Pembrolizumab monotherapy in heavily treated recurrent cervical cancer patients: case series report

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pembrolizumab among patients with recurrent cervical cancer. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients diagnosed with recurrent cervical cancer and treated with pembrolizumab. Fixed does of pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every three weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. In total, 14 patients were included in this study. Median number of pembrolizumab cycles was five (range, 1–28). The objective response rate was 28.6%, with one complete response and three partial responses. The treatment was generally well tolerated. None of the patients experienced treatment discontinuation or treatment-related death due to adverse events. Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed modest antitumor activity against recurrent cervical cancer. Pembrolizumab monotherapy is an alternative treatment option for patients with recurrent cervical cancer.

Recurrent cervical cancer; Pembrolizumab; Immunotherapy; Immune checkpoint inhibitor

[1] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2022; 72: 7–33.

[2] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–249.

[3] Jung KW, Won YJ, Kang MJ, Kong HJ, Im JS, Seo HG. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2022. Cancer Research and Treatment. 2022; 54: 345–351.

[4] Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Chon HS, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2020. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2020; 18: 660–666.

[5] Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long HJ 3rd, Penson RT, Huang H, Ramondetta LM, et al. Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 370: 734–743.

[6] Frenel JS, Le Tourneau C, O’Neil B, Ott PA, Piha-Paul SA, Gomez-Roca C, et al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in advanced, programmed death ligand 1-positive cervical cancer: results from the phase Ib KEYNOTE-028 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017; 35: 4035–4041.

[7] Chung HC, Ros W, Delord JP, Perets R, Italiano A, Shapira-Frommer R, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in previously treated advanced cervical cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2019; 37: 1470–1478.

[8] Kulangara K, Zhang N, Corigliano E, Guerrero L, Waldroup S, Jaiswal D, et al. Clinical utility of the combined positive score for programmed death ligand-1 expression and the approval of pembrolizumab for treatment of gastric cancer. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2019; 143: 330–337.

[9] Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer. 2009; 45: 228–247.

[10] Freites-Martinez A, Santana N, Arias-Santiago S, Viera A. Using the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE-version 5.0) to evaluate the severity of adverse events of anticancer therapies. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas. 2021; 112: 90–92. (In Spanish)

[11] Choi MC, Kim YM, Lee JW, Lee YJ, Suh DH, Lee SJ, et al. Real-world experience of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with recurrent or persistent cervical cancer: a Korean multi-center retrospective study (KGOG1041). Cancers. 2020; 12: 3188.

[12] Monk BJ, Sill MW, McMeekin DS, Cohn DE, Ramondetta LM, Boardman CH, et al. Phase III trial of four cisplatin-containing doublet combinations in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical carcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009; 27: 4649–4655.

[13] Moore DH, Blessing JA, McQuellon RP, Thaler HT, Cella D, Benda J, et al. Phase III study of cisplatin with or without paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2004; 22: 3113–3119.

[14] Moore KN, Herzog TJ, Lewin S, Giuntoli RL, Armstrong DK, Rocconi RP, et al. A comparison of cisplatin/paclitaxel and carboplatin/paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2007; 105: 299–303.

[15] Kitagawa R, Katsumata N, Shibata T, Kamura T, Kasamatsu T, Nakanishi T, et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer: the open-label randomized phase III trial JCOG0505. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015; 33: 2129–2135.

[16] Thigpen T. The role of chemotherapy in the management of carcinoma of the cervix. The Cancer Journal. 2003; 9: 425–432.

[17] Muderspach LI, Blessing JA, Levenback C, Moore JL Jr. A phase II study of topotecan in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecologic Oncology. 2001; 81: 213–215.

[18] Schilder RJ, Blessing JA, Morgan M, Mangan CE, Rader JS. Evaluation of gemcitabine in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a phase II study of the gynecologic oncology group. Gynecologic Oncology. 2000; 76: 204–207.

[19] Long HJ 3rd, Bundy BN, Grendys EC Jr, Benda JA, McMeekin DS, Sorosky J, et al. Randomized phase III trial of cisplatin with or without topotecan in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005; 23: 4626–4633.

[20] Omura GA, Blessing JA, Vaccarello L, Berman ML, Clarke-Pearson DL, Mutch DG, et al. Randomized trial of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus mitolactol versus cisplatin plus ifosfamide in advanced squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1997; 15: 165–171.

[21] Colombo N, Dubot C, Lorusso D, Caceres MV, Hasegawa K, Shapira-Frommer R, et al. Pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2021; 385: 1856–1867.