Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 24, 2026.

Ovarian Cancer Immunotherapy: Turning up the Heat

Eleonora Ghisoni, Martina Imbimbo, Stefan Zimmermann and 1 more

International Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2019 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.3390/ijms20122927

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of death among gynecological malignancies. Despite surgery and chemotherapy, 5-years survival rates have improved only modestly over the past few decades remaining at 45% for advanced stages. Therefore, novel therapies are urgently needed. The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in OC tumor microenvironment (TME) has already proved to be correlated with overall survival (OS), while immune evasion mechanisms are associated with poor prognosis. Although these data indicate that immunotherapy has a strong rationale in OC, single agent immune-checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) have shown only modest results in this malignancy. In this review, we will discuss immune-targeting combination therapies and adoptive cell therapy (ACT), highlighting the challenges represented by these strategies, which aim at disrupting the stroma-tumor barrier to boost immune system against ovarian cancer.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 24, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1. Introduction

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of death among women with gynecological malignancies with 22,530 estimated new cases and 13,980 deaths in 2019 in the USA. Surgery and chemotherapy, based on carboplatin and paclitaxel, have been long established as the cornerstone for the primary management of EOC.

However, despite multimodal treatment and the transforming advance represented by the introduction of agents targeting poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), prognosis is still poor for advanced stages and survival rates have improved only modestly over the past few decades.

EOC has traditionally been considered as scarcely immunogenic. However, several findings contradict this statement, such as spontaneous tumor regressions, evidence of mechanisms of immune evasion and occasional durable responses to immune checkpoints-inhibitors (ICIs).

Notably, BRCA1/2-mutated high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOCs) exhibit a higher mutational load and a unique mutational signature with a significantly increased number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), as well as elevated expression of programmed cell death (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) in tumor-associated immune cells compared to homologous-recombination (HR)-proficient tumors. Furthermore, patients with T-cell-rich tumors experience longer progression-free and overall survival, while immune evasion mechanisms are associated with poor survival. All these evidences taken together suggest that EOC patients could potentially benefit from immunotherapy.

Despite the encouraging results in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), kidney and urothelial cancers, the use of single-agent antibodies inhibiting the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or PD-1 or PD-L1 axis yielded only modest results in EOC with median response rates of 10–15%, and a control of disease observed in less than half of the patients.

Interestingly, the combination of the anti-PD1 nivolumab and anti-CTLA4 ipilimumab showed promising results in platinum resistant EOC at the six months-interim analyses with an overall response rate (ORR) of 34% (doubling the results of nivolumab monotherapy). However, data are still immature.

As a consequence, no immunotherapeutic agent has obtained regulatory approval for EOC thus far.

Many strategies to overcome resistance to ICIs are currently under investigation and the tumor–immune system interaction is now considered a key element guiding the research toward more personalized approaches.

According to the status of TILs infiltration, tumors could be histologically categorized as “inflamed/hot tumors” or “non-inflamed/cold”. The first ones are characterized by the presence in the tumor bed of a high density of CD8+ T cells, whose functionality can be impaired by immunosuppressive networks. Such patients could benefit from therapies acting on T cell checkpoint involved in immune-tolerance.

On the contrary, cold tumors are characterized by the absence of T cells in tumor beds and at tumor edges and are generally affected by a failure in T cell priming reflecting the need of strategies that could deliver autologous/allogenic effector cells into the cancer.

A third phenotype, defined as “immune-excluded”, is characterized by the modification of tumor microenvironment (TME) and the presence of inhibitory cells that retain CD8 T cells from entering the tumor islets, even if they are present in the stroma. Such patients could benefit from strategies whose aim is to increase infiltrations of tumors by immune effector cells such as T cell trafficking modulators, epigenetic modulators, TME remodeling molecules, radiation therapy.

In this review, we focus on the strategies and challenges represented by immune-targeting combinations in the most advanced stages of development in EOC. We also describe challenges and advances in adoptive cell therapy (ACT) which, despite the limited data available in EOC so far, represent a unique opportunity to enhance immune-response “heating the fire” against OC (Figure 1).

PARP inhibitors (PARPIs) and immune-checkpoints inhibithors (ICIs) promote the release of pro-inflammatory signals and the expression of co-stimulatory molecules, expand the neoantigens repertoire and indeed increase the visibility of tumor cells to T cells. Anti-vascular endothelial grow factor (anti-VEGF) agents normalize the vascular structure of the tumor microenviroment (TME) regulating T cells infiltration and trafficking and contribuiting to dendritic cells (DCs) maturation and downregulation of the PD-L1 pathway expression. ACT (a): Tumor-infiltrating lymphocites (TILs) are isolated from surgically resected tumor samples, then expanded in vitro and reinfused into the lymphodepleted patient; (b): T cells from patient peripheral blood are isolated and expanded in culture and genetically modified to express either a T cell receptor (TCR) or a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) that confers the ability to specifically recognize and destroy tumor-cells when re-infused into the the lymphodepleted patient.

2.1. Check-Point Inhibitors and Anti-VEGF Therapy

Ovarian TME consists of blood and lymphatic vessels and of different types of stromal cells embedded in the omental extracellular matrix. These cells can act as immune modulators and comprise myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), adipocytes, CAFs (cancer activated fibroblasts) and resident and infiltrating immune cells, including regulatory T cells (Treg).

Tumor vessels are abnormal, both structurally and functionally, and favor an immunosuppressive environment characterized by hypoxia, low pH and high interstitial fluid pressure due to dysfunctional lymphatic drainage.

An abnormal TME promotes the activation and expansion of immunosuppressive Treg cells and the recruitment of TAMs, the expansion of abnormal endothelial cells (ECs), and the suppression of dendritic cell (DC) maturation, which in turn results in impaired antigen presentation and activation of tumor-specific cytotoxic lymphocytes. Importantly, the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is often upregulated both on tumor cells and on tumor-infiltrating CTLs, marking them as dysfunctional or ‘exhausted’ and limiting their cytotoxic potential. Furthermore, the vascular endothelial grow factor (VEGF) can promote the expansion of MDSCs and enhance their immunosuppressive function in the TME..

Thus, there is a strong rationale in combining antiangiogenic therapies and ICIs and, in fact, many phase 3 trials are currently ongoing. Antiangiogenics might partially increase the effectiveness of immunotherapy through the normalization of the abnormal tumor vasculature and contrasting the direct inhibitory effect on immune and endothelial cells, increasing the infiltration of immune effector cells into tumors and converting the intrinsically immunosuppressive TME to an immune-supportive one.

In 2017, Lee et al. conducted a phase 1 basket trial to evaluate the antitumor effect of the PD-1 inhibitor durvalumab in combination with endothelial growth factor receptor 1–3 inhibitor cediranib or PARP inhibitor olaparib in women with solid tumors. A total of nine patients with EOC were treated in the durvalumab plus cediranib arm. Five patients had a partial response (PR) with an overall response rate (ORR) of about 55%, which is higher compared with that recorded for PD-L1 pathway inhibition (10–20% ORR) or cediranib treatment alone (23% ORR). However, treatment with durvalumab plus cediranib was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events (AEs). Continuous cediranib was not tolerated due to hypertension and diarrhea (seven patients suffered from grade 2–4 AEs and one patient experienced grade 3 pulmonary hypertension and eventually died from pulmonary embolism).

More recently, Liu et al. presented at ESMO 2018 the encouraging preliminary results of the phase II trial evaluating the combination of anti-PD1 nivolumab and bevacizumab in 38 patients affected by EOC, including 18 with platinum-resistant disease. The combinatorial treatment shows an ORR of 28.9% (40% and 16.7% in the platinum-sensitive and in the platinum-resistant cohort respectively) with a median PFS of 8.1 months and no unexpected AEs.

Thus, bevacizumab seems to be a safe and tolerable anti-VEGF drug to be associated to checkpoint blockade to enhance immuno-response and currently three phase 3 trials are ongoing both in front-line and recurrence settings (Table 1).

2.2. Check-Point Inhibitors and PARP-Inhibitors

The landscape of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPIs) is rapidly evolving and represents a cornerstone in the natural history of EOC. Since 2014 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) have approved three PARPIs for the treatment of EOC.

PARP proteins catalyze the polymerization of poly (ADP-ribose) on proteins. This reversible post-translational modification of proteins, also called PARylation, is implicated in many cellular mechanisms, notably DNA repair. PARP detects single-strand breaks (SSBs) and, through its PARylation activity, recruits proteins that mediate DNA repair. Furthermore, PARP-1 shows wide immune effects: i) Regulation of DCs maturation from monocytes; ii) reduction of CD86 and CD83 and of IL-12 and IL-10 expression; iii) modulation of the activation of nuclear factor of activated T cell (NFAT) which is essential in T cell function.

As stated before, EOC with BRCA1/2 mutation has been identified as an ideal candidate for immunotherapy and PARPIs combination. In HGSOC, tumors harboring HR-deficient/BRCA1/2 mutations demonstrated a higher neoantigen load and increased numbers of CD3+ and CD8+ TILs. Elevated levels of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on TILs were also observed compared with that in HR-proficient tumors, which indicated that BRCA1/2-mutated HGSOCs may be more sensitive to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors compared with HR-proficient ones.

A phase I study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of PARP inhibitor and anti-CTLA-4 antibody was conducted in women with BRCA mutation-associated recurrent OC. No dose-limiting toxicities were identified and grade 1/2 toxicities were consistent with prior studies that used immune checkpoint inhibitors. More recently, two studies exploring different combinations were presented at ASCO 2018. The first one by Konstantinopoulos et al. was a phase 1/2 study evaluating niraparib and pembrolizumab. Interestingly, ORR was 23% without any significant difference in biomarkers selected populations (25% in BRCA-mutated and 24% in BRCA wild-type respectively). The second one, already published, combined olaparib and durvalumab in platinum-sensitive relapsed BRCA mutated EOC. Overall, 23 of 32 patients had objective responses with olaparib plus durvalumab, including six (19%) complete responses. Subgroup analysis showed a consistency of response in patients who had received up to three prior lines of therapy. The combination achieved a 12-week disease-control rate (DCR) of 81%. Furthermore, six patients had complete responses (CR) and 17 others had PRs resulting in an ORR of 72%. An additional three patients had SD, bringing the DCR to 81%. The combination was well tolerated, with a low incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs or all-grade immune-related adverse events (irAE). The most common irAEs (all grades) were hypothyroidism in five (15%) patients and rash in four (12%). Finally, the study presented by Lee et al. (durvalumab and olaparib in recurrent EOC) at ESMO 2018 did not meet the primary endpoint with an overall DCR of 37% and only 5/35 (14%) PR.

The above results suggest that the combinations of PARPIs and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade seem to enhance the antitumor effect without significantly increasing toxicity and support their further development in EOC independently from BRCA mutational status.

Ongoing phase III trials exploring ICIs and PARPIs combinations are listed in Table 2.

2.3. Adoptive Immunotherapies

Adoptive immunotherapy is emerging as an active treatment in cancers that are less responsive or refractory to ICIs. This approach is based on the infusion of autologous or allogenic immune effectors that destroy tumor cells.

