Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest mortality rate of all gynecological malignancies due to the high prevalence of advanced stages of diagnosis and the high rate of recurrence. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of OC tumors contributes to the rapid development of resistance to conventional chemotherapy. In recent years, in order to overcome these problems, targeted therapies have been introduced in various types of tumors, including gynecological cancer. However, the lack of predictive biomarkers showing different clinical benefits limits the effectiveness of these therapies. This requires the development of preclinical models that can replicate the histological and molecular characteristics of OC subtypes. In this scenario, organoids become an important preclinical model for personalized medicine. In fact, patient-derived organoids (PDO) recapture tumor heterogeneity with the possibility of performing drug screening. However, to best reproduce the patient’s characteristics, it is necessary to develop a specific extracellular matrix (ECM) and introduce a tumor microenvironment (TME), which both represent an actual object of study to improve drug screening, particularly when used in targeted therapy and immunotherapy to guide therapeutic decisions. In this review, we summarize the current state of the art for the screening of PDOs, ECM, TME, and drugs in the setting of OC, as well as discussing the clinical implications and future perspectives for the research of OC organoids.

Objective: we performed a systematic review/meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of septate uterus and hysteroscopic metroplasty on pregnancy rate-(PR), live birth rate-(LBR), spontaneous abortion-(SA) and preterm labor (PL) in infertile/recurrent miscarriage-(RM) patients. Data sources: a literature search of relevant papers was conducted using electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, Science direct). Study eligibility criteria: we included in this meta-analysis all types of observational studies that evaluated the clinical impact of the uterine septum and its resection (hysteroscopic metroplasty) on reproductive and obstetrics outcomes. The population included were patients with a diagnosis of infertility or recurrent pregnancy loss. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: outcomes were evaluated according to three subgroups: (i) Women with untreated uterine septum versus women without septum (controls); (ii) Women with treated uterine septum versus women with untreated septum (controls); (iii) Women before and after septum removal. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the outcome measures. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the depth of the septum. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression analysis according to specific features: assisted reproductive technology/spontaneous conception, study design and quality of papers included Results: data from 38 studies were extracted. (i) septum versus no septum: a lower PR and LBR were associated with septate uterus vs. controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27–0.76; p < 0.0001; and OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12–0.39; p < 0.0001); a higher proportion of SA and PL was associated with septate uterus vs. controls (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.90–6.36; p < 0.0001; OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.52–4.31; p = 0.0004). (ii) treated versus untreated septum: PR and PL were not different in removed vs. unremoved septum(OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.49–2.49; p = 0.82 and OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.35–1.86; p = 0.62); a lower proportion of SA was associated with removed vs. unremoved septum (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21–1.04; p = 0.001); (iii) before-after septum removal: the proportion of LBR was higher after the removal of septum (OR 49.58, 95% CI 29.93–82.13; p < 0.0001) and the proportion of SA and PL was lower after the removal of the septum (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.02–0.04; p < 0.000 and OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.03–0.08; p < 0.0001) Conclusions: the results show the detrimental effect of the uterine septum on PR, LBR, SA and PL. Its treatment reduces the rate of SA.

Background/Objectives: Cancer immunotherapy through the use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have shown significant promise in endometrial carcinoma (EC), particularly in tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI) or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), present in approximately 30% of cases. This review evaluated PD-L1 and PD-1 expression as potential biomarkers for immunotherapy response in EC, focusing on their relationship with MSI status. Methods: A systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, analyzed studies from MEDLINE and Embase until February 2023 on PD-1/PD-L1 expression in EC stratified by MSI status, including diverse study designs but excluding conference abstracts, with independent screening, data extraction, and additional reference checks to ensure comprehensive coverage. Results: A systematic analysis of 10 studies found that PD-L1 expression was more frequently expressed in MSI tumors (49%) compared to microsatellite-stable tumors (MSS) (33.5%), while PD-1 was expressed in 58% of MSI cases and 48% of MSS cases. Despite these findings, the prognostic value of PD-L1/PD-1 remains uncertain, with conflicting results regarding their association with survival outcomes. PD-L1 expression varied across molecular subtypes, being highest in POLE-mutated tumors (76.56%) and serous carcinomas (73%). Differences in PD-L1 expression between primary and metastatic sites were also noted, complicating its use as a biomarker. Conclusions: The assessment of PD-L1 expression in EC could represent a valuable option for selecting patients who may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), including those in the MSS cohort, thereby ensuring a more tailored and personalized treatment strategy.

(1) Background: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) classified as no specific molecular profile (NSMP) represents a heterogeneous group with variable prognoses. This retrospective, single-center study aims to further stratify NSMP ECs to tailor treatment strategies and improve outcomes. (2) Methods: From 2020 to 2023, we collected data on 51 patients diagnosed with NSMP EC following the introduction of molecular profiling at our institution. Patients were retrospectively analyzed for estrogen receptor (ER) status, histotype, and grade to identify potential prognostic subgroups. (3) Results: Our analysis identified two distinct subgroups within NSMP EC: low-risk and high-risk, based on ER status, histotype, and grade. The low-risk NSMP group demonstrated significantly better survival outcomes compared to the high-risk group. With a median follow-up time of 16 moths (IQR 13.0–29.7), the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for the low-risk group were 100%. For the high-risk group, the DFS and OS were 71.4% and 78.6%, respectively, which showed a statistically significantly difference (Log-Rank Mantel-Cox < 0.001). In the high-risk group, four patients experienced recurrence, and three of these patients died. (4) Conclusions: Stratifying NSMP EC into low-risk and high-risk categories based on ER status, histotype, and grade can lead to more accurate prognostic assessments. In time, it may require tailored adjuvant therapies and a personalized treatment.

This study provides a comprehensive overview of the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) endometrial carcinomas. Immunotherapy has emerged as a transformative approach in the treatment of MMRd due to the high mutation rate and subsequent PD-1/PD-L1 overexpression seen in these tumors. This review analyzes the current landscape of existing randomized clinical trials, highlighting the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) like pembrolizumab, avelumab, and dostarlimab. Additionally, the focus extends to the potential of combined therapeutic strategies, such as the integration of ICIs with targeted agents, while also exploring the application of immunotherapy in non-traditional settings beyond advanced or recurrent disease. This includes emerging roles in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant contexts to prevent recurrence and target early-stage disease. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring treatments based on the molecular characteristics of each tumor and paving the way for future advancements in the field of gynecologic oncology. Despite promising results, this article acknowledges the necessity of further research to refine patient selection criteria and explore combination strategies that can overcome resistance mechanisms.

Objective: We aimed to compare the clinical utility and diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model, ROMA score, RMI I, and RMI IV, as well as two serum markers (CA125 and HE4) in preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study extracting all consecutive patients with AMs seen at our Institution between January 2015 and December 2020. Accuracy metrics included sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for basic discrimination between AMs. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination ability and clinical utility (net benefit, NB). Results: A total of 581 women were included; 481 (82.8%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 100 (17.2%) had a malignant tumor. The SE and SP of CA125, HE4, ROMA score, RMI I, RMI IV, and ADNEX model were 0.60 (0.54–0.66) and 0.80 (0.76–0.83); 0.39 (0.30–0.49) and 0.96 (0.94–0.98); 0.59 (0.50–0.68) and 0.92 (0.88–0.95); 0.56 (0.46–0.65) and 0.98 (0.96–0.99); 0.54 (0.44–0.63) and 0.96 (0.94–0.98); 0.82 (0.73–0.88) and 0.91 (0.89–0.94), respectively. The overall AUC was 0.76 (0.74–0.79) for CA125, 0.81 (0.78–0.83) for HE4, 0.82 (0.80–0.85) for ROMA, 0.86 (0.84–0.88) for RMI I, 0.83 (0.81–0.86) for RMI IV, and 0.92 (0.90–0.94) for ADNEX. The NB for ADNEX was higher than other biomarkers and models across all decision thresholds between 5% and 50%. Conclusions: The ADNEX model showed a better discrimination ability and clinical utility when differentiating malignant from benign Ams, compared to CA125, HE4, ROMA score, RMI I, and RMI IV.