Mirroring success in rectal cancer, a new trial is exploring neoadjuvant immunotherapy for localized, MSI-high endometrial cancer. This strategy could potentially allow patients to avoid surgery and radiation, which is a particularly compelling option for those who wish to preserve their fertility.

Related Insights

While neoadjuvant immunotherapy shows astounding success in MSI-high rectal cancer, the primary difficulty for clinicians lies in accurately assessing complete response via endoscopy and MRI, and managing unique complications like mucin pools or stenosis, rather than simply administering the treatment.

Unlike rectal cancer where MRI aids response assessment, MSI-high colon cancer lacks a reliable imaging modality to confirm a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. This makes a "watch and wait" approach far more challenging and not currently recommended outside of a clinical trial.

Despite significant interest, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is not yet an actionable tool for guiding the duration of maintenance immunotherapy in endometrial cancer. While studies like DuoE show ctDNA levels correlate with outcomes, there is no evidence to support using its clearance to decide when to stop treatment. It remains a prognostic, not a predictive, biomarker for this purpose.

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.

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.

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.

Dr. Radvanyi advocates for a paradigm shift: treating almost all cancers with neoadjuvant immunotherapy immediately after diagnosis. This "kickstarts" an immune response before standard treatments like surgery and chemotherapy, which are known to be immunosuppressive, can weaken the patient's natural defenses against the tumor.

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.

While the ATOMIC trial combined FOLFOX with atezolizumab, clinicians should not de-escalate by simply dropping oxaliplatin. Historical data suggests single-agent 5-FU is ineffective and potentially harmful in MSI-high patients, a risk that is not presumed to be overcome by adding immunotherapy.