Currently one of the most promising approach in solid cancers is represented by ACT, in which tumor-specific cytotoxic T cells, either isolated from the tumor or in the peripheral blood by leukapheresis, are expanded in vivo and then infused after lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

EOC is characterized by a low/intermediate mutational burden. However, several experiences have shown that these tumors can harbor missense somatic mutations that can serve as neoantigens and elicit tumor specific T cells that could be exploited for ACT.

In a prospective series, authors showed that in five out of seven cases, EOC metastases from immunotherapy naïve patients are infiltrated by mutation reactive T cells (mainly against mutant p53), thus at frequencies that are encouraging toward future use in adoptive therapies.

In another work, Bobisse et al. reported the identification of neo-epitope specific CD8+ T cells in ~90% of evaluated patients, with a notably higher functional avidity in TILs compared to circulating T lymphocytes and different TCR repertoires.

Westergaard et al., successfully established and expanded TILs from 34 tumors specimen of OC and demonstrated the recognition of autologous tumor cell in >50% of the patients. Furthermore, antigen specific TILs were isolated and further expanded in vivo.

Taken together these preclinical data support the development of ACT in EOC.

First evidences of possible activity of ACT in EOC derives from first line, non-randomized phase 1 study in which TILs were administered in 13 patients with no evidence of disease after surgical resection and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Eleven patients with the same characteristics were treated with chemotherapy only and served as control arm. The 3-year overall survival rates were shown to be higher in the TILs group (100% compared to 67.5%, respectively).

Recently, results from a pilot study in platinum resistant OC with lympho-depleting chemotherapy followed by the infusion of unselected TILS and IL2 were published. The therapy was feasible and with no unexpected toxicities related to high dose chemotherapy or the administration of IL2. There were signs of antitumor reactivity in TILs infusion products but clinical results are still not satisfactory since patients achieved only SD as best response for three to five months. Authors specify that a high percentage of infused TILs expressed exhaustion markers with tumor tissue expressing inhibitory immune checkpoint ligands. These findings open the road toward the possibility of enhancing ACT combining it to ICIs.

Other possible strategies could be applied to enhance efficacy of adoptive therapies.

First, although considered as immunosuppressive for several decades, it is now known that chemotherapy could improve immunotherapy efficacy, acting on several factors, such as T cells trafficking, neo-antigen presentations and TME. Indeed several studies indicate that also in OC neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) enhance CD8 + TILs infiltration and activity and may reduce Tregs. In the most recent Lo et al. show that NACT increased pre-existing TIL responses (in already TILs-infiltrated tumor) but with scant effect on cold tumors and on immunosuppressing cells. Thus, this evidence suggests that the optimal timing for TILs collection should be further investigated, possibly being different in inflamed- and non-inflamed tumors to maximize TILs vitality and activity when infused.

Second, activity of ACT could be enhanced with the use of antigen selected TILs, that has proven feasible in OC or by genetically engineering T cells to express either an exogenous tumor antigen-specific T cell receptor (TCR) or a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR).

In the first case the TCR is engineered to have a higher affinity for both intracellular and extracellular targets but T-cell activity is still dependent on the antigen presentation and expression of MHC that can be impaired in tumor tissue. Additionally, TCR activity is also MHC haplotype restricted. Furthermore, T cells can be isolated from the patient’s peripheral blood and engineered with a specific receptor to target a known TAA on the patient’s tumor. This allows the generation of a highly specific T cell that can be obtained from peripheral blood, avoiding tumor extraction and expansion of TILS and also theoretically limiting toxicities.

In contrast, CARs are engineered so that they can recognize an antigen in a MHC independent fashion through an antigen specific extracellular antibody single chain variable fragment (scFv) but is thus limited to surface antigens.

Several clinical trials using engineered T cells to target antigens in OC, such as NY-ESO-1, HER2, FR-alpha, MSLN, MUC16, and p53 are currently recruiting in solid cancers (Table 3).

Despite good in vitro and in vivo activity of anti-folate receptor (Fr) alpha CAR T cells, the first phase 1 trials in metastatic OC patients failed to show any sign of activity. Possible reasons, according to authors, are scarce T cell trafficking and persistence of cell in the tumor. New generation CAR-T comprehensive of costimulatory signaling domain have shown greater persistence and efficacy in vivo and in vitro models of OC.

Targeting FR-alpha with cell-based therapies, drugs or vaccines are generally well tolerated and seemed promising showing early signs of responses with Bi-specific T-cell engaging (BiTE) antibodies. Furthermore, since it is expressed by the vast majority of HGSOC at much higher levels than healthy ovarian tissue, it represents an ideal candidate for immunotherapy.

Mesothelin is another promising target that is expressed in about 70% of epithelial OC. Preliminary results of second generation anti mesothelin CAR T in OC are encouraging: The therapy was feasible and safe, the CAR T-meso cells engrafted and expanded in the blood of all subjects. There was evidence of trafficking to tumor sites resulting in the clearance of pleural effusion in one patient and in stabilization of disease in all six patients.

Exploiting the innate immune system is the base of adoptive-non-antigen-based strategies, consisting in the infusion of natural killer (NK) or cytokine-induced killer cells (CIK) cells. Use of these cells could have several advantages, such as the independence from MHC and from prior sensitization to the antigen. These therapies have proven to be feasible but research is still at an early stage. With regards to NK adoptive therapy, a first phase 2 trial with haploidentical allogenic NK cells showed scarce persistence of NK in the donor, with no relevant clinical activity. In a phase I trial two patients with ovarian cancer were treated with allogenic haploidentical NK cells. Best responses were SD and PD, while in a case report patient achieved a PR with biomarker response after six treatments.

