ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
Immune landscape and TAM density in endometrial cancer: implications for immune checkpoint inhibitors efficacy.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated immunophenotypic and ProMisE molecular profiling as predictors of immune checkpoint inhibitor response in recurrent endometrial cancer.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2026Article
- Article
- TAMs in the Gynecological Tumor Microenvironment: Insights from Cross-Cancer Studies for Immunotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown efficacy in endometrial cancer (EC); however, their efficacy varies according to mismatch repair (MMR) status. Notably, even among patients with MMR-deficient (MMRd) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors, approximately one-third exhibit primary resistance to ICI monotherapy. Objectives: We aimed to characterize dissimilarities in the tumor immune microenvironment of ICI-treated MMRd/MSI-H versus MMR-proficient (MMRp)/microsatellite stable (MSS) EC, and to identify mechanisms of resistance. Design: Adults with histologically confirmed advanced or recurrent EC treated with ICIs in 6 French comprehensive cancer centers were included. Patients without available archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumor samples were excluded. Clinical data were collected retrospectively. Methods: Patients were classified as ICI-Responders or Non-Responders based on best objective response. A seven-color multi-immunofluorescence staining (CD20, CD4, CD8, FoxP3, CD68, CK, and DAPI) was performed on sections from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumors. Cell densities and spatial proximity were analyzed using inForm software. T/B lymphoid aggregates (LA) and tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) were separately quantified. Microsatellite status, presence of LA/TLS, and immune cell densities were correlated to response to treatment. Results: Twenty-one MMRd/MSI-H and 12 MMRp/MSS tumors were analyzed. We observed more MMRd/MSI-H tumors with LA/TLS compared to MMRp/MSS cases: 81% versus 17%, Conclusion: We characterize the immune landscape in EC patients treated with ICIs. Distinct immune infiltrate patterns were observed in MMRd/MSI-H and MMRp/MSS tumors. A significant negative association between TAM density and ICI response was shown.
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.