Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which Endpoints Dominate European Endometrial/Uterine Cancer Phase II & III Trials?

8 July 2026

Across 47 European CTIS Phase II & III endometrial/uterine cancer trials, endpoint strategy is split between response-driven Phase II development and survival-driven Phase III confirmation. Primary endpoints were led by objective response rate (ORR) in 19/47 trials (40.4%) and safety/dose-finding in 17/47 (36.2%), while Phase III primary endpoints shifted strongly toward overall survival (OS) in 11/18 trials (61.1%) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 10/18 (55.6%).

47
EU CTIS trials
40.4%
Primary ORR use
61.1%
Phase III primary OS
70.2%
Secondary safety / ORR

What endpoints are measured most often by endpoint hierarchy?

The endpoint inventory contained 86 primary endpoint entries, 311 secondary endpoint entries, and 2 explicitly exploratory endpoint entries. At trial level, ORR was the most common primary endpoint family, while safety and ORR were tied as the most common secondary endpoint families.

Trial-level endpoint family frequency, denominator = 47 trials
Primary endpoints
ORR / objective response40.4%
Safety / dose-finding36.2%
OS27.7%
PFS25.5%
Regression / cCR / pCR6.4%
Secondary endpoints
Safety / dose-finding70.2%
ORR / objective response70.2%
DOR68.1%
OS66.0%
PFS63.8%
ORR = objective response rate; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression-free survival; DOR = duration of response; cCR = clinical complete response; pCR = pathologic complete response.
Interpretation

European CTIS endometrial/uterine cancer protocols most often use ORR and safety to make the primary development decision, then surround that decision with secondary survival, response durability, disease control, PK, QoL, and immunogenicity endpoints.

How does endpoint strategy change between Phase II and Phase III?

Phase II trials accounted for 29/47 studies (61.7%) and were dominated by primary ORR in 18/29 trials (62.1%) and safety/dose-finding in 14/29 (48.3%). Phase III trials accounted for 18/47 studies (38.3%) and shifted to primary OS in 11/18 trials (61.1%) and primary PFS in 10/18 (55.6%).

Primary endpoint families by phase
Phase II
29 trials
ORR18 / 29 · 62.1%
Safety / dose-finding14 / 29 · 48.3%
Regression / cCR / pCR3 / 29 · 10.3%
PFS or OS2 / 29 each · 6.9%
Phase III
18 trials
OS11 / 18 · 61.1%
PFS10 / 18 · 55.6%
Safety / dose-finding3 / 18 · 16.7%
ORR1 / 18 · 5.6%
Percentages use phase-specific denominators: Phase II n=29; Phase III n=18.
Interpretation

The CTIS/EU pattern is clear: Phase II protocols mostly test whether a therapy produces measurable tumour response and acceptable safety, while Phase III protocols anchor the primary regulatory question in OS and PFS.

Do endpoint choices differ by endometrial-only versus basket-trial disease setting?

Endometrial-only studies represented 19/47 trials (40.4%), while multi-tumour basket studies including endometrial cancer represented 28/47 (59.6%). Endometrial-only trials used primary PFS and OS more often, while basket trials relied more on ORR and safety/dose-finding.

Primary endpoint families by disease setting
Disease setting Trials Top primary endpoint pattern
Endometrial-only 19 / 47 · 40.4% PFS 9/19 (47.4%) and OS 9/19 (47.4%)
Basket / multi-tumour 28 / 47 · 59.6% ORR 16/28 (57.1%) and safety 14/28 (50.0%)
Sub-disease groups with sufficient count
Advanced/recurrent/metastatic: 18/47 (38.3%)
Unspecified endometrial subgroup: 17/47 (36.2%)
Localized/peri-operative/risk-defined: 6/47 (12.8%)
Biomarker-defined groups
MMR/MSI-defined: 6/47 (12.8%)
HER2-defined: 5/47 (10.6%)
PIK3CA/PTEN-defined: captured below comparison threshold
Disease categories are based on CTIS disease descriptors and may overlap for biomarker-defined subgroups.
Interpretation

Endometrial-only CTIS submissions look more confirmatory, with PFS/OS as leading primary endpoints. Basket trials including endometrial cancer are more signal-seeking, with ORR and safety/dose-finding dominating primary endpoint choices.

Which modality groups have enough trials to compare endpoint strategy?

Three modality groups were large enough for comparison: small molecules appeared in 29/47 trials (61.7%), monoclonal antibodies in 18/47 (38.3%), and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in 14/47 (29.8%). Trials may include more than one modality, so modality denominators overlap.

Primary endpoint pattern by modality group
Modality Trials Most common primary endpoint families Notable secondary signal
Small molecule 29 OS 12/29 (41.4%); PFS 11/29 (37.9%) DOR 23/29 (79.3%)
Monoclonal antibody 18 ORR 8/18 (44.4%); OS/PFS/safety 6/18 each (33.3%) Secondary ORR 16/18 (88.9%)
ADC 14 Safety 7/14 (50.0%); OS and ORR 6/14 each (42.9%) PK 9/14 (64.3%)
ADC = antibody-drug conjugate; PK = pharmacokinetics.
Interpretation

ADC trials carry the heaviest safety and PK endpoint burden, while monoclonal antibody trials most consistently keep ORR in the endpoint package. Small-molecule studies are more balanced between survival endpoints and response/durability endpoints.

What does the CTIS/EU submission mix imply for endpoint planning?

The 47-trial EU CTIS cohort was weighted toward 2024 authorizations, with 27/47 trials (57.4%) in 2024, 12/47 (25.5%) in 2025, and 8/47 (17.0%) in 2026. Across the CTIS period, Phase III submissions consistently used PFS/OS as the primary confirmatory anchor.

CTIS-authorized trials by year and phase
202427 trials · 17 Phase II / 10 Phase III
202512 trials · 7 Phase II / 5 Phase III
20268 trials · 5 Phase II / 3 Phase III
Year is based on first CTIS authorization date in the cohort files.
Interpretation

For sponsors preparing EU CTIS submissions in endometrial/uterine cancer, the practical benchmark is a two-layer package: ORR/safety for Phase II decision-making and PFS/OS for Phase III confirmation, with DOR, DCR, QoL, PK, ADA, and biomarker endpoints used as supporting evidence.

What adjacent endpoint questions can be answered from the same data?

The same endpoint data also show how often trials include patient-reported outcomes, biomarker endpoints, and explicitly exploratory endpoint packages.

Additional endpoint signals
15 / 47
QoL / PRO
Patient-reported outcomes appeared in secondary endpoint packages in 31.9% of trials.
9 / 47
Biomarker / PD
Biomarker or pharmacodynamic endpoints appeared in 19.1% of trials.
1 / 47
Exploratory-labelled
Only one trial explicitly separated exploratory endpoints, focused on pathology and tissue analysis.
PRO = patient-reported outcome; PD = pharmacodynamic.
Interpretation

QoL has become a meaningful secondary endpoint layer, especially in Phase III where it appeared in 10/18 trials (55.6%). Exploratory endpoints were rarely labelled as such, so biomarker work is usually embedded inside secondary endpoint packages rather than separated into an exploratory section.

Definitions used in this report

ORR = objective response rate; PFS = progression-free survival; OS = overall survival; DOR = duration of response; DCR = disease control rate; QoL = quality of life; PRO = patient-reported outcome; PK = pharmacokinetics; ADA = anti-drug antibody; ADC = antibody-drug conjugate; CTIS = Clinical Trials Information System.