This review highlights advances in management and overall survival in recurrent metastatic cervical cancer, suggesting new directions for treatment.
Cervical cancer continues to have a global impact, with an annual incidence of 600,000 cases and mortality between 300,000–350,000. Despite improved outcomes for early-stage and locally advanced disease, and decades of treatment advancements, the 5-year overall survival for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (RMCC) remains below 20%. This review aims to examine advances in RMCC management, current evidence, and novel research that could change future management. Platinum-based chemotherapy combined with paclitaxel continues to have strong evidence as the backbone of first-line management. The integration of bevacizumab further prolonged survival, and the advent of immunotherapy has proved groundbreaking for RMCC prognosis. Specifically, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab may prolong survival by up to a year when added to first-line management. However, second- and third-line management of RMCC remains suboptimal. Antibody–drug conjugates, such as tisotumab vedotin, have demonstrated the most prolonged overall and progression-free survival in this setting. Future breakthroughs appear imminent in the fields of combined immunotherapy and adoptive cell therapy, with Phase I and II trial evidence suggesting promising response rates and improved overall survival, along with well-tolerated toxicity. The recent innovations in RMCC management trend towards an increasingly individualized approach. Continued investment is crucial to better understand a disease that maintains abysmal outcomes in the recurrent or metastatic setting, and remains suboptimally managed on a global scale. Fortunately, groundbreaking trials, such as KEYNOTE-826, BEATcc, and innovaTV 301, have established improved outcomes through immunotherapy and antibody–drug conjugates as standards of care in RMCC management, and continue to guide future research endeavors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Backer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: