Glioblastoma is the most aggressive type of primary tumor in the central nervous system (CNS tumors). It is hard to treat and has a poor prognosis for survival. Primary CSN tumors occur in approximately 1400 adults in Sweden every year and is the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths in individuals between 15-24 years of age.   There is no prophylaxis for primary CNS tumors. The causes of most CNS-tumors are unknown, but there are several risk factors that have been identified. Both heredity and environmental factors are likely to come into play, but clinical data does not suggest any convincing evidence of CNS tumor formation. Some cases of CNS tumors are related to known genetic conditions that cause rare syndromes and have an increased risk of getting a brain tumor.   The treatments for glioblastoma are surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, TTField treatment and immunotherapy. Immunotherapy is a type of cancer treatment that uses the patient’s immune system to fight CNS tumors. New cancer immunotherapies, such as dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccines are under development to enhance anti-tumor presentation and to prime anti-tumor T-cell responses.   The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of DC vaccines for the treatment of glioblastoma.    Seven clinical studies from PubMed were found after searching in the Pubmed database, and filtering through the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All seven studies explored the efficacy of DC vaccines on overall survival and progression-free survival for patients with glioblastoma. In addition to investigating the safety and adverse events, the clinical trials evaluated the immune response to the DC vaccines against glioblastoma.   Combining standard of care (SOC) with DC vaccines prolonged the overall survival by several months compared to SOC alone. Severe adverse reactions (grade 3) were reported in two studies, while the rest of the studies showed that patients tolerated the DC vaccines and had only mild grade 1-2 adverse events. Half of the studies correlated prolonged median survival or progressions- free survival with immune response.   Further research is required to compare the efficacy of DC vaccines and other immunotherapies in order to conclude whether DC vaccines are a feasible effective treatment of glioblastoma in the future.

Alors que le contentieux des produits de santé n'a jamais été aussi fourni, l'application du régime spécial de responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux issu de la directive européenne du 25 juillet 1985, entraîne l'émergence d'un certain nombre d'incertitudes qui affectent directement le sort des demandes en réparation. Les incertitudes matérielles ont, pour la plupart reçu un traitement efficace par l'action conjuguée de la jurisprudence et du législateur. Si les outils juridiques traditionnels, tels que les présomptions ou la causalité alternative, ont permis de résoudre une partie non négligeable de ces incertitudes, les juges se sont également attachés à développer des outils nouveaux comme la balance bénéfice/risque ou encore la répartition de l'obligation à la dette selon les parts de marché. Cependant, si le développement de ces outils juridiques, plus adaptés aux spécificités des produits de santé, a permis d'apporter une solution efficace aux incertitudes matérielles, le traitement de l'incertitude scientifique, fondé sur les présomptions du fait de l'homme, n'apporte, toujours pas, de solutions satisfaisantes. L'étude du traitement des incertitudes dans le contentieux des produits de santé défectueux permet d'apprécier les acquis mais également les limites atteintes par l'utilisation de certains outils mis à la disposition des juges et qui se révèlent parfois inadaptés. L'intervention du législateur et la prise en compte des spécificités des produits de santé, permettraient de développer un système d'indemnisation adapté qui interviendrait de façon subsidiaire en cas d'échec de la voie contentieuse. / At a time when healthcare-product litigation is attaining record heights, the implementation into French law of the special liability regime for defective products, which derives from the European Council Directive of 25 July 1985, has led to the emergence of several grey areas of uncertainty which have a direct impact on the outcome of claims for compensation. Areas of material uncertainty have, for the most part, been effectively dealt with through the combined application of case law and the intervention of the legislator. While classic legal tools such as presumption and alternative causality provide a means to resolve a non-negligible part of these uncertainties, judges have also endeavoured to develop new tools, such as risk/utility test and market-share liability. Still, although the development of these legal tools - better suited as they are to the specific features of healthcare products - provide an effective solution to resolving areas of material uncertainty, the treatment of scientific uncertainty, which is based on presumptions of fact, does not always provide satisfactory solutions. The study of the legal treatment of uncertainty in healthcare-product litigation provides a means to assess the benefits but also the limitations of certain tools that are now available to judges but which at times prove inadequate. Intervention on the part of the legislator, while at the same time taking into account the specific features of healthcare products, could lead to the development of a suitable compensation system that could afford relief when litigation fails.