Highlights
This retrospective cohort study of 133 patients with recurrent endometrial (EC) and cervical cancer (CC) reveals that immunotherapy response rates and survival outcomes do not significantly differ based on recurrence location relative to prior radiation fields. Complete response rates ranged from 10% to 44.4% across groups, suggesting that prior radiotherapy should not preclude immunotherapy consideration in these patient populations.
Background
Endometrial and cervical cancers represent two of the most common gynecologic malignancies worldwide, with significant morbidity and mortality particularly in recurrent disease settings. Treatment of recurrent gynecologic cancers remains one of the most challenging clinical scenarios in oncology, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach involving surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and increasingly, immunotherapy.
Radiation therapy plays a crucial role in the primary and adjuvant treatment of both endometrial and cervical cancers. For cervical cancer, definitive chemoradiation is the standard of care for locally advanced disease, while endometrial cancer frequently receives adjuvant radiation to reduce local recurrence risk, particularly in high-risk histotypes. However, despite aggressive initial treatment with curative intent, a substantial proportion of patients experience disease recurrence.
Historically, the prevailing clinical assumption has been that recurrent tumors within previously irradiated fields would demonstrate diminished sensitivity to subsequent systemic therapies. This belief was particularly entrenched regarding chemotherapy, where historical data consistently showed poor response rates in pretreated fields. Gynecologic oncology practitioners developed a therapeutic nihilism regarding the treatability of in-field recurrences, often directing salvage therapies toward patients with out-of-field disease exclusively.
The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors has fundamentally transformed the landscape of gynecologic cancer therapeutics. Agents targeting programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in both endometrial and cervical cancers, leading to regulatory approvals and integration into standard treatment paradigms. Pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and other checkpoint inhibitors have shown activity across microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) endometrial cancers and, more recently, in combination regimens for cervical cancer.
However, a critical knowledge gap persisted regarding the effectiveness of immunotherapy specifically in patients whose recurrences occurred within previously radiated fields. The immunological consequences of prior radiation—including potential antigen release and immune modulation—remain complex and potentially paradoxical. While radiation may theoretically enhance antigen presentation through tumor cell death, it could alternatively induce immunosuppressive microenvironments or select for treatment-resistant clones.
This study by Chalif and colleagues addresses this important clinical question through a comprehensive retrospective analysis of immunotherapy outcomes stratified by radiation field location.
Study Design
This investigation employed a retrospective, single-institution cohort design conducted at a major academic cancer center. The study population comprised patients with recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) and cervical cancer (CC) who received immunotherapy-based treatment between 2017 and 2023, a timeframe encompassing the modern era of checkpoint inhibitor availability in gynecologic oncology.
Patients were systematically categorized into three distinct groups based on the anatomical relationship between their disease recurrence and prior radiation fields: Group 1 included patients with recurrence exclusively within the previously radiated field; Group 2 comprised patients with disease recurrence both within and outside the radiated field; and Group 3 encompassed patients with recurrence entirely outside the previously irradiated area.
The study evaluated multiple endpoints including complete response rates (CRR), overall response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival was defined from the date of immunotherapy initiation to documented disease progression or death from any cause. Overall survival was calculated from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis methods were employed to estimate survival distributions, with appropriate statistical comparisons between groups.
The immunotherapy regimens included various checkpoint inhibitor-based approaches, reflecting the evolving treatment landscape over the study period. These included single-agent immunotherapy, combination immunotherapy with chemotherapy, and immunotherapy combined with antiangiogenic agents or other targeted therapies.
Key Findings
Patient Distribution Across Radiation Field Categories
Among the 74 patients with endometrial cancer, the distribution across recurrence locations revealed that 12% (9 patients) recurred within the radiated field, 32% (24 patients) had recurrence both within and outside the field, and 55% (41 patients) experienced recurrence entirely outside the previously treated area. This distribution suggests that out-of-field recurrence remains the most common pattern in endometrial cancer, though in-field and mixed recurrences constitute a substantial minority.
For the 59 cervical cancer patients, the pattern differed somewhat with 20% (12 patients) recurring within the radiated field, 44% (26 patients) having both in-field and out-of-field disease, and 36% (21 patients) recurring exclusively outside the treated area. The higher proportion of in-field and mixed recurrences in cervical cancer may reflect the more frequent use of definitive radiation in the primary treatment of locally advanced disease.
Complete Response Rates
Perhaps the most striking finding concerns the complete response rates, which demonstrated remarkable consistency across radiation field categories for both cancer types.
In endometrial cancer patients, complete response rates were 44.4% for those with recurrence within the radiated field, 20.8% for patients with both in-field and out-of-field disease, and 25.6% for those with recurrence exclusively outside the treated area (p = 0.58). While numerically higher in the within-field group, these differences did not achieve statistical significance, suggesting equivalent biological responsiveness regardless of radiation history.
Cervical cancer patients showed complete response rates of 16.7% for in-field recurrence, 24% for mixed recurrence patterns, and 10% for out-of-field recurrence (p = 0.31). Again, no statistically significant difference was observed between groups, with the lowest response rate paradoxically occurring in the out-of-field cohort.
Progression-Free Survival Outcomes
Progression-free survival data revealed more pronounced numerical differences between groups, though interpretation requires careful consideration of the wide confidence intervals typical in retrospective analyses with limited sample sizes.
For endometrial cancer, the median PFS was notably prolonged at 86.5 months in patients with in-field recurrence, compared to 9.7 months in the mixed recurrence group and 6.8 months in the out-of-field recurrence cohort. While these differences appear substantial, the retrospective nature of the study and the relatively small sample sizes necessitate caution in interpreting these numerical trends as definitive evidence of differential treatment efficacy.
Cervical cancer patients demonstrated median PFS of 12.2 months for in-field recurrence, 4.6 months for mixed pattern disease, and 3.4 months for out-of-field recurrence. The progressive decline in PFS from in-field to out-of-field recurrence suggests potential biological differences in tumor behavior or treatment responsiveness across these presentation patterns.
Statistical Considerations
The absence of statistical significance (p > 0.05) for both response rates and survival endpoints across all comparisons represents a critical finding. The study was not powered to detect smaller differences between groups, and the retrospective design introduces potential confounding factors that may influence observed outcomes. Nevertheless, the consistency of the findings—that in-field recurrence does not portend inferior immunotherapy response—provides clinically meaningful signal that warrants prospective validation.
Expert Commentary
These findings challenge a long-standing clinical assumption that has influenced treatment decision-making in recurrent gynecologic cancers for decades. The historical perspective that previously radiated tissues would demonstrate diminished chemosensitivity has been so deeply ingrained in oncology practice that many clinicians have reflexively excluded patients with in-field recurrences from consideration for aggressive salvage therapies.
Several mechanistic considerations may explain why immunotherapy, unlike chemotherapy, appears to maintain efficacy in radiated fields. Radiation-induced immunogenic cell death can release tumor-associated antigens and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that may enhance antigen presentation and potentiate immune recognition. Additionally, radiation may modify the tumor microenvironment through effects on stromal cells, vascular endothelium, and immune infiltrates, potentially creating conditions more favorable for checkpoint inhibitor activity.
The concept of abscopal effects—the phenomenon whereby localized radiation can induce systemic immune responses against untreated tumor deposits—provides theoretical support for potential synergy between radiation and immunotherapy. While the clinical relevance of abscopal effects remains debated, the present study suggests that prior radiation exposure does not create an immunologically hostile environment that precludes effective immunotherapy.
Several important limitations warrant acknowledgment. The retrospective single-institution design introduces selection bias and limits generalizability. The relatively small cohort sizes, particularly within subgroups, constrain statistical power and precision of estimates. Immunotherapy regimens evolved substantially during the study period, introducing heterogeneity in treatment exposures. Additionally, the study lacked central review of response assessments, and information on PD-L1 status, microsatellite instability, and other predictive biomarkers was not systematically reported.
The unexpectedly favorable outcomes in the in-field recurrence groups for both cancer types merit further investigation. Potential explanations include biological differences in tumors recurring within treated fields, enhanced immune recognition of radiation-modified tumor cells, or simply the play of chance in small samples.
Conclusion
This retrospective cohort study provides compelling evidence that immunotherapy demonstrates comparable efficacy in recurrent endometrial and cervical cancers regardless of whether recurrence occurs within, partially within, or outside previously radiated fields. The absence of statistically significant differences in complete response rates between groups suggests that prior radiation exposure should not be considered a contraindication to immunotherapy-based treatment in patients with recurrent disease.
These findings have important clinical implications. Patients with in-field recurrences who were previously considered poor candidates for aggressive salvage therapy may now be appropriate candidates for immunotherapy-based approaches. Treatment decision-making should be based on individual patient factors, tumor characteristics, and prior treatment history rather than categorical exclusion based solely on recurrence location relative to prior radiation fields.
The data support enrollment of patients with in-field recurrences in clinical trials of novel immunotherapy combinations and the investigation of potential synergies between radiation and immune checkpoint inhibition. Future prospective studies with larger sample sizes, standardized treatment protocols, and biomarker integration will be essential to definitively establish treatment recommendations for this important patient population.
As immunotherapy continues to transform the therapeutic landscape of gynecologic oncology, understanding its role across all clinical scenarios—including the historically challenging setting of in-field recurrence—becomes increasingly critical. This study represents an important step toward evidence-based, personalized treatment approaches that optimize outcomes for all patients with recurrent endometrial and cervical cancers.
Funding and Disclosures
This research was conducted as a retrospective analysis at a single academic institution. The authors declared no conflicts of interest relevant to this study. No specific funding information was provided.
References
1. Chalif J, Morton M, Gonzalez A, McLaughlin E, Fulton J, Sciuva J, Cohn DE, Cosgrove CM, Copeland LJ, Nagel CI, Backes F, O’Malley DM, Chambers LM. Evaluation of immunotherapy response in the radiated field in patients with recurrent endometrial and cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2026;208:77-84. PMID: 41930528.
2. Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, et al. Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Noncolorectal High Microsatellite Instability/Mismatch Repair-Deficient Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):1-10.
3. Colombo N, Dubot C, Lorusso D, et al. Pembrolizumab for Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(20):1856-1867.
4. Makker V, Colombo N, Herráez AC, et al. Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab for Advanced Endometrial Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(5):437-448.