Search

Background: The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-based chemotherapy has emerged as a highly promising primary option for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). The study aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy of ICIs with cytotoxic chemotherapy in EC., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials up to November 11, 2023, focusing on immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for EC. The primary endpoint was the pooled hazard ratio (HR), which was further analyzed across subgroups based on mismatch repair (MMR) status, race, histology, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023475669)., Findings: Four trials with 2335 patients were analyzed. ICIs with chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89) compared to chemotherapy alone. Stratification by MMR status showed substantial benefits for dMMR (PFS; HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; OS; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91) over pMMR cohorts in both PFS and OS. In the subgroup analysis, there was significant PFS advantage in Caucasian (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.72) over non-Caucasian, in endometrioid histology (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78) over non-endometrioid, and in PD-L1 positive (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.81) over PD-L1 negative population., Interpretation: ICIs combined with platinum-based chemotherapy significantly prolonged PFS and OS in patients with advanced or recurrent EC. Patients with dMMR status, Caucasians, endometrioid histology, and positive PD-L1 status showed significant PFS benefits, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered potential competing interests: MCL reported having a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boryung, CKD Pharm, Genexine, Hospicare, GI Innovation, and Takeda and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Cellid, CKD Pharm, Clovis, Eisai, Genexine, GSK, Incyte, Merck, MSD, OncoQuest, Pfizer, and Roche outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endometrial cancer incidence and mortality are rising among all ethnic groups. Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is the established frontline treatment for advanced/recurrent disease; however, subsequent treatment with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy is challenging. The molecular characterization of endometrial cancer has provided important insights into the biological drivers of carcinogenesis, which has allowed for the development of newer precision immunotherapies and targeted therapies, including pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and lenvatinib. Until recently, platinum rechallenge was often considered at the time of recurrence, given the lack of other available therapeutic options; however, "platinum sensitivity" in endometrial cancer is subjective and largely based on expert opinion and/or practitioner experience. Small retrospective studies have tried to provide guidance on the utility of platinum rechallenge, but they are limited by variable patient characteristics and small sample sizes. The applicability of these retrospective studies to contemporary clinical practice is difficult in the setting of changing patient demographics, a better understanding of endometrial cancer drivers, and the recent approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors and the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the second-line setting. The primary focus of this review is to distill the available data regarding platinum-doublet chemotherapy rechallenge and highlight recent pivotal developments in endometrial cancer treatment, as well as future directions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Outside the submitted work, M Rubinstein reports funding from Merck, Zentalis, and AstraZeneca. V Makker reports advisory board participation for Eisai, Merck, Clovis, Faeth, Duality, Morphyes, Karyopharm, Novartis, Lilly, and Immunocore. A Nogueira-Rodrigues is a speaker for AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncologia Brasil, and GSK; and is a consultant for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Merck, Roche, and GSK. D Aoki reports consulting fees from Abbie, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eisai, and Chugai; and personal fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genmab, Takeda, Chugai, and Myriad Genetics. S Shen reports payment/honoraria from MJH Life Sciences. J Sehouli reports funding from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, and Merck; consulting fees from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Roche, Pharmamar, and Eisai; payment/honoraria and advisory board from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Pharmamar, Novocure, and Incyte; payment from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, MSD, Merck, Pharmamar, Novocure, and Eisai; support for meetings/travel from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Tesaro, and Pharmamar; and leadership/fiduciary role for NOGGO, AGO, ENGAGE, and ESGO. DSP Tan reports consultancy fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, Bayer, Eisai, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim; institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, MSD, Eisai, BMS, Roche and Karyopharm; stock ownership of the Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi); and support from the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Award and Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund. BJ Monk reports consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Easai, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, Iovance, Laekna, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sorrento, TESARO/GSK, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem, and Zentalis; and payment/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Easai, Merck, Myriad, Roche/Genentech, and TESARO/GSK., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Survival outcomes for cervical cancer differ between countries and world regions. Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is associated with poorer outcomes than early-stage disease. Country-specific variations in diagnostic and treatment recommendations might contribute to differences in LACC outcomes among countries., Objective: We compared international and country-specific guidelines for LACC diagnostic imaging and treatment recommendations., Methods: A systematic literature review and targeted search were used to identify cervical cancer treatment guidelines published between January 1999-August 2021. Guidelines were identified via literature databases, health technology assessment databases, disease-specific websites, and health organization websites. The targeted search included guidelines from countries in regions known to have high cervical cancer prevalence or mortality. Non-English guidelines were translated by native speakers or online translation services., Results: Forty-six guidelines from 31 countries, regions, and international organizations were compared (41/46 using staging criteria, 27 of which used 2009 FIGO). Most guidelines recommended imaging tests for diagnosis and staging. Chest X-ray, intravenous pyelogram, CT, and MRI were commonly recommended