Despite multiple clinical trials, adding checkpoint inhibitors to frontline therapy for ovarian cancer has not demonstrated a proven survival benefit. The role of immunotherapy in this setting remains confined to rare subsets like DMMR or TMB-high tumors, and it is not standard practice for the general population.
Related Insights
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 treatment landscape for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer has rapidly evolved into a biomarker-driven paradigm. Clinicians must now test for and choose between therapies targeting distinct markers like folate receptor alpha (mirvetuximab), HER2 (T-DXd), and PD-L1 (pembrolizumab), requiring a sophisticated sequencing strategy.
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.
The B96 trial's positive outcome in historically immunotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer is not just about adding pembrolizumab. The regimen's success is attributed to the thoughtful use of continuous weekly paclitaxel, a form of metronomic chemotherapy known to have favorable immunogenic effects, which was a deliberate, science-backed choice.
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.
Despite the KEYNOTE-B96 trial showing a statistically significant survival benefit, the expert's enthusiasm for adding pembrolizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is only "neutral." This hesitation stems from challenges in sequencing it with other effective therapies and uncertainty about which patient subgroups truly benefit.
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.
Disparate clinical trial results in endometrial cancer suggest a mechanistic difference between immunotherapy targets. PD-1 inhibitors (dostarlimab, pembrolizumab) have shown pronounced responses, whereas the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab did not, indicating that targeting the PD-1 receptor may be a more robust strategy in GYN cancers.
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.
While checkpoint inhibitors are standard for dMMR endometrial cancer, a clear clinical boundary is emerging for the pMMR subgroup. Based on trial data showing no benefit for fully resected disease (e.g., B21 trial), oncologists are not offering immunotherapy to pMMR patients without measurable disease, avoiding significant toxicity without proven efficacy.