Review evaluates diagnostic limitations and resistance in gynecological cancers, suggesting implications for precision medicine.
Ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers are major contributors to female cancer-related morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where disparities in access to diagnostics and treatment persist. Despite advancements in screening and therapeutic interventions, improvements in survival outcomes have remained modest. This review synthesises current evidence on diagnostic limitations, tumour biology, mechanisms of therapeutic resistance, and recent translational advances. It evaluates the role of emerging technologies, including circulating tumour DNA analysis, methylation profiling, organoid-based testing, and artificial intelligence-driven imaging, in advancing precision oncology. Gynaecological tumours exhibit extensive genetic, epigenetic, and microenvironmental heterogeneity, driven by cancer stem cells, signalling pathway crosstalk, and metabolic reprogramming. Resistance arises through canonical and adaptive mechanisms involving DNA repair restoration, stromal protection, and immune evasion, contributing to recurrence and poor prognosis. While immunotherapies have demonstrated partial success, their efficacy is hindered by dynamic tumour microenvironments and resistance pathways. Precision oncology, incorporating multi-omics integration and functional assays, alongside computational modelling, offers a transformative approach to personalised treatment strategies. Bridging mechanistic tumour insights with advanced diagnostic and functional testing platforms provides a forward-looking paradigm for functional precision medicine. Addressing implementation barriers such as cost, scalability, and healthcare inequality will be crucial to translating these advances into clinical benefit. This framework has the potential to redefine gynaecological cancer management over the next decade by overcoming diagnostic blind spots, recurrence, and therapeutic resistance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolde et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: