While traditional approaches focus on killing tumor cells, emerging research shows that the surrounding glioblastoma microenvironment, also known as the tumor microenvironment (TME), plays a critical role in resistance and recurrence^2,3. To make real progress, we need to look beyond cytotoxicity and toward the complex biology that sustains GBM.

Understanding GBM’s aggressive, treatment-resistant nature

Glioblastoma’s reputation as one of the most lethal cancers is well-earned. It grows rapidly, infiltrates surrounding brain tissue, and resists nearly every treatment strategy. Standard treatments like surgery, radiation, and temozolomide may reduce tumor burden, but they rarely prevent regrowth¹.

A major challenge in treating GBM is its extreme heterogeneity. Within a single GBM, cells can differ in genetic mutations, metabolic states, and therapy sensitivity^2,3. This cellular diversity means that even if a subset of tumor cells is eliminated, others can survive and repopulate.

This adaptability isn’t limited to tumor cells. The surrounding microenvironment—immune cells, glial cells, blood vessels, and extracellular matrix—actively contributes to resistance and progression. Together, this system of interactions makes it clear that targeting tumor cells alone isn’t enough^2,3.

How the glioblastoma microenvironment drives resistance

The glioblastoma microenvironment is more than structural support—it’s an active, evolving ecosystem that shapes how the disease grows, spreads, and evades treatment.

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) can make up nearly half the tumor mass in GBM. Rather than mounting an immune defense, these macrophages often take on an M2-like phenotype that supports tumor growth. They promote angiogenesis, suppress T cell activity, and create a more invasive tumor state⁴.

Recent studies have explored multiple strategies to target TAMs, including blocking their recruitment, reprogramming them toward a pro-inflammatory state, or depleting them altogether^5,6. These approaches aim to break the immunosuppressive loop and improve the tumor’s response to therapy.

Astrocytes can be co-opted by GBM cells. Once reactive, they release growth factors and cytokines that help tumors resist therapy and invade surrounding tissue. Some even form protective niches that shield glioma stem-like cells (GSCs), making eradication harder⁷.

These interactions form a feedback loop that drives progression, with the tumor signaling to the environment, and the environment responding in ways that strengthen the tumor. Understanding and disrupting these cellular dialogues is key to developing more effective and durable therapies for GBM.

Glioma stem-like cells and therapy-resistant subpopulations

Within the cellular diversity of glioblastoma lies a particularly elusive subpopulation: GSCs. These cells are strongly implicated in resistance to standard therapies⁸.

How GSCs evade therapy

GSCs are remarkably resilient. They enhance DNA repair capacity, survive in hypoxic, nutrient-deprived niches, and can shift into a slow-cycling state that makes them less susceptible to chemotherapy and radiation⁹. Their plasticity allows them to adapt rapidly, transitioning between states in response to stress or treatment.

GSCs also maintain close interactions with cells in the TME. Perivascular and immune niches appear to protect GSCs from therapeutic insult, in part by secreting growth factors and maintaining immune privilege¹⁰.

Difficult to model, but critical to target

Studying GSCs in the lab presents its own challenges. Their expression of surface markers like CD133, Nestin, and SOX2 is variable and context-dependent, making them hard to track consistently. In traditional 2D cultures, GSCs often lose key features—including invasiveness and treatment resistance—that define their behavior in vivo¹¹.

To address these gaps, researchers are turning to patient-derived xenografts, 3D spheroid cultures, and single-cell omics. These tools better reflect GSC diversity and help uncover therapeutic vulnerabilities¹².

Non-cytotoxic targets in the GBM ecosystem

Not all effective therapies need to be cytotoxic. By targeting the support systems that sustain glioblastoma, like immune suppression, metabolic plasticity, and neural mimicry, researchers are uncovering new ways to weaken the tumor without directly killing its cells.

• Immune modulation: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown promise in many cancers, but GBM remains a difficult case. The immunosuppressive TME, driven in part by TAMs and regulatory T cells, limits T cell infiltration and function. Strategies that reprogram TAMs, block suppressive cytokines, or combine ICIs with other immunotherapies are being tested to improve immune activation¹³.
• Metabolic vulnerabilities: Glioblastoma cells—especially GSCs—can shift between metabolic programs depending on environmental stress. While some rely on glycolysis (the Warburg effect), others adapt by increasing fatty acid oxidation or oxidative phosphorylation¹⁴. Targeting these flexible pathways may sensitize GBM cells to treatment or deprive them of survival advantages.
• Synaptic mimicry and neural integration:  One of the more surprising features of GBM is its ability to mimic neuronal behavior. Some glioma cells form pseudo-synapses with neurons and express receptors that allow them to “listen in” on neuronal signaling. This mimicry helps fuel tumor growth and may offer a novel therapeutic route¹⁵.

Each of these strategies disrupts essential mechanisms that support tumor survival. This shift in focus—from cell death to system disruption—opens new avenues for experimentation and may lead to more reproducible, durable outcomes.

Newer tools to model and treat GBM

More advanced models are helping researchers better replicate the complexity of glioblastoma and uncover new therapeutic opportunities.

• Combinatorial therapies:  Given GBM’s adaptability, single-agent treatments often fall short. Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with anti-angiogenic drugs, or metabolic inhibitors with radiation, can target multiple pathways at once. These strategies are gaining traction in preclinical and clinical studies¹⁶.
• Organoids and 3D culture systems:  Patient-derived organoids preserve cellular heterogeneity and tumor architecture, offering a more realistic environment to test drug responses. These models help uncover resistance mechanisms and guide combinatorial approaches¹⁷.
• Spatial and single-cell technologies: Spatial transcriptomics and single-cell sequencing allow researchers to map how gene expression and cell states vary within a tumor. These tools provide a clearer picture of therapeutic vulnerabilities across different niches¹⁸.

