AccScience Publishing / EJMO / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/EJMO026260313
Cite this article
1
Download
7
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy in gynecologic clear cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hwisu Jung1 Hye Lim Jung1 Younga Kwon1 Kyoung-Chul Chun1 Young Ah Kim1 Jae Whoan Koh1 Jung Yeol Han1 Dong Won Hwang1*
Show Less
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Gyeonggi , Republic of Korea
Received: 27 June 2026 | Revised: 11 September 2026 | Accepted: 16 September 2026 | Published online: 23 September 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Introduction: Gynecologic clear cell carcinoma (CCC) is an uncommon histologic entity for which therapeutic options remain limited, and the clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment has not been clearly defined.

Objective: To synthesize the available evidence on efficacy and safety of ICI-containing regimens in gynecologic CCC.

Methods: We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020-guided systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for peer-reviewed full-text studies published between January 2016 and February 7, 2026 that investigated ICI-based treatment in gynecologic CCC. Studies were eligible if they included objective response rate (ORR), grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), or both. Pooled proportions were obtained through a binomial random-intercept generalized linear mixed model (GLMM); subgroup and sensitivity analyses were exploratory.

Results: Six studies included 181 patients in the efficacy analysis and 189 in the safety analysis. The GLMM estimate for ORR was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.44; I2 = 66.1%), and the 95% prediction interval was 0.06–0.74. By treatment strategy, exploratory pooled ORRs were 0.17 (95% CI: 0.07–0.39) for ICI monotherapy and 0.42 (95% CI: 0.32–0.52) for combination regimens. The conventional subgroup comparison yielded p = 0.040, whereas Knapp–Hartung-adjusted meta-regression yielded p=0.094. For study-defined grade ≥ 3 AEs, the pooled proportion was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.12–0.40; I2=78.1%) with a 95% prediction interval of 0.02–0.81. Corresponding exploratory safety estimates were 0.31 for combination therapy and 0.15 for monotherapy (pbetween = 0.160).

Conclusion: ICI-containing therapy shows variable antitumor activity across gynecologic CCC cohorts. Combination cohorts had numerically higher response and severe-toxicity rates, but these nonrandomized across-study contrasts were sensitive to small-sample adjustment and confounded by differences in regimens and populations. Overall certainty of the evidence was very low.