for diagnosis and staging while MRI and PET-CT were recommended for the assessment of lymph node status and distant metastases, with a preference for PET-CT over MRI. There was global consensus for cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiation as primary treatment for stages IIB to IVA, with few exceptions. Treatment recommendations for stages IB2 to IIA2 varied. Most guidelines agreed on adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation after radical hysterectomy when there is a high recurrence risk, and adjuvant radiotherapy when there is an intermediate recurrence risk. Recommendations for other adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies varied among the guidelines., Conclusions: Differences among treatment guidelines by LACC stage might be influenced by staging criteria used, resource availability, and prevention program effectiveness. Addressing these areas may unify guidelines and improve global outcomes. Review and update of guidelines will be important as novel LACC therapies become available., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E. Pujade-Lauraine reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Tesaro/GSK, personal fees from Clovis, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Incyte, and personal fees from Pfizer, other from ARCAGY-Research, outside the submitted work. D.S.P. Tan is supported by grants from the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council and Pangestu Family Foundation Gynaecological Cancer Research Fund. He also reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck Serono, GSK, Tessa Therapeutics, Eisai, and Genmab, and research funding and support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bayer, BMS, MSD, Eisai, and Karyopharm. He also reports stock ownership in the Asian Microbiome Library (AMiLi). All of these have been received outside the submitted work. A. Leary reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Clovis; grants and personal fees from MSD and Ability; personal fees from Biocad, Seattle Genetics, and Zentalis; other support from Merck Serono; and grants, non-financial support, and other from GSK, outside the submitted work. M.R. Mirza reports personal financial interests for AstraZeneca, Biocard, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Mersana, MSD, Oncology Venture, Pfizer, Roche, SeraPrognostics, Tesaro-GSK, ZaiLab; leadership roles for Karyopharm Therapeutics and Sera Prognostics; institutional financial interests (study grants) for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Tesaro-GSK, Ultimovacs. T. Enomoto reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, MSD, and Chugai, outside the submitted work. J. Takyar has nothing to disclose. A.T. Nunes, J.D.H. Chagüi, and M.J. Paskow are employees and shareholders at AstraZeneca. B.J. Monk reports personal fees from AbbVie, Advaxis, Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Clovis, Conjupro, Genmab, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Immunomedics, Incyte, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Mateon, Merck, Myriad, Perthera, Pfizer, Precision Oncology, Puma, Roche/Genentech, Samumed, Takeda, Tesaro, and VBL, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clear cell endometrial carcinoma represents an uncommon and poorly understood entity. Data from molecular/genomic profiling highlighted the importance of various signatures in assessing the prognosis of endometrial cancer according to four classes of risk (POLE mutated, MMRd, NSMP, and p53 abnormal). Unfortunately, data specific to clear cell histological subtype endometrial cancer are lacking. More recently, data has emerged to suggest that most of the patients (more than 80%) with clear cell endometrial carcinoma are characterized by p53 abnormality or NSMP type. This classification has important therapeutic implications. Although it is an uncommon entity, clear cell endometrial cancer patients with POLE mutation seem characterized by a good prognosis. Chemotherapy is effective in patients with NSMP (especially in stage III and IV) and patients with p53 abnormal disease (all stages). While, preliminary data suggested that patients with MMRd are less likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The latter group appears to benefit much more from immune checkpoint inhibitors: recent data from clinical trials on pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and nivolumab plus cabozantinib supported that immunotherapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) would be the most appropriate treatment for recurrent non-endometrioid endometrial cancer (including clear cell carcinoma) after the failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Moreover, ongoing clinical trials testing the anti-tumor activity of innovative products will clarify the better strategies for advanced/recurrent clear cell endometrial carcinoma. Further prospective evidence is urgently needed to better characterize clear cell endometrial carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Giorgio Bogani: Novartis AG Pharma (C/A, H), Italian Ministry of Health (RG). Nicole Concin: AstraZeneca (C/A, SH), Seattle Genetics (C/A, SH), MSD (SAB), Mersana (C/A, SH), eTheRNA immunotherapies NV (C/A, SH), Roche (travel expenses), Genmab (travel expenses), Amgen (travel expenses). Isabelle Ray-Coquard: Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro and PharmaMar; Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro, Genmab, PharmaMar, MSD, Mersana, Deciphera, OncXea, Esai, BMS, Novartis and Pfizer; Research funding from MSD;Travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GSK and Roche. Yakir Segev: AstraZeneca (CA), GSK (CA). Pauline Wimberger: Amgen (SH, RF, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, RF, H, SAB), Clovis (SH, RF, SAB), Eisai (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Lilly (SH, SAB), MSD (SH, RF, SAB), Novartis (SH, RF, SAB), Pfizer (SH, RF, SAB), Roche (SH, RF, H, SAB), TEVA (SH, SAB). Natalie YL Ngoi: AstraZeneca (SH), Janssen (SH). Kazuhiro Takehara: AstraZeneca (SH), Chugai (SH, RF), Eisai (SH), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH), Takeda (SH). Takayuki Enomoto: Takeda (SH), Astra Zeneca (SH), Eisai (SH), Chugai Pharma (SH, RF), MSD (SH), Mochida (SH). Domenica Lorusso: AstraZeneca (H, CA), Clovis (H, CA, RF), GSK/Tesaro (H, CA), Roche (CA), Genmab (CA), PharmaMar (CA, RF), MSD (CA, RF), Esai (CA), Merck Serono (CA), Novartis (CA) and PharmaMar (H); Consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis, GSK/Tesaro. Diane Provencher: AstraZeneca (CA, SH, SAB), GSK (CA, SH, SAB). Nadeem Abu-Rustum: NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748 (F). Hannelore Denys: Roche (CA, SH, SAB), Pfizer (CA, SH, SAB), AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), Lily (SAB), GSK (SAB), Novartis (SH), Pharmamar (SH). Bradley J Monk: AstraZeneca (SH, SAB), GSK (SH, SAB), Incyte (SAB), Merck (SH, SAB), Roche/Genentech (SH, SAB), Eisai (SAB), GOG-Foundation (E), US Oncology (E). The other authors indicated no financial relationship. Legend: consulting/advisory relationship (CA); speaker honoraria (SH); honoraria (H); research funding (RF); ownership interest (OI); intellectual propriety/patent holder (IP); scientific advisory board (SAB)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)