexity and risks linked with lumbar puncture for CSF collection make the technique difficult to use for early glioma diagnosis [202,203].
Plasma is the most promising biological specimen currently used for the early diagnosis of gliomas. In peripheral blood, several markers—such as tumor metabolites [204], circulating extracellular nucleic acids [120], circulating cancer cells [124,205], proteins associated with the tumor development [107,141,142], and extracellular vesicles [172]—can be easily detected through the use of new highly-sensitive molecular technologies, including mass spectrometry, high-sensitive ELISA assay, ddPCR, etc. The use of these highly-sensitive technologies is necessary because in plasma, the concentration of brain tumor-specific markers, including proteins, might be greatly reduced to ng/mL or even lower concentrations, thus at the limit of detection [206]. Miyauchi E et al., demonstrated the effectiveness of an information-independent analysis using high-resolution mass spectrometry, where plasma concentration of potential tumor marker proteins in glioma patients was successfully detected, and significantly different in their expression levels when compared with control samples [151].
Similarly, like CSF, urine is also able to accumulate metabolic products, thus reflecting their systemic level changes. Due to these qualities, urine represents a promising source of tumor biomarkers. Experimental models have demonstrated detectable levels of C6 glioma-derived proteins in the urine of tumor-bearing mice compared with their controls. These experiments have shown that a subclass of proteins in urine can reliably identify the presence of brain tumor. The described experimental approach is highly sensitive and allows the detection of glioblastoma before the onset of MRI-detectable brain tissue changes [207].
As previously mentioned, the evaluation of MMP-9/NGAL complex in urine samples of glioblastoma patients also positively correlated with MRI-based tumor assessment [208]. Accordingly, Wu and co-authors, using quantitative LC-MS/MS proteome assessment, detected 27 tumor-derived proteins in urine, whose levels were significantly modulated following tumor resection [66]. Additionally, low molecular weight metabolites deriving from the brain tumor bulk might be found at a detectable concentration in patients’ urine samples. Such an analysis is not specific enough for an unambiguous diagnosis, but it may be useful for more precise diagnosis when used as additional methodology together with other diagnostic tools or for routine monitoring of postoperative patients [87]. Despite the fact that many potential biomarkers have been successfully detected in urine in tumor animal models, its successful application in clinical practice requires additional studies and extensive methods validation [66].

4. Discussion

In the last century, a constant development of new pharmacological strategies for cancer treatments has been observed. However, despite the efficacy of these new treatments, the mortality rates for aggressive tumors is not decreasing significantly yet because increased incidence rates couples with a rise in drug resistance mechanisms [209]. Due to the absence of targeted medical therapy and the ineffectiveness of surgical intervention for the treatment of glioblastoma, the task of developing methods for the early diagnosis of this disease is of particular importance. Existing clinical approaches for the detection of glioblastoma are often ineffective and strictly dependent on results obtained using neuroimaging methods, such as MRI. However, the development of brain tumors, especially in the early stages, may not have clear and early clinical symptoms. Moreover, the use of neuroimaging methods is hardly applicable for mass screening, and such an assessment does not always allow to effectively determine the presence and the malignancy of a brain tumor [18,19].
The selection of promising biomarkers is also associated with the choice of a robust analytical method for their analysis. Mass spectrometry applied to the analysis of biological materials has several advantages, including sensitive detection, high performance, selectivity, and the possibility to analyze a wide range of chemical compounds. In particular, high-performance mass spectrometry is important for the analysis of biological samples with intrinsic variability, such as tumor tissue. In the long run, mass spectrometry methods can replace a significant number of laboratory diagnostic methods. Compared to methods based on the use of antibodies, mass spectrometry detection methods have been demonstrated to be the best indicators, with an improved detection limit, reproducibility, accuracy, and precision [210].
In order to accomplish early diagnosis of glioblastoma, the most promising biomarkers are tumor-derived proteins and nucleic acids. The analysis of nucleic acids today is introduced into clinical practice and is currently used for diagnosis and prognosis of the disease. However, nucleic acid analysis alone is not sufficient to effectively define the nature of the tumor. On these bases, further studies using other analytical approaches and other types of samples are necessary to ameliorate diagnosis of patients.
In this context, proteomic analysis using mass spectrometry methods offers promising results, allowing the detection of both tumor-specific proteins and post-translational modifications. The qualitative or quantitative evaluation of protein expression pattern or protein post-translational modification changes may serve as a CNS malignant tumor marker [108,211]. Proteomic analysis using mass spectrometry allows the researcher not only to compare the complete proteomic profiles of healthy and pathological samples, but also to correlate the presence of a set of protein alterations to the presence of a specific disease state [151]. This aspect is extremely important for the introduction of mass spectrometry into the routine clinical diagnosis of CNS oncological diseases. It should also be noted that the technical characteristics of modern mass analyzers allow the analysis of several individual molecular patterns, which are characteristic of several pathologies during one analytical cycle, thus providing prospects for the introduction of this method of analysis into routine practice. The use of multiparameter analysis will help the creation of a database of tumor-specific markers for clinical diagnosis by mass spectrometry. Experimental modeling of diffuse gliomas is a difficult task, since well-known preclinical models, including in vitro cell lines and xenografts, do not reliably reproduce some of the aspects of glioma biology [212]. However, experimental cell models and xenografts are extremely useful for testing and validating biological samples using mass spectrometry methods.
For intracranial tumors, which are unavailable for frequent tissue biopsy, biological fluids are the preferred source for monitoring the levels of tumor biomarkers. Liquid biopsy has a number of significant advantages over tissue biopsy and it is the most promising high-throughput clinical screening method. Differential diagnosis of gliomas demonstrates high accuracy and specificity based on the proteomic profiling studies in CSF. However, risks associated with CSF lumbar sampling might prevent the routine introduction of this methodology in clinical practice. In contrast, patient-derived blood- and urine-based liquid biopsies represent promising non-invasive methods for glioblastoma, early diagnosis, staging which need to be developed further given their high-throughput and high-compliance potentials.

5. Conclusions

Further study on genetic, protein, and metabolic changes occurring during both glioma and glioblastoma multiforme development is necessary to improve early diagnostic methods, as well as to develop novel personalized anti-cancer therapies. Currently, a significant number of potential tumor-specific markers of different chemical natures have been identified, whose changes in the qualitative and quantitative composition are associated with glioblastoma multiforme progression. However, only a few of these identified markers have found application in clinical practice as prognostic or diagnostic markers, none of which are used yet as a method of initial diagnosis [7].
