Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41514317›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026

Utility of iRECIST for evaluating treatment efficacy in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Genta Irie, Yusuke Kobayashi, Ayumi Shikama, Mayu Yoshino, Ayaka Tsuihiji, Kaori Ono, Mizuki Isayama, Kaori Takeuchi, Takuya Kuboya, Kaoru Fujieda and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Genta IrieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5850-6404
Yusuke KobayashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. kobayashi@md.tsukuba.ac.jp.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4503-2845
Ayumi ShikamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5633-1816
Mayu YoshinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4490-3208
Ayaka TsuihijiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8377-1557
Kaori OnoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9292-4945
Mizuki IsayamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6167-3334
Kaori TakeuchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0575-1281
Takuya KuboyaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2394-3966
Kaoru FujiedaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5064-8046
Asami SutoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5286-2108
Yuri TenjimbayashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9474-2595
Azusa AkiyamaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9201-980X
Sari NakaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1016-7552
Takeo MinaguchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3577-5124
Toyomi SatohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6929-5463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown promising results in treating gynecologic malignancies. However, they may induce a unique response pattern known as pseudoprogression (PP), which can be misclassified as true progression, leading to premature discontinuation of effective therapy. To address this challenge, immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) were developed. This study aimed to assess the utility of iRECIST and to characterize cases that may benefit from its application.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 64 patients with gynecologic cancers treated with ICIs at our institution. Tumor responses were evaluated using both RECIST version 1.1 and iRECIST. Cases initially showing tumor enlargement but continuing the same regimen were further analyzed if subsequent imaging demonstrated tumor shrinkage.

resultsThe cohort's ages ranged from 38 to 83 years (median=62). The cohort included 34 patients with endometrial cancer and 25 with cervical cancer. ICIs used included pembrolizumab (n=59) and cemiplimab (n=5). Among the 64 cases, 3 exhibited tumor changes consistent with PP. In one case, progressive disease was initially observed, but later imaging revealed tumor regression, ultimately achieving complete response. These cases highlight the utility of iRECIST in distinguishing PP from true progression. However, no consistent histologic type or tumor location was associated with PP. Notably, cases showing tumor enlargement after the first CT scan did not subsequently show shrinkage.

conclusionAlthough PP incidence remains low, these findings suggest that continuing treatment beyond initial progression may be beneficial in select cases. However, since this study is retrospective, further validation is necessary.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsGenital Neoplasms, FemaleImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedImmune Checkpoint InhibitorspembrolizumabImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsiRECISTNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPseudoprogressionResponse Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor

Identifiers

PMID41514317
PMCPMC13226079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.