Keywords
Gynecologic cancer
Clear cell carcinoma
Immune checkpoint inhibitor
Immunotherapy
Meta-analysis
Funding
This work was supported by the 2024 Inje University research grant.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Okamoto A, Glasspool RM, Mabuchi S, et al. Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus review for clear cell carcinoma of the ovary. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(9 Suppl 3):S20-S25. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000289
  2. Gadducci A, Multinu F, Cosio S, Carinelli S, Ghioni M, Aletti GD. Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: Epidemiology, pathological and biological features, treatment options and clinical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162(3):741-750. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.06.033
  3. Anglesio MS, Carey MS, Kobel M, et al. Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: a report from the first Ovarian Clear Cell Symposium, June 24th, 2010. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(2):407-415. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.01.005
  4. Chan JK, Teoh D, Hu JM, Shin JY, Osann K, Kapp DS. Do clear cell ovarian carcinomas have poorer prognosis compared to other epithelial cell types? A study of 1411 clear cell ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(3):370-376. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.02.006
  5. Mackay HJ, Brady MF, Oza AM, et al. Prognostic relevance of uncommon ovarian histology in women with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(6):945-952. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181dd0110
  6. Eltabbakh GH, Mount SL, Beatty B, Simmons-Arnold L, Cooper K. Clinical and molecular differences between clear cell and papillary serous ovarian carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93(5):379-386. doi: 10.1002/jso.20494
  7. Nagasawa S, Ikeda K, Horie-Inoue K, et al. Systematic Identification of Characteristic Genes of Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma Compared with High-Grade Serous Carcinoma Based on RNA-Sequencing. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(18):4330. doi: 10.3390/ijms20184330
  8. Itamochi H, Kigawa J, Terakawa N. Mechanisms of chemoresistance and poor prognosis in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2008;99(4):653-658. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00747.x
  9. Magazzino F, Katsaros D, Ottaiano A, et al. Surgical and medical treatment of clear cell ovarian cancer: results from the multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO) 9 retrospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(6):1063-1070. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318218f270
  10. Jones S, Wang TL, Shih Ie M, et al. Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling gene ARID1A in ovarian clear cell carcinoma. Science. 2010;330(6001):228-231. doi: 10.1126/science.1196333
  11. Passarelli A, Cecere SC, Ventriglia J, et al. The immunotherapy era in ovarian clear cell carcinoma: current evidence and future perspective. Front Immunol. 2025;16:1661048. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1661048
  12. Shen J, Ju Z, Zhao W, et al. ARID1A deficiency promotes mutability and potentiates therapeutic antitumor immunity unleashed by immune checkpoint blockade. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):556-562. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0012-z
  13. Gao B, Carlino MS, Michael M, et al. Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Combination Treatment in Advanced Ovarian and Endometrial Clear Cell Cancers: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2025;11(9):982-989. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.1916
  14. Ngoi NYL, Lee JY, Lim D, et al. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib in recurrent gynaecological clear cell carcinoma (LARA): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2026;27(2):201-211. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(25)00662-x
  15. Kristeleit R, Devlin MJ, Clamp A, et al. Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Gynecological Cancer: A Phase 2 Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2025;11(4):377-385. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.6797
  16. Gien LT, Enserro DM, Block MS, et al. Phase II trial of pembrolizumab and epacadostat in recurrent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: An NRG oncology study GY016. Gynecol Oncol. 2024;186:61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.03.027
  17. Ngoi NYL, Choi CH, Zhu J, et al. Durvalumab versus Physician's Choice Chemotherapy in Recurrent Ovarian Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma (MOCCA/APGOT-OV2/GCGS-OV3): A Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 2 Trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2025;31(18):3907-3915. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-25-0201
  18. Peng Z, Li H, Gao Y, et al. Sintilimab combined with bevacizumab in relapsed or persistent ovarian clear cell carcinoma (INOVA): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25(10):1288-1297. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00437-6
  19. Okamura R, Kato S, Lee S, Jimenez RE, Sicklick JK, Kurzrock R. ARID1A alterations function as a biomarker for longer progression-free survival after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(1):e000438. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2019-000438
  20. Stewart J, Cunningham N, Banerjee S. New therapies for clear cell ovarian carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2023;33(3):385-393. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003704
  21. Noronha MM, de Almeida LFC, Silveira LHJ, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in clear cell ovarian carcinoma and mixed gynecologic clear cell cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2026:102863. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.102863
  22. Soldi R, Ghosh Halder T, Weston A, et al. The novel reversible LSD1 inhibitor SP-2577 promotes anti-tumor immunity in SWItch/Sucrose-NonFermentable (SWI/SNF) complex mutated ovarian cancer. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0235705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235705
  23. Fukumoto T, Fatkhutdinov N, Zundell JA, et al. HDAC6 Inhibition Synergizes with Anti-PD-L1 Therapy in ARID1A-Inactivated Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Res. 2019;79(21):5482-5489. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-19-1302
  24. Gao F, Yang C. Anti-VEGF/VEGFR2 monoclonal antibodies and their combinations with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinic. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2020;20(1):3-18. doi: 10.2174/1568009619666191114110359
  25. Chae YK, Othus M, Patel SP, et al. DART/SWOG/NCI phase II anti-CTLA-4/PD-1 trial: clear cell carcinomas of ovary, endometrium, cervix. J Immunother Cancer. 2026;14(2):e012805. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2025-012805
  26. Zamarin D, Burger RA, Sill MW, et al. Randomized Phase II Trial of Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Recurrent or Persistent Ovarian Cancer: An NRG Oncology Study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(16):1814-1823. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02059
Share
Back to top
Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology, Electronic ISSN: 2587-196X Print ISSN: 2587-2400, Published by AccScience Publishing