In addition to circulating nucleic acid mutations detection, mass spectrometric-based multiparametric analysis of circulating tumor-associated proteins is the most promising approach potentially used in clinical practice [66]. The advantage of both approaches is their relatively high specificity, which allows to establish the status of the patient (healthy/ill), to discriminate the neoplastic transformation from other processes (including CNS inflammation, neuro-degeneration, etc.), and, finally, to establish the subtype of the tumor [7,108,202]. Therefore, proteomic analysis based on the use of mass spectrometric methods is a powerful tool for studying the biology of glioblastoma multiforme and developing clinical methods for early diagnosis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.T., A.S.S., and M.L.; writing—original draft preparation: L.F., A.S.S., O.I.G., K.S.K., and M.P.; figures and tables: A.S.S., A.E.N., and C.W.S.; writing—review and editing: T.K.N., L.F., O.I.G., K.S.K., M.L., A.T., and P.D.M.; C.W.S., L.F., and T.K.N. addressed the Reviewers’ comments. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University Strategic Development Program under the Russian Academic Excellence 5–100 Project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Westermark, B. Glioblastoma—A moving target. Ups. J. Med. Sci. 2012, 117, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Salcman, M. Malignant glioma management. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 1990, 1, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lombardi, G.; Corona, G.; Bellu, L.; Della Puppa, A.; Pambuku, A.; Fiduccia, P.; Bertorelle, R.; Gardiman, M.P.; D’Avella, D.; Toffoli, G.; et al. Diagnostic value of plasma and urinary 2-hydroxyglutarate to identify patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutated glioma. Oncologist 2015, 20, 562–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mallick, S.; Benson, R.; Hakim, A.; Rath, G.K. Management of glioblastoma after recurrence: A changing paradigm. Egypt. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2016, 28, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Liu, B.; Dong, H.; Lin, X.; Yang, X.; Yue, X.; Yang, J.; Li, Y.; Wu, L.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, S.; et al. RND3 promotes Snail 1 protein degradation and inhibits glioblastoma cell migration and invasion. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 82411–82423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Olar, A.; Aldape, K.D. Using the molecular classification of glioblastoma to inform personalized treatment. J. Pathol. 2014, 232, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Louis, D.N.; Perry, A.; Reifenberger, G.; von Deimling, A.; Figarella-Branger, D.; Cavenee, W.K.; Ohgaki, H.; Wiestler, O.D.; Kleihues, P.; Ellison, D.W. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016, 131, 803–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Candido, S.; Lupo, G.; Pennisi, M.; Basile, M.S.; Anfuso, C.D.; Petralia, M.C.; Gattuso, G.; Vivarelli, S.; Spandidos, D.A.; Libra, M.; et al. The analysis of miRNA expression profiling datasets reveals inverse microRNA patterns in glioblastoma and Alzheimer’s disease. Oncol. Rep. 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cao, H.; Wang, F.; Li, X.J. Future Strategies on Glioma Research: From Big Data to the Clinic. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2017, 15, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kalinina, J.; Peng, J.; Ritchie, J.C.; Van Meir, E.G. Proteomics of gliomas: Initial biomarker discovery and evolution of technology. Neuro Oncol. 2011, 13, 926–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sontheimer, H. A role for glutamate in growth and invasion of primary brain tumors. J. Neurochem. 2008, 105, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. DeWitt, J.C.; Mock, A.; Louis, D.N. The 2016 WHO classification of central nervous system tumors: What neurologists need to know. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2017, 30, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Posti, J.P.; Bori, M.; Kauko, T.; Sankinen, M.; Nordberg, J.; Rahi, M.; Frantzén, J.; Vuorinen, V.; Sipilä, J.O. Presenting symptoms of glioma in adults. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2015, 131, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mondal, A.; Kumari Singh, D.; Panda, S.; Shiras, A. Extracellular Vesicles as Modulators of Tumor Microenvironment and Disease Progression in Glioma. Front. Oncol. 2017, 7, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sizoo, E.M.; Braam, L.; Postma, T.J.; Pasman, H.R.; Heimans, J.J.; Klein, M.; Reijneveld, J.C.; Taphoorn, M.J. Symptoms and problems in the end-of-life phase of high-grade glioma patients. Neuro Oncol. 2010, 12, 1162–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Peca, C.; Pacelli, R.; Elefante, A.; Del Basso De Caro, M.L.; Vergara, P.; Mariniello, G.; Giamundo, A.; Maiuri, F. Early clinical and neuroradiological worsening after radiotherapy and concomitant temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: Tumour progression or radionecrosis? Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2009, 111, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Neagu, M.R.; Huang, R.Y.; Reardon, D.A.; Wen, P.Y. How treatment monitoring is influencing treatment decisions in glioblastomas. Curr. Treat. Options Neurol. 2015, 17, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Aquino, D.; Gioppo, A.; Finocchiaro, G.; Bruzzone, M.G.; Cuccarini, V. MRI in Glioma Immunotherapy: Evidence, Pitfalls, and Perspectives. J. Immunol. Res. 2017, 2017, 5813951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guillevin, R.; Herpe, G.; Verdier, M.; Guillevin, C. Low-grade gliomas: The challenges of imaging. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2014, 95, 957–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ozdemir-Kaynak, E.; Qutub, A.A.; Yesil-Celiktas, O. Advances in Glioblastoma Multiforme Treatment: New Models for Nanoparticle Therapy. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wilson, T.A.; Karajannis, M.A.; Harter, D.H. Glioblastoma multiforme: State of the art and future therapeutics. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2014, 5, 64. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Giusti, I.; Di Francesco, M.; Dolo, V. Extracellular Vesicles in Glioblastoma: Role in Biological Processes and in Therapeutic Applications. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2017, 17, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Opoku-Darko, M.; Amuah, J.E.; Kelly, J.J.P. Surgical Resection of Anterior and Posterior Butterfly Glioblastoma. World Neurosurg. 2018, 110, e612–e620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lara-Velazquez, M.; Al-Kharboosh, R.; Jeanneret, S.; Vazquez-Ramos, C.; Mahato, D.; Tavanaiepour, D.; Rahmathulla, G.; Quinones-Hinojosa, A. Advances in Brain Tumor Surgery for Glioblastoma in Adults. Brain Sci. 2017, 7, E166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Duffau, H. Recovery from complete hemiplegia following resection of a retrocentral metastasis: The prognostic value of intraoperative cortical stimulation. J. Neurosurg. 2001, 95, 1050–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bell, E., Jr.; Karnosh, L.J. Cerebral hemispherectomy; Report of a case 10 years after operation. J. Neurosurg. 1949, 6, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Baldock, A.L.; Ahn, S.; Rockne, R.; Johnston, S.; Neal, M.; Corwin, D.; Clark-Swanson, K.; Sterin, G.; Trister, A.D.; Malone, H.; et al. Patient-specific metrics of invasiveness reveal significant prognostic benefit of resection in a predictable subset of gliomas. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Yordanova, Y.N.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giladi, M.; Munster, M.; Schneiderman, R.S.; Voloshin, T.; Porat, Y.; Blat, R.; Zielinska-Chomej, K.; Hååg, P.; Bomzon, Z.; Kirson, E.D.; et al. Tumor treating fields (TTFields) delay DNA damage repair following radiation treatment of glioma cells. Radiat. Oncol. 2017, 12, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Müller, S.; Agnihotri, S.; Shoger, K.E.; Myers, M.I.; Smith, N.; Chaparala, S.; Villanueva, C.R.; Chattopadhyay, A.; Lee, A.V.; Butterfield, L.H.; et al. Peptide vaccine immunotherapy biomarkers and response patterns in pediatric gliomas. JCI Insight 2018, 3, 98791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Izumoto, S.; Tsuboi, A.; Oka, Y.; Suzuki, T.; Hashiba, T.; Kagawa, N.; Hashimoto, N.; Maruno, M.; Elisseeva, O.A.; Shirakata, T.; et al. Phase II clinical trial of Wilms tumor 1 peptide vaccination for patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J. Neurosurg. 