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.
Related Insights
Unlike immunotherapy, where re-challenge after progression is dubious, there is an emerging clinical practice of re-challenging patients with the same antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), such as enfortumab vedotin (EV), after a treatment break forced by toxicity. Anecdotally, patients are showing great responses, highlighting a key area for prospective data generation.
The future of advanced prostate cancer treatment may involve combining ADCs with bispecific T-cell engagers. This strategy could use ADCs for a short duration to deliver a potent hit, followed by immunotherapy to achieve durable remission, potentially reducing toxicity and enabling earlier use.
The VICTORIA-1 trial found that re-introducing palbociclib in a triplet with gedatolisib was effective, even in patients who had just progressed on palbociclib. This suggests that gedatolisib targets and overcomes the primary resistance mechanism to the CDK4/6 inhibitor, re-sensitizing the cancer to it.
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.
Current bladder cancer trials often fail to differentiate between patients with primary resistance (never responded) versus acquired resistance (responded, then progressed). Adopting this distinction, common in lung cancer research, could help identify patient subgroups more likely to benefit from immunotherapy re-challenge and refine trial eligibility criteria.
Rather than moving through distinct lines of therapy, a future strategy could involve an "ADC switch." When a patient progresses on an ADC-IO combination, the IO backbone would remain while the ADC is swapped for one with a different, non-cross-resistant mechanism, adapting the treatment in real-time.
While immunotherapy was a massive leap forward, Dr. Saav Solanki states the next innovation frontier is combining it with newer modalities. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and T-cell engagers are being used to recruit the immune system into the tumor microenvironment, helping patients who don't respond to current immunotherapies.
For patients who previously received immunotherapy (IO), a recurrence more than 12 months after completing treatment makes re-challenging with an IO agent a reasonable option. The likelihood of benefit is lower if the recurrence is within 6-12 months and minimal if under 6 months.
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.