These studies suggest that allogeneic NK cell therapy is feasible although further efforts that will generate novel strategies to increase in vivo NK cell persistence and expansion after adoptive transfer are needed.

CIK cells are a group of immune effector cells with cytotoxic activity that can be rapidly proliferated in vitro from PBMC after incubation with different cytokines (IFN Y, IL2, IL1 and anti CD3). The main effectors of CIK cells are the NK-like T lymphocytes (CD3+ CD56+) that have potentially enhanced and broader antitumor activity compared to TILS and do not depend from TCR and MHC activity but still can elicit both MHC-restricted and MHC-unrestricted anti-tumor citotoxicity. Such cells showed to be very active against ovarian cancer in vitro and in vivo and also showed enhanced activity and better tolerability compared to LAK cells (PBMC incubated with IL2), that demonstrated limited clinical efficacy with high rates of peritoneal fibrosis when given intraperitoneally.

There are signals that CIKs could be useful in the adjuvant setting, but further evidences are needed.

3. Patients’ Selection

As discussed, inhibition of checkpoint PD-1/PDL1 and CTLA 4 axis produces low response rates in unselected ovarian cancer patients, as the majority of clinical trials so far have been recruiting patients without distinction between inflamed- and excluded-tumors.

Currently, biomarkers like PD-L1 expression, TMB and TILs infiltration have not yet proven to be useful for patient selection in OC. While expression of PD-L1 on tumor cells is a predictive biomarker of response to ICIs in other cancer types (i.e., NSCLC and urothelial cancers), its expression in EOC is not very frequent (10–33%) suggesting that not all tumors rely on this pathway for immune evasion and its prognostic role in EOC is still controverted. Some data suggest that high expression of PD-L1 correlates with worse prognosis, while in other series a higher expression correlates with better PFS.

High levels of CD8+ TILs are known to be associated with better prognosis, as well as the presence of other immune cells such as CD4+ T cells, memory B cells and plasma cells. However, their presence has not proven to be predictive biomarkers of response to ICIs. Zhang et al. showed that epithelial CD8+ TILs correlates with neoantigens selection and high rates of HLA expression loss, thus suggesting a strong immune-editing in the TME. The neoantigen depletion and the impaired presentation together with the tumor heterogeneity and the clonal evolutions of tumor in different metastatic sites could influence immunosurveillance and the response to ICIs of the so-called “inflamed tumors”.

Mutational status of EOC could predict immunogenicity. As already mentioned, tumor with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) have a higher predicted neo-antigen load and higher TILs infiltration. However clinical data shows that response to ICI monotherapies is rare in BRCA mutated patients as well, indicating that neoantigen load is not a good selection strategy, but also opening the road for combination therapies with PARPIs.

Furthermore, a recent analysis on the Keynote-100 showed no statistically significant differences in HRD status among responders and non-responders and the absence of association between BRCA status and responses. Interestingly, TMB and T cell-inflamed gene expression profile (GEP) were independently predictive of response and demonstrated low correlation, suggesting that they capture distinct features of neo-antigenicity and T cell activation.

4. Conclusions

New and more effective treatment modalities of immunotherapy are being investigated in EOC based on tumor biology, its relationship with TME and the immune-suppressive networks that make this cancer difficult to tackle with single agent ICIs.

Specific antigens such as NY-ESO-1, FR-alpha, MSLN, MUC16, and p53 are attractive immunotherapy targets, due to their frequent expression in OC and are currently under investigation in different modalities such as vaccines, oncolytic viral platforms, combination therapies with ICIs or chemotherapies and as TAAs in adoptive cellular immunotherapy.

TME plays a crucial role in the immune-suppression and immune-tolerance that can impair the presence and the activity of TILs, such as the presence of Tregs, TAMs, MDSC, exosomes, adipocytes and CAFs. All these TME’s components should be taken into account when designing novel therapeutic strategies, in particular for the immune-excluded/“cold tumors”. These may include strategies to prime T cell responses, including vaccines and ACT directed to neo-antigens presented by tumor cells; inducers of immunogenic cell death in strategies of in situ vaccination and simultaneous targeting of checkpoint inhibitors responsible for T cell anergy and/or exhaustion.

Finally, targeting other immunosuppressive pathway could be a way to enhance responses to immunotherapy. Among those, one of the most dominant immune resistance mechanismsin EOC is mediated by indole-amine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), an enzyme that catalyzes the tryptophan degradation along the kynurenine pathway and enhances the synthesis of immunosuppressive metabolites. Inhibition of this pathway is being explored in different tumors.

The autologous infusion of enriched naturally occurring tumor reactive lymphocytes could be a way to improve immunotherapy efficacy in already infiltrated tumors. Advances in genetically engineering and new generation of TCR or CAR modified T cells could represent a real game changer in these cancers.

So far, TIL-based therapies have only been offered in small phase I/II studies in a few highly specialized centers mastering the complexity of TIL production and the very intensive nature of the three-step treatment protocol. Despite the limited data available in OC, we believe that this strategy is a unique opportunity to enhance immune-response “heating the fire” against OC.

A better characterization of the tumor and stromal environment, which shuts out TILs in immune-excluded EOCs, is critical in order to identify reliable predictive biomarkers and advance the field of immunotherapy in this malignancy. In conclusion, understanding the tumor immune escape mechanisms will enable a greater sophistication in immunotherapy treatments allowing tailoring treatment not only according to tumor biology but also to TME characteristics, extending the benefit of immunotherapy to more patients and hopefully providing long-lasting durable responses.

References 87

  1. 1.

    Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2019;69:7-34.

    Not in our library10.3322/caac.21551

  2. 2.