2008, 108, 963–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Schuster, J.; Lai, R.K.; Recht, L.D.; Reardon, D.A.; Paleologos, N.A.; Groves, M.D.; Mrugala, M.M.; Jensen, R.; Baehring, J.M.; Sloan, A.; et al. A phase II, multicenter trial of rindopepimut (CDX-110) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: The ACT III study. Neuro Oncol. 2015, 17, 854–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Paskaš, S.; Krajnović, T.; Basile, M.S.; Dunđerović, D.; Cavalli, E.; Mangano, K.; Mammana, S.; Al-Abed, Y.; Nicoletti, F.; Mijatović, S.; et al. Senescence as a main mechanism of Ritonavir and Ritonavir-NO action against melanoma. Mol. Carcinog. 2019, 58, 1362–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Paskas, S.; Mazzon, E.; Basile, M.S.; Cavalli, E.; Al-Abed, Y.; He, M.; Rakocevic, S.; Nicoletti, F.; Mijatovic, S.; Maksimovic-Ivanic, D. Lopinavir-NO, a nitric oxide-releasing HIV protease inhibitor, suppresses the growth of melanoma cells in vitro and in vivo. Investig. New Drugs 2019, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Basile, M.S.; Mazzon, E.; Krajnovic, T.; Draca, D.; Cavalli, E.; Al-Abed, Y.; Bramanti, P.; Nicoletti, F.; Mijatovic, S.; Maksimovic-Ivanic, D. Anticancer and Differentiation Properties of the Nitric Oxide Derivative of Lopinavir in Human Glioblastoma Cells. Molecules 2018, 23, 2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lazarević, M.; Mazzon, E.; Momčilović, M.; Basile, M.S.; Colletti, G.; Petralia, M.C.; Bramanti, P.; Nicoletti, F.; Miljković, Đ. The H2S Donor GYY4137 Stimulates Reactive Oxygen Species Generation in BV2 Cells While Suppressing the Secretion of TNF and Nitric Oxide. Molecules 2018, 23, 2966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gilbert, M.R.; Dignam, J.J.; Armstrong, T.S.; Wefel, J.S.; Blumenthal, D.T.; Vogelbaum, M.A.; Colman, H.; Chakravarti, A.; Pugh, S.; Won, M.; et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 699–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Valtonen, S.; Timonen, U.; Toivanen, P.; Kalimo, H.; Kivipelto, L.; Heiskanen, O.; Unsgaard, G.; Kuurne, T. Interstitial chemotherapy with carmustine-loaded polymers for high-grade gliomas: A randomized double-blind study. Neurosurgery 1997, 41, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Westphal, M.; Hilt, D.C.; Bortey, E.; Delavault, P.; Olivares, R.; Warnke, P.C.; Whittle, I.R.; Jääskeläinen, J.; Ram, Z. A phase 3 trial of local chemotherapy with biodegradable carmustine (BCNU) wafers (Gliadel wafers) in patients with primary malignant glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2003, 5, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Holdhoff, M.; Yovino, S.G.; Boadu, O.; Grossman, S.A. Blood-based biomarkers for malignant gliomas. J. Neurooncol. 2013, 113, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Xu, Y.; Yuan, F.E.; Chen, Q.X.; Liu, B.H. Molecular mechanisms involved in angiogenesis and potential target of antiangiogenesis in human glioblastomas. Glioma 2018, 1, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nguyen, H.S.; Shabani, S.; Awad, A.J.; Kaushal, M.; Doan, N. Molecular Markers of Therapy-Resistant Glioblastoma and Potential Strategy to Combat Resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. McCoy, E.; Sontheimer, H. Expression and function of water channels (aquaporins) in migrating malignant astrocytes. Glia 2007, 55, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lan, Y.L.; Wang, X.; Lou, J.C.; Ma, X.C.; Zhang, B. The potential roles of aquaporin 4 in malignant gliomas. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 32345–32355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hayashi, Y.; Edwards, N.A.; Proescholdt, M.A.; Oldfield, E.H.; Merrill, M.J. Regulation and function of aquaporin-1 in glioma cells. Neoplasia 2007, 9, 777–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Van Tellingen, O.; Yetkin-Arik, B.; de Gooijer, M.C.; Wesseling, P.; Wurdinger, T.; de Vries, H.E. Overcoming the blood-brain tumor barrier for effective glioblastoma treatment. Drug Resist. Update 2015, 19, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ahmed, R.; Oborski, M.J.; Hwang, M.; Lieberman, F.S.; Mountz, J.M. Malignant gliomas: Current perspectives in diagnosis, treatment, and early response assessment using advanced quantitative imaging methods. Cancer Manag. Res. 2014, 6, 149–170. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jain, R.; Griffith, B.; Alotaibi, F.; Zagzag, D.; Fine, H.; Golfinos, J.; Schultz, L. Glioma Angiogenesis and Perfusion Imaging: Understanding the Relationship between Tumor Blood Volume and Leakiness with Increasing Glioma Grade. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2015, 36, 2030–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sarkaria, J.N.; Hu, L.S.; Parney, I.F.; Pafundi, D.H.; Brinkmann, D.H.; Laack, N.N.; Giannini, C.; Burns, T.C.; Kizilbash, S.H.; Laramy, J.K.; et al. Is the blood-brain barrier really disrupted in all glioblastomas? A critical assessment of existing clinical data. Neuro Oncol. 2018, 20, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Agarwal, S.; Manchanda, P.; Vogelbaum, M.A.; Ohlfest, J.R.; Elmquist, W.F. Function of the blood-brain barrier and restriction of drug delivery to invasive glioma cells: Findings in an orthotopic rat xenograft model of glioma. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2013, 41, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Philips, A.; Henshaw, D.L.; Lamburn, G.; O’Carroll, M.J. Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995-2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. J. Environ. Public Health 2018, 2018, 7910754. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Falzone, L.; Marconi, A.; Loreto, C.; Franco, S.; Spandidos, D.A.; Libra, M. Occupational exposure to carcinogens: Benzene, pesticides and fibers (Review). Mol. Med. Rep. 2016, 14, 4467–4474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rapisarda, V.; Salemi, R.; Marconi, A.; Loreto, C.; Graziano, A.C.; Cardile, V.; Basile, M.S.; Candido, S.; Falzone, L.; Spandidos, D.A.; et al. Fluoro-edenite induces fibulin-3 overexpression in non-malignant human mesothelial cells. Oncol. Lett. 2016, 12, 3363–3367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Fenga, C.; Gangemi, S.; Di Salvatore, V.; Falzone, L.; Libra, M. Immunological effects of occupational exposure to lead (Review). Mol. Med. Rep. 2017, 15, 3355–3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Garozzo, A.; Falzone, L.; Rapisarda, V.; Marconi, A.; Cinà, D.; Fenga, C.; Spandidos, D.A.; Libra, M. The risk of HCV infection among health-care workers and its association with extrahepatic manifestations (Review). Mol. Med. Rep. 2017, 15, 3336–3339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rapisarda, V.; Ledda, C.; Matera, S.; Fago, L.; Arrabito, G.; Falzone, L.; Marconi, A.; Libra, M.; Loreto, C. Absence of t(14;18) chromosome translocation in agricultural workers after short-term exposure to pesticides. Mol. Med. Rep. 2017, 15, 3379–3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tamimi, A.F.; Juweid, M. Epidemiology and Outcome of Glioblastoma. In Glioblastoma; De Vleeschouwer, S., Ed.; Codon Publications: Brisbane, Australia, 2017; Chapter 8. [Google Scholar]
  58. Vivarelli, S.; Salemi, R.; Candido, S.; Falzone, L.; Santagati, M.; Stefani, S.; Torino, F.; Banna, G.L.; Tonini, G.; Libra, M. Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2019, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vivarelli, S.; Falzone, L.; Basile, M.S.; Nicolosi, D.; Genovese, C.; Libra, M.; Salmeri, M. Benefits of using probiotics as adjuvants in anticancer therapy (Review). World Acad. Sci. J. 2019, 1, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Banna, G.L.; Torino, F.; Marletta, F.; Santagati, M.; Salemi, R.; Cannarozzo, E.; Falzone, L.; Ferraù, F.; Libra, M. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG: An Overview to Explore the Rationale of Its Use in Cancer. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mehrian-Shai, R.; Reichardt, J.K.V.; Harris, C.C.; Toren, A. The Gut-Brain Axis, Paving the Way to Brain Cancer. Trends Cancer 2019, 5, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ma, Q.; Xing, C.; Long, W.; Wang, H.Y.; Liu, Q.; Wang, R.F. Impact of microbiota on central nervous system and neurological diseases: The gut-brain axis. J. Neuroinflamm. 2019, 16, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Bohn, A.; Braley, A.; Rodriguez de la Vega, P.; Zevallos, J.C.; Barengo, N.C. The association between race and survival in glioblastoma patients in the US: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pearson, J.R.D.; Regad, T. Targeting cellular pathways in glioblastoma multiforme. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2017, 2, 17040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Agarwal, S.; Sane, R.; Oberoi, R.; Ohlfest, J.R.; Elmquist, W.F. Delivery of molecularly targeted therapy to malignant glioma, a disease of the whole brain. Expert Rev. Mol. Med. 2011, 13, e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Furnari, F.B.; Fenton, T.; Bachoo, R.M.; Mukasa, A.; Stommel, J.M.; Stegh, A.; Hahn, W.C.; Ligon, K.L.; Louis, D.N.; Brennan, C.; et al. Malignant astrocytic glioma: Genetics, biology, and paths to treatment. Genes Dev. 2007, 21, 2683–2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Amorim, J.P.; Santos, G.; Vinagre, J.; Soares, P. The Role of ATRX in the Alternative Lengthening of Telomeres (ALT) Phenotype. Genes (Basel) 2016, 7, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Chaurasia, A.; Park, S.H.; Seo, J.W.; Park, C.K. Immunohistochemical Analysis of ATRX, IDH1 and p53 in Glioblastoma and Their Correlations with Patient Survival. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2016, 31, 1208–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Wu, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Gao, Y. Candidate urine biomarker discovery from only five pairs of samples before and after tumor resection in glioma patients. bioRxiv 2018, 2018, 240861. [Google Scholar]
  70. Krol, I.; Castro-Giner, F.; Maurer, M.; Gkountela, S.; Szczerba, B.M.; Scherrer, R.; Coleman, N.; Carreira, S.; Bachmann, F.; Anderson, S.; et al. Detection of circulating tumour cell clusters in human glioblastoma. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 119, 487–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Agar, N.Y.; Golby, A.J.; Ligon, K.L.; Norton, I.; Mohan, V.; Wiseman, J.M.; Tannenbaum, A.; Jolesz, F.A. Development of stereotactic mass spectrometry for brain tumor surgery. Neurosurgery 2011, 68, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kanu, O.O.; Hughes, B.; Di, C.; Lin, N.; Fu, J.; Bigner, D.D.; Yan, H.; Adamson, C. Glioblastoma Multiforme Oncogenomics and Signaling Pathways. Clin. Med. Oncol. 2009, 3, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Choi, B.D.; Curry, W.T. IDH mutational status and the immune system in gliomas: A tale of two tumors? Transl. Cancer Res. 2017, 6, S1253–S1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Ye, Z.; Zhang, T.; He, W.; Jin, H.; Liu, C.; Yang, Z.; Ren, J. Methotrexate-Loaded Extracellular Vesicles Functionalized with Therapeutic and Targeted Peptides for the Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 12341–12350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Okita, Y.; Shofuda, T.; Kanematsu, D.; Yoshioka, E.; Kodama, Y.; Mano, M.; Kinoshita, M.; Nonaka, M.; Nakajima, S.; Fujinaka, T.; et al. Stereotactic image-based histological analysis reveals a correlation between 11C-methionine uptake and MGMT promoter methylation in non-enhancing gliomas. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 16, 1924–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Siegal, T. Clinical Relevance of Prognostic and Predictive Molecular Markers in Gliomas. Adv. Tech. Stand. Neurosurg. 2016, 43, 91–108. [Google Scholar]
  77. Masui, K.; Kato, Y.; Sawada, T.; Mischel, P.S.; Shibata, N. Molecular and Genetic Determinants of Glioma Cell Invasion. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Shi, J.; Sun, B.; Shi, W.; Zuo, H.; Cui, D.; Ni, L.; Chen, J. Decreasing GSH and increasing ROS in chemosensitivity gliomas with IDH1 mutation. Tumour Biol. 2015, 36, 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Brosseau, S.; Viala, M.; Varga, A.; Planchard, D.; Besse, B.; Soria, J.C. 3rd generation’s TKI in lung cancer non-small cell EGFR-mutated having acquired a secondary T790M resistance. Bull. Cancer 2015, 102, 749–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network; Brat, D.J.; Verhaak, R.G.; Aldape, K.D.; Yung, W.K.; Salama, S.R.; Cooper, L.A.; Rheinbay, E.; Miller, C.R.; Vitucci, M.; et al. Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 2481–2498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Chhabda, S.; Carney, O.; D’Arco, F.; Jacques, T.S.; Mankad, K. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of tumours of the Central Nervous System: What the paediatric neuroradiologist needs to know. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2016, 6, 486–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hellwinkel, J.E.; Redzic, J.S.; Harland, T.A.; Gunaydin, D.; Anchordoquy, T.J.; Graner, M.W. Glioma-derived extracellular vesicles selectively suppress immune responses. Neuro Oncol. 2016, 18, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Van Linde, M.E.; Brahm, C.G.; de Witt Hamer, P.C.; Reijneveld, J.C.; Bruynzeel, A.M.E.; Vandertop, W.P.; van de Ven, P.M.; Wagemakers, M.; van der Weide, H.L.; Enting, R.H.; et al. Treatment outcome of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: A retrospective multicenter analysis. J. Neurooncol. 2017, 135, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Osti, D.; Del Bene, M.; Rappa, G.; Santos, M.; Matafora, V.; Richichi, C.; Faletti, S.; Beznoussenko, G.V.; Mironov, A.; Bachi, A.; et al. Clinical Significance of Extracellular Vesicles in Plasma from Glioblastoma Patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Choi, D.; Montermini, L.; Kim, D.K.; Meehan, B.; Roth, F.P.; Rak, J. The Impact of Oncogenic EGFRvIII on the Proteome of Extracellular Vesicles Released from Glioblastoma Cells. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2018, 17, 1948–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Johnson, B.E.; Mazor, T.; Hong, C.; Barnes, M.; Aihara, K.; McLean, C.Y.; Fouse, S.D.; Yamamoto, S.; Ueda, H.; Tatsuno, K.; et al. Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma. Science 2014, 343, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Andronesi, O.C.; Kim, G.S.; Gerstner, E.; Batchelor, T.; Tzika, A.A.; Fantin, V.R.; Vander Heiden, M.G.; Sorensen, A.G. Detection of 2-hydroxyglutarate in IDH-mutated glioma patients by in vivo spectral-editing and 2D correlation magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012, 4, 116ra4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Parker, N.R.; Khong, P.; Parkinson, J.F.; Howell, V.M.; Wheeler, H.R. Molecular heterogeneity in glioblastoma: Potential clinical implications. Front. Oncol. 2015, 5, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liu, Y.; Xu, X.; Yin, L.; Zhang, X.; Li, L.; Lu, H. Relationship between Glioblastoma Heterogeneity and Survival Time: An MR Imaging Texture Analysis. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2017, 38, 1695–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Qazi, M.A.; Vora, P.; Venugopal, C.; Sidhu, S.S.; Moffat, J.; Swanton, C.; Singh, S.K. Intratumoral heterogeneity: Pathways to treatment resistance and relapse in human glioblastoma. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 1448–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Stetson, L.C.; Dazard, J.E.; Barnholtz-Sloan, J.S. Protein Markers Predict Survival in Glioma Patients. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2016, 15, 2356–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Koh, I.; Cha, J.; Park, J.; Choi, J.; Kang, S.G.; Kim, P. The mode and dynamics of glioblastoma cell invasion into a decellularized tissue-derived extracellular matrix-based three-dimensional tumor model. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Bonavia, R.; Inda, M.M.; Cavenee, W.K.; Furnari, F.B. Heterogeneity maintenance in glioblastoma: A social network. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 4055–4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Wang, Q.; Hu, B.; Hu, X.; Kim, H.; Squatrito, M.; Scarpace, L.; de Carvalho, A.C.; Lyu, S.; Li, P.; Li, Y.; et al. Tumor Evolution of Glioma-Intrinsic Gene Expression Subtypes Associates with Immunological Changes in the Microenvironment. Cancer Cell 2017, 32, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Guarneri, C.; Bevelacqua, V.; Polesel, J.; Falzone, L.; Cannavò, P.S.; Spandidos, D.A.; Malaponte, G.; Libra, M. NF-κB inhibition is associated with OPN/MMP-9 downregulation in cutaneous melanoma. Oncol. Rep. 2017, 37, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Leonardi, G.C.; Falzone, L.; Salemi, R.; Zanghì, A.; Spandidos, D.A.; Mccubrey, J.A.; Candido, S.; Libra, M. Cutaneous melanoma: From pathogenesis to therapy (Review). Int. J. Oncol. 2018, 52, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Rajesh, Y.; Banerjee, A.; Pal, I.; Biswas, A.; Das, S.; Dey, K.K.; Kapoor, N.; Ghosh, A.K.; Mitra, P.; Mandal, M. Delineation of crosstalk between HSP27 and MMP-2/MMP-9: A synergistic therapeutic avenue for glioblastoma management. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2019, 1863, 1196–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Falzone, L.; Scola, L.; Zanghì, A.; Biondi, A.; Di Cataldo, A.; Libra, M.; Candido, S. Integrated analysis of colorectal cancer microRNA datasets: Identification of microRNAs associated with tumor development. Aging (Albany NY) 2018, 10, 1000–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Basile, M.S.; Fagone, P.; Mangano, K.; Mammana, S.; Magro, G.; Salvatorelli, L.; Li Destri, G.; La Greca, G.; Nicoletti, F.; Puleo, S.; et al. KCNMA1 Expression is Downregulated in Colorectal Cancer via Epigenetic Mechanisms. Cancers (Basel) 2019, 11, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Falzone, L.; Salemi, R.; Travali, S.; Scalisi, A.; McCubrey, J.A.; Candido, S.; Libra, M. MMP-9 overexpression is associated with intragenic hypermethylation of MMP9 gene in melanoma. Aging (Albany NY) 2016, 8, 933–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Alfonso, J.C.L.; Talkenberger, K.; Seifert, M.; Klink, B.; Hawkins-Daarud, A.; Swanson, K.R.; Hatzikirou, H.; Deutsch, A. The biology and mathematical modelling of glioma invasion: A review. J. R. Soc. Interface 2017, 14, 20170490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Turner, D.A.; Adamson, D.C. Neuronal-astrocyte metabolic interactions: Understanding the transition into abnormal astrocytoma metabolism. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 2011, 70, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Cheng, L.; Davison, D.D.; Adams, J.; Lopez-Beltran, A.; Wang, L.; Montironi, R.; Zhang, S. Biomarkers in bladder cancer: Translational and clinical implications. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2014, 89, 73–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Touat, M.; Duran-Peña, A.; Alentorn, A.; Lacroix, L.; Massard, C.; Idbaih, A. Emerging circulating biomarkers in glioblastoma: Promises and challenges. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2015, 15, 1311–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Spalding, K.; Board, R.; Dawson, T.; Jenkinson, M.D.; Baker, M.J. A review of novel analytical diagnostics for liquid biopsies: Spectroscopic and spectrometric serum profiling of primary and secondary brain tumors. Brain Behav. 2016, 6, e00502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Jarmusch, A.K.; Alfaro, C.M.; Pirro, V.; Hattab, E.M.; Cohen-Gadol, A.A.; Cooks, R.G. Differential Lipid Profiles of Normal Human Brain Matter and Gliomas by Positive and Negative Mode Desorption Electrospray Ionization—Mass Spectrometry Imaging. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Wolburg, H.; Noell, S.; Fallier-Becker, P.; Mack, A.F.; Wolburg-Buchholz, K. The disturbed blood-brain barrier in human glioblastoma. Mol. Aspects Med. 2012, 33, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Liu, J.; Yu, J.; Shen, H.; Zhang, J.; Liu, W.; Chen, Z.; He, S.; Zheng, S. Mass spectrometric analysis of cerebrospinal fluid protein for glioma and its clinical application. Contemp. Oncol. (Pozn) 2014, 18, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Pirro, V.; Alfaro, C.M.; Jarmusch, A.K.; Hattab, E.M.; Cohen-Gadol, A.A.; Cooks, R.G. Intraoperative assessment of tumor margins during glioma resection by desorption electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 6700–6705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, A.; Hou, C.; Chen, H.; Zong, X.; Zong, P. Genetics and Epigenetics of Glioblastoma: Applications and Overall Incidence of IDH1 Mutation. Front. Oncol. 2016, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Herman, A.; Gruden, K.; Blejec, A.; Podpečan, V.; Motaln, H.; Rožman, P.; Hren, M.; Zupančič, K.; Veber, M.; Verbovšek, U.; et al. Analysis of Glioblastoma Patients’ Plasma Revealed the Presence of MicroRNAs with a Prognostic Impact on Survival and Those of Viral Origin. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0125791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Monga, V.; Jones, K.; Chang, S. Clinical relevance of molecular markers in gliomas. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes 2017, 28, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hegi, M.E.; Diserens, A.C.; Gorlia, T.; Hamou, M.F.; de Tribolet, N.; Weller, M.; Kros, J.M.; Hainfellner, J.A.; Mason, W.; Mariani, L.; et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 352, 997–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Hegi, M.E.; Liu, L.; Herman, J.G.; Stupp, R.; Wick, W.; Weller, M.; Mehta, M.P.; Gilbert, M.R. Correlation of O6-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation with clinical outcomes in glioblastoma and clinical strategies to modulate MGMT activity. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 4189–4199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Yang, C.; Lai, H.; Zhang, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, J. Comparative study of IDH1 mutations in gliomas by high resolution melting analysis, immunohistochemistry and direct DNA sequencing. Mol. Med. Rep. 2015, 12, 4376–4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Salemi, R.; Falzone, L.; Madonna, G.; Polesel, J.; Cinà, D.; Mallardo, D.; Ascierto, P.A.; Libra, M.; Candido, S. MMP-9 as a Candidate Marker of Response to BRAF Inhibitors in Melanoma Patients with BRAFV600E Mutation Detected in Circulating-Free DNA. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Battaglia, R.; Palini, S.; Vento, M.E.; La Ferlita, A.; Lo Faro, M.J.; Caroppo, E.; Borzì, P.; Falzone, L.; Barbagallo, D.; Ragusa, M.; et al. Identification of extracellular vesicles and characterization of miRNA expression profiles in human blastocoel fluid. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Wong, K.K.; Rostomily, R.; Wong, S.T.C. Prognostic Gene Discovery in Glioblastoma Patients using Deep Learning. Cancers (Basel) 2019, 11, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Wang, Y.; Springer, S.; Zhang, M.; McMahon, K.W.; Kinde, I.; Dobbyn, L.; Ptak, J.; Brem, H.; Chaichana, K.; Gallia, G.L.; et al. Detection of tumor-derived DNA in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with primary tumors of the brain and spinal cord. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 9704–9709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Kros, J.M.; Mustafa, D.M.; Dekker, L.J.; Sillevis Smitt, P.A.; Luider, T.M.; Zheng, P.P. Circulating glioma biomarkers. Neuro Oncol. 2015, 17, 343–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Zachariah, M.A.; Oliveira-Costa, J.P.; Carter, B.S.; Stott, S.L.; Nahed, B.V. Blood-based biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2018, 20, 1155–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Soon, B.H.; Abdul Murad, N.A.; Then, S.M.; Abu Bakar, A.; Fadzil, F.; Thanabalan, J.; Mohd Haspani, M.S.; Toh, C.J.; Mohd Tamil, A.; Harun, R.; et al. Mitochondrial DNA Mutations in Grade II and III Glioma Cell Lines Are Associated with Significant Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Higher Oxidative Stress. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Sun, X.; Johnson, J.; St John, J.C. Global DNA methylation synergistically regulates the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes in glioblastoma cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, 5977–5995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Kirches, E. High frequency of mitochondrial DNA mutations in glioblastoma multiforme identified by direct sequence comparison to blood samples. Int. J. Cancer 2001, 93, 534–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Di Leva, G.; Croce, M.C. miRNA profiling of cancer. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2013, 23, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Hafsi, S.; Candido, S.; Maestro, R.; Falzone, L.; Soua, Z.; Bonavida, B.; Spandidos, D.A.; Libra, M. Correlation between the overexpression of Yin Yang 1 and the expression levels of miRNAs in Burkitt’s lymphoma: A computational study. Oncol. Lett. 2016, 11, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Falzone, L.; Candido, S.; Salemi, R.; Basile, M.S.; Scalisi, A.; McCubrey, J.A.; Torino, F.; Signorelli, S.S.; Montella, M.; Libra, M. Computational identification of microRNAs associated to both epithelial to mesenchymal transition and NGAL/MMP-9 pathways in bladder cancer. Oncotarget 2016, 8, 72758–72766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. McCubrey, J.A.; Fitzgerald, T.L.; Yang, L.V.; Lertpiriyapong, K.; Steelman, L.S.; Abrams, S.L.; Montalto, G.; Cervello, M.; Neri, L.M.; Cocco, L.; et al. Roles of GSK-3 and microRNAs on epithelial mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cells. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 14221–14250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Falzone, L.; Romano, G.L.; Salemi, R.; Bucolo, C.; Tomasello, B.; Lupo, G.; Anfuso, C.D.; Spandidos, D.A.; Libra, M.; Candido, S. Prognostic significance of deregulated microRNAs in uveal melanomas. Mol. Med. Rep. 2019, 19, 2599–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Falzone, L.; Lupo, G.; Rosa, G.R.M.; Crimi, S.; Anfuso, C.D.; Salemi, R.; Rapisarda, E.; Libra, M.; Candido, S. Identification of Novel MicroRNAs and Their Diagnostic and Prognostic Significance in Oral Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2019, 11, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Polo, A.; Crispo, A.; Cerino, P.; Falzone, L.; Candido, S.; Giudice, A.; De Petro, G.; Ciliberto, G.; Montella, M.; Budillon, A.; et al. Environment and bladder cancer: Molecular analysis by interaction networks. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 65240–65252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Jesionek-Kupnicka, D.; Braun, M.; Trąbska-Kluch, B.; Czech, J.; Szybka, M.; Szymańska, B.; Kulczycka-Wojdala, D.; Bieńkowski, M.; Kordek, R.; Zawlik, I. MiR-21, miR-34a, miR-125b, miR-181d and miR-648 levels inversely correlate with MGMT and TP53 expression in primary glioblastoma patients. Arch. Med. Sci. 2019, 15, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. ParvizHamidi, M.; Haddad, G.; Ostadrahimi, S.; Ostadrahimi, N.; Sadeghi, S.; Fayaz, S.; Fard-Esfahani, P. Circulating miR-26a and miR-21 as biomarkers for glioblastoma multiform. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2019, 66, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Seo, Y.E.; Suh, H.W.; Bahal, R.; Josowitz, A.; Zhang, J.; Song, E.; Cui, J.; Noorbakhsh, S.; Jackson, C.; Bu, T.; et al. Nanoparticle-mediated intratumoral inhibition of miR-21 for improved survival in glioblastoma. Biomaterials 2019, 201, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Sippl, C.; Ketter, R.; Bohr, L.; Kim, Y.J.; List, M.; Oertel, J.; Urbschat, S. MiRNA-181d Expression Significantly Affects Treatment Responses to Carmustine Wafer Implantation. Neurosurgery 2019, 85, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Chen, Y.Y.; Ho, H.L.; Lin, S.C.; Ho, T.D.; Hsu, C.Y. Upregulation of miR-125b, miR-181d, and miR-221 Predicts Poor Prognosis in MGMT Promoter-Unmethylated Glioblastoma Patients. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2018, 149, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Cardoso, A.M.S.; Sousa, M.; Morais, C.M.; Oancea-Castillo, L.R.; Régnier-Vigouroux, A.; Rebelo, O.; Tão, H.; Barbosa, M.; Pedroso de Lima, M.C.; Jurado, A.S. MiR-144 overexpression as a promising therapeutic strategy to overcome glioblastoma cell invasiveness and resistance to chemotherapy. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2019, ddz099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Yang, L.; Li, N.; Yan, Z.; Li, C.; Zhao, Z. MiR-29a-Mediated CD133 Expression Contributes to Cisplatin Resistance in CD133+ Glioblastoma Stem Cells. J. Mol. Neurosci. 2018, 66, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Zhao, Y.; Huang, W.; Kim, T.M.; Jung, Y.; Menon, L.G.; Xing, H.; Li, H.; Carroll, R.S.; Park, P.J.; Yang, H.W.; et al. MicroRNA-29a activates a multi-component growth and invasion program in glioblastoma. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 38, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Wang, H.; Peng, R.; Wang, J.; Qin, Z.; Xue, L. Circulating microRNAs as potential cancer biomarkers: The advantage and disadvantage. Clin. Epigenet. 2018, 10, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lange, R.P.; Everett, A.; Dulloor, P.; Korley, F.K.; Bettegowda, C.; Blair, C.; Grossman, S.A.; Holdhoff, M. Evaluation of eight plasma proteins as candidate blood-based biomarkers for malignant gliomas. Cancer Investig. 2014, 32, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Westphal, M.; Lamszus, K. Circulating biomarkers for gliomas. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2015, 11, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Swartling, F.J. Myc proteins in brain tumor development and maintenance. Ups. J. Med. Sci. 2012, 117, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Petushkova, N.A.; Zgoda, V.G.; Pyatnitskiy, M.A.; Larina, O.V.; Teryaeva, N.B.; Potapov, A.A.; Lisitsa, A.V. Post-translational modifications of FDA-approved plasma biomarkers in glioblastoma samples. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177427. [Google Scholar]
  145. Singh, S.K.; Fiorelli, R.; Kupp, R.; Rajan, S.; Szeto, E.; Lo Cascio, C.; Maire, C.L.; Sun, Y.; Alberta, J.A.; Eschbacher, J.M.; et al. Post-translational Modifications of OLIG2 Regulate Glioma Invasion through the TGF-β Pathway. Cell Rep. 2016, 16, 950–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Schuhmann, M.U.; Zucht, H.D.; Nassimi, R.; Heine, G.; Schneekloth, C.G.; Stuerenburg, H.J.; Selle, H. Peptide screening of cerebrospinal fluid in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 36, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Bernardi, D.; Padoan, A.; Ballin, A.; Sartori, M.; Manara, R.; Scienza, R.; Plebani, M.; Della Puppa, A. Serum YKL-40 following resection for cerebral glioblastoma. J. Neurooncol. 2012, 107, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mammana, S.; Fagone, P.; Cavalli, E.; Basile, M.S.; Petralia, M.C.; Nicoletti, F.; Bramanti, P.; Mazzon, E. The Role of Macrophages in Neuroinflammatory and Neurodegenerative Pathways of Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, and Multiple Sclerosis: Pathogenetic Cellular Effectors and Potential Therapeutic Targets. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Mangano, K.; Mazzon, E.; Basile, M.S.; Di Marco, R.; Bramanti, P.; Mammana, S.; Petralia, M.C.; Fagone, P.; Nicoletti, F. Pathogenic role for macrophage migration inhibitory factor in glioblastoma and its targeting with specific inhibitors as novel tailored therapeutic approach. Oncotarget 2018, 9, 17951–17970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Presti, M.; Mazzon, E.; Basile, M.S.; Petralia, M.C.; Bramanti, A.; Colletti, G.; Bramanti, P.; Nicoletti, F.; Fagone, P. Overexpression of macrophage migration inhibitory factor and functionally-related genes, D-DT, CD74, CD44, CXCR2 and CXCR4, in glioblastoma. Oncol. Lett. 2018, 16, 2881–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Miyauchi, E.; Furuta, T.; Ohtsuki, S.; Tachikawa, M.; Uchida, Y.; Sabit, H.; Obuchi, W.; Baba, T.; Watanabe, M.; Terasaki, T.; et al. Identification of blood biomarkers in glioblastoma by SWATH mass spectrometry and quantitative targeted absolute proteomics. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Ludwig, K.; Kornblum, H.I. Molecular markers in glioma. J. Neurooncol. 2017, 134, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Nicoletti, F.; Mazzon, E.; Fagone, P.; Mangano, K.; Mammana, S.; Cavalli, E.; Basile, M.S.; Bramanti, P.; Scalabrino, G.; Lange, A.; et al. Prevention of clinical and histological signs of MOG-induced experimental allergic encephalomyelitis by prolonged treatment with recombinant human EGF. J. Neuroimmunol. 2019, 332, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Jobim, F.C.; Schwartsmann, G.; Xavier, N.L.; Uchoa Dde, M.; Saciloto, M.; Chemello, N. Expression of MMP-9 and VEGF in breast cancer: Correlation with other prognostic indicators. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2008, 30, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Carvalho, J.F.; Blank, M.; Shoenfeld, Y. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in autoimmune diseases. J. Clin. Immunol. 2007, 27, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Shibuya, M. VEGF-VEGFR Signals in Health and Disease. Biomol. Ther. (Seoul) 2014, 22, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Alkharsah, K. VEGF Upregulation in Viral Infections and Its Possible Therapeutic Implications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Heroux, M.S.; Chesnik, M.A.; Halligan, B.D.; Al-Gizawiy, M.; Connelly, J.M.; Mueller, W.M.; Rand, S.D.; Cochran, E.J.; LaViolette, P.S.; Malkin, M.G.; et al. Comprehensive characterization of glioblastoma tumor tissues for biomarker identification using mass spectrometry-based label-free quantitative proteomics. Physiol. Genom. 2014, 46, 467–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Longuespée, R.; Wefers, A.K.; De Vita, E.; Miller, A.K.; Reuss, D.E.; Wick, W.; Herold-Mende, C.; Kriegsmann, M.; Schirmacher, P.; von Deimling, A.; et al. Rapid detection of 2-hydroxyglutarate in frozen sections of IDH mutant tumors by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2018, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Mörén, L.; Perryman, R.; Crook, T.; Langer, J.K.; Oneill, K.; Syed, N.; Antti, H. Metabolomic profiling identifies distinct phenotypes for ASS1 positive and negative GBM. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 167. [Google Scholar]
