ReviewCancer2026
IMMU-NO versus yes: Applicability of immune checkpoint inhibitors in gynecologic cancers.
Review in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment paradigm for patients with gynecologic malignancies. ICIs have led to improved survival outcomes in uterine and cervical cancer, although with only modest success in ovarian cancer. In endometrial cancer, The Cancer Genome Atlas provided the framework for the molecular classification of endometrial cancer, enabling identification of the predominant predictive biomarker: mismatch repair (MMR) status. US Food and Drug Administration approvals for ICI monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy based on MMR status quickly followed. Further research demonstrated a role for ICIs in combination with chemotherapy regardless of MMR status in the initial treatment of advanced or metastatic disease. In cervical cancer, ICIs are approved for use in combination with chemotherapy-sensitized radiation and in combination with systemic chemotherapy in patients who have recurrent or metastatic disease. In ovarian cancer, the tumor microenvironment, low tumor mutational burden, and the absence of a reliable predictive biomarker have limited the efficacy of ICIs, with most combination approaches failing to demonstrate meaningful benefit. A notable exception is KEYNOTE-B96, a randomized trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo with weekly paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab, in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Continued investigation into predictive biomarkers, resistance mechanisms, and alternative therapeutic targets is critically needed to extend the benefits of immunotherapy to patients with ovarian cancer. In this review, the authors describe the current immunotherapy landscape across gynecologic cancers, highlighting when ICI use is, and is not, supported by the evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.