    Ledermann J.A., Raja F.A., Fotopoulou C., Gonzalez-Martin A., Colombo N., Sessa C., ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2013;24:vi24-vi32.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdt333

  3. 3.

    Mirza M.R., Pignata S., Ledermann J.A. Latest clinical evidence and further development of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2018;29:1366-1376.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdy174

  4. 4.

    Miller K.D., Siegel R.L., Lin C.C., Mariotto A.B., Kramer J.L., Rowland J.H., Stein K.D., Alteri R., Jemal A. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2016;66:271-289.

    Not in our library10.3322/caac.21349

  5. 5.

    Schlienger K., Chu C.S., Woo E.Y., Rivers P.M., Toll A.J., Hudson B., Maus M.V., Riley J.L., Choi Y., Coukos G., et al. TRANCE-and CD40 ligand-matured dendritic cells reveal MHC class I-restricted T cells specific for autologous tumor in late-stage ovarian cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003;9:1517-1527.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Goodell V., Salazar L.G., Urban N., Drescher C.W., Gray H., Swensen R.E., McIntosh M.W., Disis M.L. Antibody immunity to the p53 oncogenic protein is a prognostic indicator in ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:762-768.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.03.2813

  7. 7.

    Oda K., Hamanishi J., Matsuo K., Hasegawa K. Genomics to immunotherapy of ovarian clear cell carcinoma: Unique opportunities for management. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018;151:381-389.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.001

  8. 8.
  9. 9.

    Wieser V., Gaugg I., Fleischer M., Shivalingaiah G., Wenzel S., Sprung S., Lax S.F., Zeimet A.G., Fiegl H., Marth C. BRCA1/2 and TP53 mutation status associates with PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9:17501-17511.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.24770

  10. 10.

    Zhang L., Conejo-Garcia J.R., Katsaros D., Gimotty P.A., Massobrio M., Regnani G., Makrigiannakis A., Gray H., Schlienger K., Liebman M.N., et al. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:203-213.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa020177

  11. 11.

    Curiel T.J., Coukos G., Zou L., Alvarez X., Cheng P., Mottram P., Evdemon-Hogan M., Conejo-Garcia J.R., Zhang L., Burow M., et al. Specific recruitment of regulatory T cells in ovarian carcinoma fosters immune privilege and predicts reduced survival. Nat. Med. 2004;10:942-949.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1093

  12. 12.

    Hamanishi J., Mandai M., Iwasaki M., Okazaki T., Tanaka Y., Yamaguchi K., Higuchi T., Yagi H., Takakura K., Minato N., et al. Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes are prognostic factors of human ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2007;104:3360-3365.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0611533104

  13. 13.

    Gabrilovich D.I., Nagaraj S. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009;9:162-174.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri2506

  14. 14.

    Buckanovich R.J., Facciabene A., Kim S., Benencia F., Sasaroli D., Balint K., Katsaros D., O’Brien-Jenkins A., Gimotty P.A., Coukos G. Endothelin B receptor mediates the endothelial barrier to T cell homing to tumors and disables immune therapy. Nat. Med. 2008;14:28-36.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1699

  15. 15.

    Kandalaft L.E., Facciabene A., Buckanovich R.J., Coukos G. Endothelin B receptor, a new target in cancer immune therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009;15:4521-4528.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-0543

  16. 16.

    Champiat S., Ileana E., Giaccone G., Besse B., Mountzios G., Eggermont A., Soria J.C. Incorporating immune-checkpoint inhibitors into systemic therapy of NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2014;9:144-153.

    Not in our library10.1097/jto.0000000000000074

  17. 17.

    Alme A.K., Karir B.S., Faltas B.M., Drake C.G. Blocking immune checkpoints in prostate, kidney, and urothelial cancer: An overview. Urol. Oncol. 2016;34:171-181.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.01.006

  18. 18.

    Hamanishi J., Mandai M., Ikeda T., Minami M., Kawaguchi A., Murayama T., Kanai M., Mori Y., Matsumoto S., Chikuma S., et al. Safety and Antitumor Activity of Anti-PD-1 Antibody, Nivolumab, in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:4015-4022.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2015.62.3397

  19. 19.

    Varga A., Piha-Paul S.A., Ott P.A., Mehnert J.M., Berton-Rigaud D., Johnson E.A., Cheng J.D., Yuan S., Rubin E.H., Matei D.E. Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients (pts) with PD-L1 positive advanced ovarian cancer: Interim results from a phase Ib study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:5510.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.5510

  20. 20.

    Disis M.L., Patel M.R., Pant S., Hamilton E.P., Lockhart A.C., Kelly K., Beck J.T., Gordon M.S., Weiss G.J., Taylor M.H., et al. Avelumab (MSB0010718C; anti-PD-L1) in patients with recurrent/refractory ovarian cancer from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor phase Ib trial: Safety and clinical activity. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:5533.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.5533

  21. 21.

    Infante J.R., Braiteh F., Emens L.A., Balmanoukian A.S., Oaknin A., Wang Y., Liu B., Molinero L., Fasso M., O’Hear C., et al. Safety, clinical activity and biomarkers of atezolizumab (atezo) in advanced ovarian cancer (OC). Ann. Oncol. 2016;27:871P.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdw374.18

  22. 22.

    Burger R., Sill M., Zamarin D. NRG Oncology phase II randomized trial of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with persistent or recurrent ovarian cancer. Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Meeting of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society. OC11.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Lanitis E., Dangaj D., Irving M., Coukos G. Mechanisms regulating T cell infiltration and activity in solid tumors. Ann. Oncol. 2017;28:xii18-xii32.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdx238

  24. 24.