To support these evolving approaches, researchers are turning to optimized tools for glioblastoma models.

Tracking GBM cells with IHC and flow cytometry

Given GBM’s cellular heterogeneity, it’s critical to understand how different cell populations respond to treatment. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and flow cytometry are essential tools for tracking and characterizing these dynamic states.

Immunohistochemistry allows visualization of specific markers within tissue architecture, preserving spatial context. In glioblastoma, IHC is used to detect markers such as:

• CD68, Iba1: for tumor-associated macrophages
• GFAP, S100β: for astrocytes and glial reactivity
• Nestin, SOX2, CD133: for glioma stem-like cells

These markers reveal the cellular composition of the tumor and how populations shift in response to therapy^19,20.

Flow cytometry enables rapid, high-dimensional analysis of dissociated tumor tissue. It’s helpful in identifying rare or transitional cell states, such as GSCs or TAM subsets, that may not be obvious in bulk analysis^20,21. Newer technologies like spectral flow and mass cytometry allow researchers to analyze dozens of markers at once, offering a broader view of the tumor ecosystem.

A multi-target mindset for a multilayered disease

Glioblastoma continues to challenge researchers not just because of its aggressiveness but because of its complexity. Tackling it requires thinking beyond isolated targets and embracing models, tools, and strategies that reflect its true biology. With better ways to visualize, analyze, and disrupt the glioblastoma microenvironment, the field is steadily moving toward more durable and meaningful progress.

Related resources

References

1. Sabouri, M., Dogonchi, A.F., Shafiei, M., et al. Survival rate of patient with glioblastoma: a population-based study. Egypt J Neurosurg 39, 42 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41984-024-00284-6
2. ​​Song, E., Wycislo, K.L., & Hambardzumyan, D. Tumor microenvironment remodeling in glioblastoma: drivers of therapy resistance and targets for intervention. Nat Rev Cancer 23, 411–428 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-023-00551-1
3. White, J., White, M. P. J., Wickremesekera, A., Peng, L., & Gray, C. The tumour microenvironment, treatment resistance and recurrence in glioblastoma. J Transl Med 22, 540 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05301-9
4. Chen, Z., Feng, X., Herting, C.J., et al. Cellular and molecular identity of tumor-associated macrophages in glioblastoma. Cancer Res 82, 3071–3084 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-4272
5. Pyonteck, S.M., Akkari, L., Schuhmacher, A.J., et al. CSF-1R inhibition alters macrophage polarization and blocks glioma progression. Nat Med 19, 1264–1272 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3337
6. Hutter, G., Theruvath, J., Graef, C.M., et al. Microglia are effector cells of CD47-SIRPα antiphagocytic axis disruption against glioblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116, 997–1006 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813494116
7. Heiland, D.H., Haaker, G., Delev, D., et al. Tumor-associated reactive astrocytes aid the evolution of immunosuppressive glioma cells. Cancer Res 79, 2274–2286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-1882
8. Lathia, J.D., Mack, S.C., Mulkearns-Hubert, E.E., Valentim, C.L., & Rich, J.N. Cancer stem cells in glioblastoma. Genes Dev 29, 1203–1217 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.261982.115
9. Vlachogiannis, G., Hedayat, S., Vatsiou, A., et al. Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of glioblastoma stem-like cells. Cell Stem Cell 29, 755–771.e7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2022.07.009
10. Hambardzumyan, D., & Bergers, G. Glioblastoma: Defining tumor niches. Trends Cancer 1, 252–265 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2015.10.009
11. Pollard, S.M., Yoshikawa, K., Clarke, I.D., et al. Glioma stem cell lines expanded in adherent culture have tumor-specific phenotypes and genotypes. Stem Cells 27, 2054–2061 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.143
12. Jacob, F., Salinas, R.D., Zhang, D.Y., et al. A patient-derived glioblastoma organoid model and biobank recapitulates inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity. Cell 180, 188–204.e22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.036
13. Schalper, K.A., Rodriguez-Ruiz, M.E., Diez-Valle, R., et al. Immunogenicity and immune evasion in glioblastoma: current concepts and clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res 27, 4186–4195 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4039
14. Ruiz-Rodado, V., Zafra, M.P., Gonzalez-Aparicio, M., et al. Glioblastoma metabolism: key features and potential therapeutic targets. Front Oncol 13, 1120060 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1120060
15. Venkataramani, V., Tanev, D.I., Strahle, C., et al. Glutamatergic synaptic input to glioma cells drives brain tumour progression. Nature 573, 532–538 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1564-x
16. Caccese, M., Di Napoli, M., Baldini, E., et al. Combinatorial strategies in glioblastoma: the way forward. Cancers (Basel) 15, 890 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030890
17. Jacob, F., Salinas, R.D., Zhang, D.Y., et al. A patient-derived glioblastoma organoid model and biobank recapitulates inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity. Cell 180, 188–204.e22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.036
18. Ravi, V.M., Neidert, N., Will, P., et al. Spatially resolved multi-omics decodes the molecular and cellular interplay of glioblastoma microenvironment. Nat Commun 14, 2199 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37659-2
19. Kurdi, M., Heiland, D.H., Delev, D., & Staszewski, O. TAMing gliomas: Unraveling the roles of Iba1 and CD163 in glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel) 17, 1457 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17091457
20. Lv, D., Hu, Z., Lu, L., Lu, H., & Xu, X. Selective enrichment of CD133+/SOX2+ glioblastoma stem cells via adherent culture. Oncol Lett 15, 4567–4576 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.7899
21. Inocencio, J., Frenster, J.D., & Placantonakis, D.G. Isolation of Glioblastoma Stem Cells with Flow Cytometry. In Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1741, pp. 71–79 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7659-1_5