Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which Endpoints Are Measured Most Often in European Phase II & III Renal Cell Carcinoma Trials?

8 July 2026

Across 45 European CTIS renal cell carcinoma trial records, objective response or radiographic response was the most frequently measured endpoint family, appearing in 36/45 trials (80.0%). Safety appeared in 33/45 trials (73.3%), progression-free, disease-free, recurrence-free, or metastasis-free survival in 31/45 (68.9%), and overall survival in 27/45 (60.0%). Phase II trials were more response- and safety-heavy, while Phase III trials were more survival-balanced.

Included trials
45
Top endpoint
80.0%
Response
Safety
73.3%
33/45
Phase split
30 / 15
Phase II / III

Which endpoint families appear most often across all RCC Phase II & III records?

Objective response or radiographic response led the endpoint landscape, appearing in 36/45 trials (80.0%). Safety followed in 33/45 (73.3%), progression-related survival endpoints in 31/45 (68.9%), and overall survival in 27/45 (60.0%).

Endpoint families measured in any endpoint tier
Objective / radiographic response36/45 · 80.0%
Safety / tolerability33/45 · 73.3%
PFS / DFS / RFS / MFS31/45 · 68.9%
Overall survival27/45 · 60.0%
Duration / time to response21/45 · 46.7%
Disease control / clinical benefit17/45 · 37.8%
PK / PD / immunogenicity14/45 · 31.1%
Trial-level frequency across primary, secondary, and exploratory endpoint tiers; denominator = 45 CTIS RCC records.
Interpretation

The European RCC endpoint core is RECIST-centered response plus time-to-event oncology outcomes. Response appears most often overall, but safety and progression-related survival are close enough to function as standard companion endpoint families in most CTIS submissions.

How does endpoint frequency change by primary, secondary, and exploratory tier?

Primary endpoints were dominated by response: objective or radiographic response appeared as a primary endpoint family in 27/45 trials (60.0%). Secondary endpoints were broader, with progression-related survival and safety each in 25/45 (55.6%), objective response in 24/45 (53.3%), and overall survival in 24/45 (53.3%). Exploratory endpoint categories were concentrated in 3/45 trials (6.7%), mainly biomarker-oriented.

Endpoint tier matrix
Endpoint family Primary Secondary Exploratory
Objective / radiographic response27 · 60.0%24 · 53.3%1 · 2.2%
Safety / tolerability14 · 31.1%25 · 55.6%0 · 0.0%
PFS / DFS / RFS / MFS13 · 28.9%25 · 55.6%0 · 0.0%
Overall survival5 · 11.1%24 · 53.3%0 · 0.0%
Duration / time to response1 · 2.2%21 · 46.7%0 · 0.0%
PK / PD / immunogenicity3 · 6.7%13 · 28.9%1 · 2.2%
Biomarker / translational2 · 4.4%5 · 11.1%3 · 6.7%
Tier-specific trial-level frequency; denominator = 45 CTIS RCC records.
Interpretation

Primary endpoint strategy is response-led, especially in Phase II-style RCC development. Secondary endpoint packages carry the confirmatory burden: survival, safety, durability, and disease control are measured together to support clinical interpretation beyond initial response.

How do Phase II and Phase III RCC endpoint patterns differ?

Phase II contributed 30/45 records (66.7%) and Phase III contributed 15/45 (33.3%). In Phase II, objective response appeared in 27/30 trials (90.0%) and safety in 26/30 (86.7%). In Phase III, objective response and overall survival were equally frequent at 9/15 trials (60.0%), followed by progression-related survival in 8/15 (53.3%).

Endpoint frequency by phase
Phase II · n=30
Response90.0%
Safety86.7%
PFS / DFS / RFS76.7%
OS60.0%
Phase III · n=15
Response60.0%
OS60.0%
PFS / DFS / RFS53.3%
Safety46.7%
Endpoint families measured in any endpoint tier, split by CTIS phase cohort.
Interpretation

The phase split shows the expected development logic: Phase II RCC trials emphasize response, safety, dose, and activity signals, while Phase III trials shift toward survival-confirmatory architecture with OS and PFS becoming as important as response.

Which RCC subgroups have enough records to compare endpoint patterns?

The largest analyzable disease groups were advanced/metastatic RCC in 28/45 records (62.2%), clear-cell RCC or ccRCC in 15/45 (33.3%), and RCC not further specified in 8/45 (17.8%). Papillary RCC and localized/neoadjuvant RCC each appeared in 3/45 records (6.7%).

Disease and subtype groups
Advanced / metastatic RCC28/45 · 62.2%
Clear-cell RCC / ccRCC15/45 · 33.3%
RCC not further specified8/45 · 17.8%
Kidney carcinoma / renal mass4/45 · 8.9%
Papillary RCC3/45 · 6.7%
Localized / neoadjuvant RCC3/45 · 6.7%
Disease labels are not mutually exclusive; records can contribute to more than one RCC subgroup.
Endpoint patterns in the three largest disease groups
Disease group Response Safety PFS / DFS / RFS OS
Advanced / metastatic RCC · n=2823 · 82.1%20 · 71.4%19 · 67.9%16 · 57.1%
Clear-cell RCC / ccRCC · n=1513 · 86.7%12 · 80.0%11 · 73.3%10 · 66.7%
RCC not further specified · n=85 · 62.5%5 · 62.5%6 · 75.0%5 · 62.5%
Endpoint families measured in any tier; comparison anchored on disease groups with at least 8 records.
Interpretation

Clear-cell and advanced/metastatic RCC records show the strongest endpoint density: response, safety, progression-related survival, and OS all appear frequently. Clear-cell RCC also shows a stronger imaging/diagnostic signal, with imaging or PET endpoints appearing as primary endpoints in 4/15 clear-cell records (26.7%).

Do modality factors change which RCC endpoints are measured?

The two largest modality groups were monoclonal antibodies and small molecules, each appearing in 27/45 records (60.0%). Combination-modality records accounted for 19/45 trials (42.2%). Radiopharmaceutical records were smaller at 4/45 (8.9%) but were strongly associated with imaging, PET, SUV, and tumor-to-background endpoint families.

Modality frequency
Monoclonal antibody
27
60.0%
Small molecule
27
60.0%
Radiopharmaceutical
4
8.9%
Large modality group Response Safety PFS / DFS / RFS OS
Monoclonal antibody · n=2721 · 77.8%22 · 81.5%20 · 74.1%17 · 63.0%
Small molecule · n=2722 · 81.5%17 · 63.0%18 · 66.7%18 · 66.7%
Modality labels are not mutually exclusive; records may include combination regimens.
Interpretation

Small-molecule RCC programs are slightly more response- and survival-oriented, while monoclonal antibody programs show a stronger safety signal. Radiopharmaceutical records are too few for broad modality comparison but create a distinct imaging endpoint cluster.

How broad are CTIS endpoint packages in RCC Phase II & III submissions?

Across the 45 CTIS records, primary endpoint entries were present in 41/45 records (91.1%), secondary endpoint entries in 37/45 (82.2%), and exploratory endpoint entries in 3/45 (6.7%). The records contained 90 primary endpoint entries, 237 secondary endpoint entries, and 5 exploratory endpoint entries.

Endpoint tier breadth
Primary
91.1%
41/45 records · 90 entries
Secondary
82.2%
37/45 records · 237 entries
Exploratory
6.7%
3/45 records · 5 entries
Endpoint tier breadth across CTIS RCC Phase II and Phase III records.
Interpretation

CTIS RCC endpoint packages are heavily structured around primary and secondary endpoint declarations. Exploratory endpoints are uncommon as a separate tier, but biomarker, imaging, PK/PD, and translational concepts still appear across primary and secondary endpoint families.

What adjacent questions can be answered from the same RCC endpoint dataset?

The same CTIS endpoint records answer several adjacent operational questions with numeric support: how often RCC trials include patient-reported outcomes, how often biomarker endpoints appear, how concentrated the dataset is in RCC-only versus basket studies, and how often orphan-drug context appears.

Adjacent answerable signals
PRO / HRQoL endpoints
9/45 · 20.0%
More frequent in Phase III: 5/15 (33.3%) versus Phase II: 4/30 (13.3%).
Biomarker / translational endpoints
9/45 · 20.0%
Phase II: 7/30 (23.3%); Phase III: 2/15 (13.3%).
RCC-focused versus basket
28 / 17
RCC-focused records: 62.2%; basket or multi-tumour records: 37.8%.
Orphan-drug context
1/45 · 2.2%
The RCC Phase II & III endpoint dataset is almost entirely non-orphan by recorded context.
Adjacent CTIS endpoint and context signals across 45 RCC records.
Interpretation

The strongest adjacent signal is that PRO endpoints are more common in Phase III, while biomarker and translational endpoints are more Phase II-weighted. This fits a CTIS development pattern where patient benefit and tolerability become more explicit in confirmatory submissions, while mechanism and selection biology remain more active in earlier development.

Endpoint Definitions

RECIST 1.1 means Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. ORR means objective response rate; PFS means progression-free survival; DFS means disease-free survival; RFS means recurrence-free survival; MFS means metastasis-free survival; OS means overall survival; DOR means duration of response; DCR means disease control rate; PK/PD means pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics; PRO means patient-reported outcome; HRQoL means health-related quality of life; AE, SAE, and TEAE mean adverse event, serious adverse event, and treatment-emergent adverse event.