    Hegde P.S., Karanikas V., Evers S. The Where, the When, and the How of Immune Monitoring for Cancer Immunotherapies in the Era of Checkpoint Inhibition. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;22:1865-1874.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-1507

  25. 25.

    Galon J., Bruni D. Approaches to treat immune hot, altered and cold tumours with combination immunotherapies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2019;18:197-218.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41573-018-0007-y

  26. 26.

    Fukumura D., Kloepper J., Amoozgar Z., Duda D.G., Jain R.K. Enhancing cancer immunotherapy using antiangiogenics: Opportunities and challenges. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018;15:325-340.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.29

  27. 27.

    Voron T., Colussi O., Marcheteau E., Pernot S., Nizard M., Pointet A.L., Latreche S., Bergaya S., Benhamouda N., Tanchot C., et al. VEGF-A modulates expression of inhibitory checkpoints on CD8+ T cells in tumors. J. Exp. Med. 2015;212:139-148.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20140559

  28. 28.

    Gabrilovich D., Ishida T., Oyama T., Ran S., Kravtsov V., Nadaf S., Carbone D.P. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibits the development of dendritic cells and dramatically affects the differentiation of multiple hematopoietic lineages in vivo. Blood. 1998;92:4150-4166.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.06.065

  29. 29.

    Khan K.A., Kerbel R.S. Improving immunotherapy outcomes with anti-angiogenic treatments and vice versa. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018;15:310-324.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.9

  30. 30.

    Lee J.M., Cimino-Mathews A., Peer C.J., Zimmer A., Lipkowitz S., Annunziata C.M., Cao L., Harrell M.I., Swisher E.M., Houston N., et al. Safety and Clinical Activity of the Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Inhibitor Durvalumab in Combination With Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Olaparib or Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor 1-3 Inhibitor Cediranib in Women’s Cancers: A Dose-Escalation, Phase I Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017;35:2193-2202.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.72.1340

  31. 31.

    Hirte H., Lheureux S., Fleming G.F., Sugimoto A., Morgan R., Biagi J., Wang L., McGill S., Ivy S.P., Oza A.M. A phase 2 study of cediranib in recurrent or persistent ovarian, peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer: A trial of the Princess Margaret, Chicago and California Phase II Consortia. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015;138:55-61.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.009

  32. 32.

    Liu J.F., Herold C., Luo W., Penson R., Horowitz N., Konstantinopoulos P., Castro C., Curtis J., Matulonis U.A., Cannistra S., et al. 937PD A phase 2 trial of combination nivolumab and bevacizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2018;29:mdy285.146.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdy285.146

  33. 33.

    Lymparza [Package Insert], Astra Zeneca. 2014.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Lymparza [Package Insert], Astra Zeneca. 2017.

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    Lymparza [Package Insert], Astra Zeneca. 2018.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Rubraca [Package Insert] Clovis Oncology. 2016.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    Rubraca [Package Insert], Clovis Oncology. 2018.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    Zejula [Package Insert]. Waltham, MA: Tesaro Inc. 2017.

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    Aldinucci A., Gerlini G., Fossati S., Cipriani G., Ballerini C., Biagioli T., Pimpinelli N., Borgognoni L., Massacesi L., Moroni F., et al. A key role for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 activity during human dendritic cell maturation. J. Immunol. 2007;179:305-312.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.179.1.305

  40. 40.

    Valdor R., Schreiber V., Saenz L., Martínez T., Munoz-Suano A., Dominguez-Villar M., Ramírez P., Parrilla P., Aguado E., García-Cózar F., et al. Regulation of NFAT by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activity in T cells. Mol. Immunol. 2008;45:1863-1871.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2007.10.044

  41. 41.

    Stewart R.A., Pilié P.G., Yap T.A. Development of PARP and Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor Combinations. Cancer Res. 2018;78:6717-6725.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-18-2652

  42. 42.

    Nolan E., Savas P., Policheni A.N., Darcy P.K., Vaillant F., Mintoff C.P., Dushyanthen S., Mansour M., Pang J.M.B., Fox S.B., et al. Combined immune checkpoint blockade as a therapeutic strategy for BRCA1-mutated breast cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017;9:eaal4922.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aal4922

  43. 43.

    Adams S.F., Rixe O., McCance D., Lee J.H., Eberhardt S., Westgate S., Rutledge T., Muller C. Phase I study combining PARP-inhibition with immune checkpoint blockade in women with BRCA-deficient recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017;145:S99-S100.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.234

  44. 44.

    Konstantinopoulos P.A., Waggoner S.E., Vidal G.A., Mita M.M., Fleming G.F., Holloway R.W., Van Le L., Sachdev J.C., Chapman-Davis E., Colon-Otero G., et al. TOPACIO/Keynote-162: A phase 1/2 study of niraparib + pembrolizumab: Results from the platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) cohort. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018;36:106.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.106

  45. 45.

    Drew Y., De Jonge M., Hong S.H., Park Y.H., Wolfer A., Brown J., Ferguson M., Gore M.E., Alvarez R.H., Gresty C., et al. An open-label, phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): Results in germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian cancer (OC). Gynecol. Oncol. 2018;149:246-247.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.555

  46. 46.

    Lee J.M., Annunziata C.M., Houston N., Kohn E.C., Lipkowitz S., Minasian L., Nichols E., Trepel J., Trewhitt K., Zia F., et al. 936PD A phase 2 study of durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor and olaparib in recurrent ovarian cancer (OvCa). Ann. Oncol. 2018;29:mdy285.145.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdy285.145

  47. 47.

    Vogelstein B., Papadopoulos N., Velculescu V.E., Zhou S., Diaz L.A., Kinzler K.W. Cancer genome landscapes. Science. 2013;339:1546-1558.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1235122

  48. 48.

    Kanchi K.L., Johnson K.J., Lu C., McLellan M.D., Leiserson M.D., Wendl M.C., Zhang Q., Koboldt D.C., Xie M., Kandoth C., et al. Integrated analysis of germline and somatic variants in ovarian cancer. Nat. Commun. 2014;5:3156.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms4156

  49. 49.

    Deniger D.C., Pasetto A., Robbins P.F., Gartner J.J., Prickett T.D., Paria B.C., Malekzadeh P., Jia L., Yossef R., Langhan M.M., et al. T-cell Responses to TP53 “Hotspot” Mutations and Unique Neoantigens Expressed by Human Ovarian Cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018;24:5562-5573.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-0573

  50. 50.
  51. 51.

    Westergaard M.C.W., Andersen R., Chong C., Kjeldsen J.W., Pedersen M., Friese C., Hasselager T., Lajer H., Coukos G., Bassani-Sternberg M., et al. Tumour-reactive T cell subsets in the microenvironment of ovarian cancer. Br. J. Cancer. 2019;120:424-434.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41416-019-0384-y

  52. 52.

    Fujita K., Ikarashi H., Takakuwa K., Kodama S., Tokunaga A., Takahashi T., Tanaka K. Prolonged disease-free period in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Clin. Cancer Res. 1995;1:501-507.

    Not in our library

  53. 53.
  54. 54.

    Pölcher M., Rudlowski C., Friedrichs N., Mielich M., Höller T., Wolfgarten M., Kübler K., Büttner R., Kuhn W., Braun M. In vivo intratumor angiogenic treatment effects during taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy of ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:137.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2407-10-137

  55. 55.

    Peng J., Hamanishi J., Matsumura N., Abiko K., Murat K., Baba T., Yamaguchi K., Horikawa N., Hosoe Y., Murphy S.K., et al. Chemotherapy induces programmed cell death-ligand 1 overexpression via the nuclear factor-kappaB to foster an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2015;75:5034-5045.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-3098

  56. 56.

    Böhm S., Montfort A., Pearce O.M., Topping J., Chakravarty P., Everitt G.L., Clear A., McDermott J.R., Ennis D., Dowe T., et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy modulates the immune microenvironment in metastases of tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;22:3025-3036.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-2657

  57. 57.

    Lo C.S., Sanii S., Kroeger D.R., Milne K., Talhouk A., Chiu D.S., Rahimi K., Shaw P.A., Clarke B.A., Nelson B.H. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy of Ovarian Cancer Results in Three Patterns of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Response with Distinct Implications for Immunotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017;23:925-934.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-1433

  58. 58.

    Kershaw M.H., Westwood J.A., Parker L.L., Wang G., Eshhar Z., Mavroukakis S.A., White D.E., Wunderlich J.R., Canevari S., Rogers-Freezer L., et al. A phase I study on adoptive immunotherapy using gene-modified T cells for ovarian cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2006;12:6106-6115.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-1183

  59. 59.

    Song D.G., Powell D.J. Pro-survival signaling via CD27 costimulation drives effective CAR T-cell therapy. Oncoimmunology. 2012;1:547-549.

    Not in our library10.4161/onci.19458

  60. 60.

    Canevari S., Stoter G., Arienti F., Bolis G., Colnaghi M.I., Di Re E.M., Eggermont A.M., Goey S.H., Gratama J.W., Lamers C.H., et al. Regression of advanced ovarian carcinoma by intraperitoneal treatment with autologous T lymphocytes retargeted by a bispecific monoclonal antibody. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1463-1469.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/87.19.1463

  61. 61.

    Hassan R., Thomas A., Alewine C., Le D.T., Jaffee E.M., Pastan I. Mesothelin Immunotherapy for Cancer: Ready for Prime Time? J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:4171-4179.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.68.3672

  62. 62.

    Tanyi J.L., Haas A.R., Beatty G.L., Stashwick C.J., O’Hara M.H., Morgan M.A., Porter D.L., Melenhorst J.J., Plesa G., Lacey S.F., et al. Anti-mesothelin chimeric antigen receptor T cells in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. JCO. 2016;15:5511.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.5511

  63. 63.

    Geller M.A., Cooley S., Judson P.L., Ghebre R., Carson L.F., Argenta P.A., Jonson A.L., Panoskaltsis-Mortari A., Curtsinger J., McKenna D., et al. A phase II study of allogeneic natural killer cell therapy to treat patients with recurrent ovarian and breast cancer. Cytotherapy. 2011;13:98-107.

    Not in our library10.3109/14653249.2010.515582

  64. 64.

    Yang Y., Lim O., Kim T.M., Ahn Y.O., Choi H., Chung H., Min B., Her J.H., Cho S.Y., Keam B., et al. Phase I Study of Random Healthy Donor-Derived Allogeneic Natural Killer Cell Therapy in Patients with Malignant Lymphoma or Advanced Solid Tumors. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2016;4:215-224.

    Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-15-0118

  65. 65.

    Schmeel L.C., Schmeel F.C., Coch C., Schmidt-Wolf I.G. Cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cells in cancer immunotherapy: Report of the international registry on CIK cells (IRCC). J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2015;141:839-849.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00432-014-1864-3

  66. 66.

    Kim H.M., Kang J.S., Lim J., Park S.K., Lee K., Yoon Y.D., Lee C.W., Lee K.H., Han G., Yang K.H., et al. Inhibition of human ovarian tumor growth by cytokine-induced killer cells. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2007;30:1464-1470.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02977372

  67. 67.

    Urba W.J., Clark J.W., Steis R.G., Bookman M.A., Smith J.W., Beckner S., Maluish A.E., Rossio J.L., Rager H., Ortaldo J.R., et al. Intraperitoneal lymphokine-activated killer cell/interleukin-2 therapy in patients with intra-abdominal cancer: Immunologic considerations. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1989;81:602-611.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/81.8.602

  68. 68.

    Steis R.G., Urba W.J., VanderMolen L.A., Bookman M.A., Smith 2nd J.W., Clark J.W., Miller R.L., Crum E.D., Beckner S.K., McKnight J.E. Intraperitoneal lymphokine-activated killer-cell and interleukin-2 therapy for malignancies limited to the peritoneal cavity. J. Clin. Oncol. 1990;8:1618-1629.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.1990.8.10.1618

  69. 69.

    Stewart J.A., Belinson J.L., Moore A.L., Dorighi J.A., Grant B.W., Haugh L.D., Roberts J.D., Albertini R.J., Branda R.F. Phase I trial of intraperitoneal recombinant interleukin-2/lymphokine-activated killer cells in patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 1990;50:6302-6310.

    Not in our library

  70. 70.

    Zhou Y., Chen C.L., Jiang S.W., Feng Y., Yuan L., Chen P., Zhang L., Huang S., Li J., Xia J.C., et al. Retrospective analysis of the efficacy of adjuvant CIK cell therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer patients who received postoperative chemotherapy. Oncoimmunology. 2018;8:e1528411.

    Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2018.1528411

  71. 71.

    Hamanishi J., Mandai M., Konishi I. Immune checkpoint inhibition in ovarian cancer. Int. Immunol. 2016;28:339-348.

    Not in our library10.1093/intimm/dxw020

  72. 72.

    Drakes M.L., Mehrotra S., Aldulescu M., Potkul R.K., Liu Y., Grisoli A., Joyce C., O’Brien T.E., Stack M.S., Stiff P.J. Stratification of ovarian tumor pathology by expression of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and PD-ligand- 1 (PD-L1) in ovarian cancer. J. Ovarian Res. 2018;11:43.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13048-018-0414-z

  73. 73.

    Abiko K., Matsumura N., Hamanishi J., Horikawa N., Murakami R., Yamaguchi K., Yoshioka Y., Baba T., Konishi I., Mandai M. IFN-γ from lymphocytes induces PD-L1 expression and promotes progression of ovariancancer. Br. J. Cancer. 2015;112:1501-1509.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2015.101

  74. 74.
  75. 75.
  76. 76.

    Webb J.R., Milne K., Kroeger D.R., Nelson B.H. PD-L1 expression is associated with tumor-infiltrating T cells and favorable prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016;141:293-302.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.03.008

  77. 77.

    Mittica G., Genta S., Aglietta M., Valabrega G. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A New Opportunity in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016;17:1169.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms17071169

  78. 78.

    DeLeeuw R.J., Kroeger D.R., Kost S.E., Chang P.P., Webb J.R., Nelson B.H. CD25 identifies a subset of CD4⁺FoxP3⁻ TIL that are exhausted yet prognostically favorable in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2015;3:245-253.

    Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-14-0146

  79. 79.

    Nielsen J.S., Sahota R.A., Milne K., Kost S.E., Nesslinger N.J., Watson P.H., Nelson B.H. CD20+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have an atypical CD27- memory phenotype and together with CD8+ T cells promote favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012;18:3281-3292.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-0234

  80. 80.

    Kroeger D.R., Milne K., Nelson B.H. Tumor-Infiltrating Plasma Cells Are Associated with Tertiary Lymphoid Structures, Cytolytic T-Cell Responses, and Superior Prognosis in Ovarian Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;22:3005-3015.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-2762

  81. 81.

    Zhang A.W., McPherson A., Milne K., Kroeger D.R., Hamilton P.T., Miranda A., Funnell T., Little N., de Souza C.P., Laan S., et al. Interfaces of Malignant and Immunologic Clonal Dynamics in Ovarian Cancer. Cell. 2018;173:1755-1769.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.073

  82. 82.

    Matulonis U.A., Shapira-Frommer R., Santin A., Lisyanskaya A.S., Pignata S., Vergote I., Raspagliesi F., Sonke G.S., Birrer M., Provencher D.M., et al. Antitumor Activity and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced RecurrentOvarian Cancer: Results from the Phase 2 KEYNOTE-100 Study. Ann. Oncol. 2019;36:5511.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdz135

  83. 83.

    Cristescu R., Mogg R., Ayers M., Albright A., Murphy E., Yearley J., Sher X., Liu X.Q., Lu H., Nebozhyn M., et al. Pan-tumor genomic biomarkers for PD-1 checkpoint blockade-based immunotherapy. Science. 2018;362:eaar3593.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aar3593

  84. 84.

    Odunsi K. Immunotherapy in ovarian cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2017;28:viii1-viii7.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdx444

  85. 85.

    Hanlon D.J., Aldo P.B., Devine L., Alvero A.B., Engberg A.K., Edelson R., Mor G. Enhanced stimulation of anti-ovarian cancer CD8(+) T cells by dendritic cells loaded with nanoparticle encapsulated tumor antigen. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2011;65:597-609.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00968.x

  86. 86.

    Odunsi K., Matsuzaki J., James S.R., Mhawech-Fauceglia P., Tsuji T., Miller A., Zhang W., Akers S.N., Griffiths E.A., Miliotto A., et al. Epigenetic potentiation of NY-ESO-1 vaccine therapy in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2014;2:37-49.

    Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-13-0126

  87. 87.

    Rodriguez-Garcia A. Minutolo NG T-cell target antigens across major gynecologic cancers. Gynecol. Oncol. 2017;145:426-435.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.510

Cited by papers we hold 5

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.