  161. Pirro, V.; Llor, R.S.; Jarmusch, A.K.; Alfaro, C.M.; Cohen-Gadol, A.A.; Hattab, E.M.; Cooks, R.G. Analysis of human gliomas by swab touch spray-mass spectrometry: Applications to intraoperative assessment of surgical margins and presence of oncometabolites. Analyst 2017, 142, 4058–4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Chistiakov, D.A.; Chekhonin, V.P. Circulating tumor cells and their advances to promote cancer metastasis and relapse, with focus on glioblastoma multiforme. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2018, 105, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Gao, F.; Cui, Y.; Jiang, H.; Sui, D.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Zhao, J.; Lin, S. Circulating tumor cell is a common property of brain glioma and promotes the monitoring system. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 71330–71340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Macarthur, K.M.; Kao, G.D.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Alonso-Basanta, M.; Chapman, C.; Lustig, R.A.; Wileyto, E.P.; Hahn, S.M.; Dorsey, J.F. Detection of brain tumor cells in the peripheral blood by a telomerase promoter-based assay. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 2152–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Adamczyk, L.A.; Williams, H.; Frankow, A.; Ellis, H.P.; Haynes, H.R.; Perks, C.; Holly, J.M.; Kurian, K.M. Current Understanding of Circulating Tumor Cells—Potential Value in Malignancies of the Central Nervous System. Front. Neurol. 2015, 6, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Cohen, J.D.; Javed, A.A.; Thoburn, C.; Wong, F.; Tie, J.; Gibbs, P.; Schmidt, C.M.; Yip-Schneider, M.T.; Allen, P.J.; Schattner, M.; et al. Combined circulating tumor DNA and protein biomarker-based liquid biopsy for the earlier detection of pancreatic cancers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 10202–10207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Müller, C.; Holtschmidt, J.; Auer, M.; Heitzer, E.; Lamszus, K.; Schulte, A.; Matschke, J.; Langer-Freitag, S.; Gasch, C.; Stoupiec, M.; et al. Hematogenous dissemination of glioblastoma multiforme. Sci. Transl. Med. 2014, 6, 247ra101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Sullivan, J.P.; Nahed, B.V.; Madden, M.W.; Oliveira, S.M.; Springer, S.; Bhere, D.; Chi, A.S.; Wakimoto, H.; Rothenberg, S.M.; Sequist, L.V.; et al. Brain tumor cells in circulation are enriched for mesenchymal gene expression. Cancer Discov. 2014, 4, 1299–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Konoshenko, M.Y.; Lekchnov, E.A.; Vlassov, A.V.; Laktionov, P.P. Isolation of Extracellular Vesicles: General Methodologies and Latest Trends. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 8545347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. García-Romero, N.; Carrión-Navarro, J.; Esteban-Rubio, S.; Lázaro-Ibáñez, E.; Peris-Celda, M.; Alonso, M.M.; Guzmán-De-Villoria, J.; Fernández-Carballal, C.; de Mendivil, A.O.; García-Duque, S.; et al. DNA sequences within glioma-derived extracellular vesicles can cross the intact blood-brain barrier and be detected in peripheral blood of patients. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 1416–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Lin, N.; Yan, W.; Gao, K.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; You, Y. Prevalence and clinicopathologic characteristics of the molecular subtypes in malignant glioma: A multi-institutional analysis of 941 cases. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e94871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Mallawaaratchy, D.M.; Hallal, S.; Russell, B.; Ly, L.; Ebrahimkhani, S.; Wei, H.; Christopherson, R.I.; Buckland, M.E.; Kaufman, K.L. Comprehensive proteome profiling of glioblastoma-derived extracellular vesicles identifies markers for more aggressive disease. J. Neurooncol. 2017, 131, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Al-Nedawi, K.; Meehan, B.; Micallef, J.; Lhotak, V.; May, L.; Guha, A.; Rak, J. Intercellular transfer of the oncogenic receptor EGFRvIII by microvesicles derived from tumour cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008, 10, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Akers, J.C.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Kim, R.; Skog, J.; Nakano, I.; Pingle, S.; Kalinina, J.; Hua, W.; Kesari, S.; Mao, Y.; et al. miR-21 in the extracellular vesicles (EVs) of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF): A platform for glioblastoma biomarker development. PLoS ONE 2013, 21, e78115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Chen, W.W.; Balaj, L.; Liau, L.M.; Samuels, M.L.; Kotsopoulos, S.K.; Maguire, C.A.; Loguidice, L.; Soto, H.; Garrett, M.; Zhu, L.D.; et al. BEAMing and Droplet Digital PCR Analysis of Mutant IDH1 mRNA in Glioma Patient Serum and Cerebrospinal Fluid Extracellular Vesicles. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 2013, 2, e109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Szopa, W.; Burley, T.A.; Kramer-Marek, G.; Kaspera, W. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 8013575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Muller, L.; Muller-Haegele, S.; Mitsuhashi, M.; Gooding, W.; Okada, H.; Whiteside, T.L. Exosomes isolated from plasma of glioma patients enrolled in a vaccination trial reflect antitumor immune activity and might predict survival. Oncoimmunology 2015, 4, e1008347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Heiland, D.H.; Wörner, J.; Gerrit Haaker, J.; Delev, D.; Pompe, N.; Mercas, B.; Franco, P.; Gäbelein, A.; Heynckes, S.; Pfeifer, D.; et al. The integrative metabolomic-transcriptomic landscape of glioblastome multiforme. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 49178–49190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Shankar, G.M.; Balaj, L.; Stott, S.L.; Nahed, B.; Carter, B.S. Liquid biopsy for brain tumors. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2017, 17, 943–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Zhang, Z.Z.; Shields, L.B.; Sun, D.A.; Zhang, Y.P.; Hunt, M.A.; Shields, C.B. The Art of Intraoperative Glioma Identification. Front. Oncol. 2015, 5, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Santagata, S.; Eberlin, L.S.; Norton, I.; Calligaris, D.; Feldman, D.R.; Ide, J.L.; Liu, X.; Wiley, J.S.; Vestal, M.L.; Ramkissoon, S.H.; et al. Intraoperative mass spectrometry mapping of an onco-metabolite to guide brain tumor surgery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 11121–11126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Calligaris, D.; Norton, I.; Feldman, D.R.; Ide, J.L.; Dunn, I.F.; Eberlin, L.S.; Cooks, R.G.; Jolesz, F.A.; Golby, A.J.; Santagata, S.; et al. Mass spectrometry imaging as a tool for surgical decision-making. J. Mass Spectrom. 2013, 48, 1178–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Seow, P.; Narayanan, V.; Hernowo, A.T.; Wong, J.H.D.; Ramli, N. Quantification and visualization of lipid landscape in glioma using in -and opposed-phase imaging. Neuroimage Clin. 2018, 20, 531–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Guo, D.; Bell, E.H.; Chakravarti, A. Lipid metabolism emerges as a promising target for malignant glioma therapy. CNS Oncol. 2013, 2, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Jarmusch, A.K.; Pirro, V.; Baird, Z.; Hattab, E.M.; Cohen-Gadol, A.A.; Cooks, R.G. Lipid and metabolite profiles of human brain tumors by desorption electrospray ionization-MS. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1486–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Eberlin, L.S.; Norton, I.; Dill, A.L.; Golby, A.J.; Ligon, K.L.; Santagata, S.; Cooks, R.G.; Agar, N.Y. Classifying human brain tumors by lipid imaging with mass spectrometry. Cancer Res. 2012, 72, 645–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Zhao, H.; Heimberger, A.B.; Lu, Z.; Wu, X.; Hodges, T.R.; Song, R.; Shen, J. Metabolomics profiling in plasma samples from glioma patients correlates with tumor phenotypes. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 20486–20495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Mörén, L.; Bergenheim, A.T.; Ghasimi, S.; Brännström, T.; Johansson, M.; Antti, H. Metabolomic Screening of Tumor Tissue and Serum in Glioma Patients Reveals Diagnostic and Prognostic Information. Metabolites 2015, 5, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Crowley, E.; Di Nicolantonio, F.; Loupakis, F.; Bardelli, A. Liquid biopsy: Monitoring cancer-genetics in the blood. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 10, 472–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Figueroa, J.M.; Carter, B.S. Detection of glioblastoma in biofluids. J. Neurosurg. 2018, 129, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Cheung, A.H.; Chow, C.; To, K.F. Latest development of liquid biopsy. J. Thorac. Dis. 2018, 10, S1645–S1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Gourlay, J.; Morokoff, A.P.; Luwor, R.B.; Zhu, H.J.; Kaye, A.H.; Stylli, S.S. The emergent role of exosomes in glioma. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2017, 35, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Faria, G.; Silva, E.; Da Fonseca, C.; Quirico-Santos, T. Circulating Cell-Free DNA as a Prognostic and Molecular Marker for Patients with Brain Tumors under Perillyl Alcohol-Based Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Schwarzenbach, H.; Hoon, D.S.; Pantel, K. Cell-free nucleic acids as biomarkers in cancer patients. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011, 11, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Nilsson, R.J.; Balaj, L.; Hulleman, E.; van Rijn, S.; Pegtel, D.M.; Walraven, M.; Widmark, A.; Gerritsen, W.R.; Verheul, H.M.; Vandertop, W.P.; et al. Blood platelets contain tumor-derived RNA biomarkers. Blood 2011, 118, 3680–3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Rosenberg, S.; Verreault, M.; Schmitt, C.; Guegan, J.; Guehennec, J.; Levasseur, C.; Marie, Y.; Bielle, F.; Mokhtari, K.; Hoang-Xuan, K.; et al. Multi-omics analysis of primary glioblastoma cell lines shows recapitulation of pivotal molecular features of parental tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2017, 19, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Petrik, V.; Saadoun, S.; Loosemore, A.; Hobbs, J.; Opstad, K.S.; Sheldon, J.; Tarelli, E.; Howe, F.A.; Bell, B.A.; Papadopoulos, M.C. Serum alpha 2-HS glycoprotein predicts survival in patients with glioblastoma. Clin. Chem. 2008, 54, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Cohen, J.D.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Thoburn, C.; Afsari, B.; Danilova, L.; Douville, C.; Javed, A.A.; Wong, F.; Mattox, A.; et al. Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science 2018, 359, 926–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Klank, R.L.; Decker Grunke, S.A.; Bangasser, B.L.; Forster, C.L.; Price, M.A.; Odde, T.J.; SantaCruz, K.S.; Rosenfeld, S.S.; Canoll, P.; Turley, E.A.; et al. Biphasic Dependence of Glioma Survival and Cell Migration on CD44 Expression Level. Cell Rep. 2017, 18, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Baraniskin, A.; Kuhnhenn, J.; Schlegel, U.; Maghnouj, A.; Zöllner, H.; Schmiegel, W.; Hahn, S.; Schroers, R. Identification of microRNAs in the cerebrospinal fluid as biomarker for the diagnosis of glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2012, 14, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Kalinina, J.; Ahn, J.; Devi, N.S.; Wang, L.; Li, Y.; Olson, J.J.; Glantz, M.; Smith, T.; Kim, E.L.; Giese, A.; et al. Selective Detection of the D-enantiomer of 2-Hydroxyglutarate in the CSF of Glioma Patients with Mutated Isocitrate Dehydrogenase. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 6256–6265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Doherty, C.M.; Forbes, R.B. Diagnostic Lumbar Puncture. Ulster Med. J. 2014, 83, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  203. Evans, R.W. Complications of lumbar puncture. Neurol. Clin. 1998, 16, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Huang, J.; Weinstein, S.J.; Kitahara, C.M.; Karoly, E.D.; Sampson, J.N.; Albanes, D. A prospective study of serum metabolites and glioma risk. Oncotarget 2017, 31, 70366–70377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Stott, S.L.; Lee, R.J.; Nagrath, S.; Yu, M.; Miyamoto, D.T.; Ulkus, L.; Inserra, E.J.; Ulman, M.; Springer, S.; Nakamura, Z.; et al. Isolation and characterization of circulating tumor cells from patients with localized and metastatic prostate cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2, 25ra23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Anderson, N.L.; Anderson, N.G. The human plasma proteome: History, character, and diagnostic prospects. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2002, 1, 845–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Ni, Y.; Zhang, F.; An, M.; Yin, W.; Gao, Y. Early candidate biomarkers found from urine of glioblastoma multiforme rat before changes in MRI. Sci. China Life Sci. 2018, 61, 982–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Kiczak, L.; Tomaszek, A.; Bania, J.; Paslawska, U.; Zacharski, M.; Janiszewski, A.; Rybinska, I.; Dziegiel, P.; von Haehling, S.; Ardehali, H.; et al. Matrix metalloproteinase 9/neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin/tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinasess type 1 complexes are localized within cardiomyocytes and serve as a reservoir of active metalloproteinase in porcine female myocardium. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2014, 65, 365–375. [Google Scholar]
  209. Falzone, L.; Salomone, S.; Libra, M. Evolution of Cancer Pharmacological Treatments at the Turn of the Third Millennium. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Gilbertson, J.A.; Theis, J.D.; Vrana, J.A.; Lachmann, H.; Wechalekar, A.; Whelan, C.; Hawkins, P.N.; Dogan, A.; Gillmore, J.D. A comparison of immunohistochemistry and mass spectrometry for determining the amyloid fibril protein from formalin-fixed biopsy tissue. J. Clin. Pathol. 2015, 68, 314–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Meier, F.; Geyer, P.E.; Virreira Winter, S.; Cox, J.; Mann, M. BoxCar acquisition method enables single-shot proteomics at a depth of 10,000 proteins in 100 min. Nat. Methods 2018, 15, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Lenting, K.; Verhaak, R.; Ter Laan, M.; Wesseling, P.; Leenders, W. Glioma: Experimental models and reality. Acta Neuropathol. 2017, 133, 263–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Molecular alterations responsible for glioblastoma carcinogenesis [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].
Figure 1. Molecular alterations responsible for glioblastoma carcinogenesis [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].
Cells 08 00863 g001
Table 1. Characteristics of primary and secondary glioblastoma [71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].
Table 1. Characteristics of primary and secondary glioblastoma [71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].
Status/FeaturePrimary GlioblastomaSecondary Glioblastoma
Positive status mutation of IDH gene<5%~80%
Preceding cancer diseaseNot identified; detected for the first time (de novo)Diffuse astrocytoma; anaplastic astrocytoma
The percentage of all detected glioblastoma90%<10%
The average age of diagnosis6244
Sex ratio (M:W)1.42:11.05:1
Median overall survival
  • surgical treatment and radiotherapy
9.9 months24 months
  • surgical treatment, radiotherapy and chemotherapy
15 months31 months
LocalizationSupratentorialPredominantly frontal
NecrosisExtensiveLimited
TERT promoter mutation72%26%
TP53 mutation27%81%
ATRX mutationRarely71%
EGFR mutation35%Rarely
PTEN mutation25%Rarely
Table 2. Most used and studied biomarkers for glioblastoma.
Table 2. Most used and studied biomarkers for glioblastoma.
Relevant Biomarkers for Glioblastoma
MoleculeSpecimenDetection MethodologyUsageReference
IDH1/2 mutationFrozen tissue, Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissueDirect sequencing, high-resolution melting (HRM), immunohistochemistry, and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)Diagnosis, prognosis, predictionLouis et al. [7],
Hegi et al. 2005 [113],
Hegi et al. 2008 [114],
Okita et al. [75]
Methylated MGMT promoter
1p/19q co-deletion
ATRX deletion
miR-21, miR-125b, miR-34a, miR-181d, and miR-648Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissuemiRNeasy FFPE Kit, reverse transcriptase PCRDiagnosis, prognosisJesionek-Kupnicka et al. [132]
miR-144 and miR-29Frozen tissue, Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded glioma tissueDNA/RNA/miRNA Universal kit, miRCURY Isolation Kit, Quantitative real time PCRPrognosis, predictionCardoso et al. [137]
Yang et al. [138]
Zhao et al. [139]
VEGF, FGF-b, IGFBP-2, Ang2, and EGFFrozen tissue, whole blood, CSFSWATH mass spectrometry, quantitative targeted absolute proteomicsPrognosis, predictionMammana et al. [148],
Mangano et al. [149],
Presti et al. [150],
Miyauchi et al. [151],
Ludwig et al. [152]
TSP1/2, TNC, Cyr61/CCN1, and OPN
MMP-2, MMP-9, and AEG-1
GFAP
Migration inhibitory factor (MIF)
DD-T; CD74, CD44, CXCR2 and CXCR4
Low-molecular compounds (lipids and oncometabolites)Frozen tissueMALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, metabolomic profilingDiagnosis, prognosisLonguespée et al. [159],
Mörén et al. [160]
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs)Whole BloodGlial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)-based assay, immunomagnetic and immunofluorescence-based cell selectionPrognosis, predictionMacarthur et al. [164],
Müller et al. [177],
Sullivan et al. [168]
Exosomes (EGFRvIII, miR21, mutant IDH1 mRNA)Serum, CSFBEAMing and droplet digital PCRDiagnosis, prognosisAl-Nedawi et al. [173],
Akers et al. [174],
Chen et al. [175]
Back to TopTop