Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which Endpoints Are Measured Most Often in European Phase II & III Prostate Cancer Trials?

9 July 2026

Across 121 European CTIS prostate cancer Phase II/III trials, safety/adverse events were the most frequently measured endpoint family, appearing in 85 trials (70.2%). Overall survival followed in 78 trials (64.5%), quality-of-life or patient-reported outcomes in 64 trials (52.9%), and radiographic progression-free survival in 57 trials (47.1%). Phase III trials concentrated on OS and rPFS, while Phase II trials more often used safety, PSA response, ORR, pharmacokinetics, and duration-of-response endpoints.

Trials analysed
121
Unique CTIS prostate cancer Phase II/III trials
Top endpoint family
70.2%
Safety/adverse events: 85/121 trials
Leading hard endpoint
64.5%
Overall survival: 78/121 trials
CTIS timing
54 days
Median initial CTIS submission to first authorization

Safety, survival, QoL and rPFS dominate the European prostate cancer endpoint landscape

The ten most common endpoint families were led by safety/adverse events in 85/121 trials (70.2%), overall survival in 78/121 (64.5%), quality-of-life or patient-reported outcomes in 64/121 (52.9%), and radiographic progression-free survival in 57/121 (47.1%).

Endpoint families measured in prostate cancer Phase II/III trials
Safety / adverse events70.2%
Overall survival (OS)64.5%
Quality of life / PRO52.9%
Radiographic PFS (rPFS)47.1%
PSA response / decline38.0%
Progression-free survival (PFS)38.0%
Objective response rate (ORR)34.7%
Pharmacokinetics (PK)33.9%
Duration of response (DOR)29.8%
Time to PSA progression27.3%
Percentage of 121 unique European CTIS prostate cancer Phase II/III trials measuring each endpoint family.
Interpretation

The prostate cancer endpoint stack is not built around a single efficacy measure. CTIS submissions most often combine safety, survival, radiographic progression, patient-reported outcomes, PSA biology and response endpoints, reflecting both registrational survival expectations and prostate-specific disease monitoring.

Primary endpoints concentrate on rPFS, OS and safety; secondary endpoints carry the broader evidence package

As primary endpoints, safety/adverse events appeared in 33/121 trials (27.3%), rPFS in 30/121 (24.8%) and OS in 29/121 (24.0%). As secondary endpoints, safety appeared in 67/121 (55.4%), OS in 64/121 (52.9%), QoL/PRO in 60/121 (49.6%), and PSA response plus ORR each in 41/121 (33.9%). Explicit exploratory/other endpoint labeling was uncommon: biomarkers/pharmacodynamics led that group at 5/121 trials (4.1%).

Top endpoint families by endpoint role
Endpoint family Primary Secondary Exploratory / other
Safety / adverse events33 (27.3%)67 (55.4%)3 (2.5%)
Overall survival29 (24.0%)64 (52.9%)2 (1.7%)
Radiographic PFS30 (24.8%)32 (26.4%)0 (0.0%)
Quality of life / PRO4 (3.3%)60 (49.6%)3 (2.5%)
PSA response / decline15 (12.4%)41 (33.9%)0 (0.0%)
Objective response rate6 (5.0%)41 (33.9%)0 (0.0%)
Biomarkers / pharmacodynamics1 (0.8%)20 (16.5%)5 (4.1%)
Counts are trial-level presence by endpoint role; percentages use 121 trials as denominator.
Interpretation

Primary endpoint choices remain split between early-phase tolerability and later-phase disease-control or survival outcomes. The secondary endpoint layer is where sponsors most consistently add QoL, PSA kinetics, response, PK and biomarker evidence for CTIS/EU submissions.

mCRPC and mHSPC use different endpoint hierarchies

The largest sub-disease group was mCRPC or castration-resistant prostate cancer with 51/121 trials (42.1%). In mCRPC, OS appeared in 41/51 trials (80.4%), safety in 40/51 (78.4%) and rPFS in 36/51 (70.6%). In mHSPC/castration-sensitive disease, OS appeared in 13/15 trials (86.7%), while both QoL/PRO and rPFS appeared in 12/15 (80.0%).

Most frequent endpoint families by analyzable subtype
Subtype n Endpoint #1 Endpoint #2 Endpoint #3
mCRPC / castration-resistant51OS: 41 (80.4%)Safety: 40 (78.4%)rPFS: 36 (70.6%)
Prostate cancer, stage not specified25Safety: 15 (60.0%)QoL/PRO: 13 (52.0%)OS: 11 (44.0%)
Metastatic, subtype not specified16Safety: 10 (62.5%)PFS: 7 (43.8%)ORR / PK: 7 (43.8%)
mHSPC / castration-sensitive15OS: 13 (86.7%)QoL/PRO: 12 (80.0%)rPFS: 12 (80.0%)
Localized / recurrent / oligometastatic11Safety: 8 (72.7%)OS: 7 (63.6%)PFS / QoL: 6 (54.5%)
Subtype comparisons shown only for groups with at least 10 trials.
Interpretation

Advanced metastatic settings drive the strongest survival and rPFS signal. mHSPC trials especially emphasize OS, rPFS and QoL together, while Phase II-heavy metastatic and unspecified cohorts retain more safety, PSA, ORR and PK content.

Phase II is safety- and signal-seeking; Phase III is survival-led

Among 57 Phase II-like trials, safety/adverse events appeared in 47 (82.5%), PSA response in 32 (56.1%), and ORR plus OS each in 30 (52.6%). Among 62 Phase III trials, OS appeared in 48 (77.4%), safety and QoL/PRO each in 37 (59.7%), and rPFS in 29 (46.8%). Two Phase II/III bridge trials were present and are counted in the overall total.

Endpoint family frequency by phase
Endpoint family Pha