ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2020
Predictors of response to immune checkpoint inhibition in a real world gynecologic cancer population.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in Japanese patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer: a multicenter prospective and retrospective study.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Observational
- Immune-related adverse events and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic indicators in gynecologic cancer patients receiving pembrolizumab: a real-world analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Platinum-based chemotherapy promotes antigen presenting potential in monocytes of patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Metabolic reprogramming of the tumor immune microenvironment in ovarian cancer: A novel orientation for immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Prognostic factors for immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) response in gynecologic cancer are limited. This retrospective study aimed to identify prognostic factors associated with improved overall response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) in gynecologic cancer patients receiving at least two cycles of CPI. PFS was compared by univariate cox regressions. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used for prognostic factors of PFS and ORR. 72 patients were identified (20 ovarian, 36 endometrial, 13 cervix, 1 vaginal, 2 others). Immune related adverse events (IRAE) occurred in 40.3% of patients (29/72). IRAE was associated with higher ORR (44.8% IRAE vs 20.9% no IRAE, OR 3.1, p = 0.024), improved PFS (12.9 m IRAE vs 4.7 m no IRAE, HR 0.43, p = 0.004) and improved OS (22.9 m IRAE vs 12.2 m no IRAE, HR 0.47, p = 0.021). Additionally, Clear cell histology had superior ORR compared to MSI stable endometrial and ovarian cancers (ORR 57.1% vs 11.8%, OR 10.0, p = 0.032). Responders more often had ARIDIA mutation, PI3K/PTEN alteration and less often had a P53 mutation. In a subset of six MSI-H, recurrent, chemo-naive endometrial cancer ORR was 83.3%. Overall, we found favorable outcomes after CPI for clear cell tumors and patients who developed IRAE. Additionally, first-line systemic therapy with CPI in recurrent MSI-H endometrial cancer had encouraging ORR with durable responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.