The introduction of ADCs into frontline ovarian cancer treatment creates a new challenge: conflicting biomarkers. A patient's tumor might be positive for both HER2 (an ADC target) and a BRCA mutation (a PARP inhibitor target), forcing clinicians to choose between two effective targeted therapies without clear guidance.

The success of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings has rendered the traditional, sequential referral model (dermatologist to surgeon to oncologist) obsolete. Optimal care now demands an integrated, team-based discussion among all specialists *before* the first treatment decision is made to determine the best sequence and timing.

The B96 trial's potential approval for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer introduces a new treatment sequencing challenge. Clinicians must decide between this immunotherapy combination and the ADC mervituximab, which has a clear biomarker (foliate receptor alpha). The lack of a reliable biomarker for the B96 regimen complicates this decision-making process for patients.

Data from the Podium-303 trial's crossover arm suggests that waiting to use a PD-1 inhibitor after progression on chemotherapy is less effective than using it concurrently from the start. This supports the synergistic effect of chemo-immunotherapy and favors the concurrent approach as the standard of care.

The future of GYN oncology immunotherapy is diverging. For responsive cancers like endometrial, the focus is on refining biomarkers and overcoming resistance. For historically resistant cancers like ovarian, the strategy shifts to using combinatorial approaches (e.g., CAR-NKs, vaccines) to fundamentally alter the tumor microenvironment itself, making it more receptive to an immune response.

The next frontier in CSCC isn't just about new drugs, but about optimizing existing ones. A key research area is determining the minimum number of immunotherapy doses required for an optimal response—potentially just one or two—to limit toxicity, reduce treatment burden, and personalize care for high-risk patients.

For endometrial or cervical cancer patients who progress after receiving a checkpoint inhibitor, re-challenging with a single-agent immunotherapy is a less desirable approach. Emerging data suggests that a combination therapy—such as an ICI paired with a TKI like lenvatinib or a bispecific antibody—offers a more promising chance of response.

Standard cancer surgery often removes lymph nodes—the factories producing immune cells. Administering immunotherapy *before* this destructive process is critical. It arms the immune system while it is still intact and capable of mounting a powerful, targeted response against the tumor.

Despite data from kidney cancer showing immunotherapy re-challenge is often ineffective, oncologists admit to using it in urothelial cancer. This highlights a clinical conflict where the desire to use a powerful drug class outweighs the lack of supporting evidence, especially in specific, confusing patient scenarios.