Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which Endpoints Are Measured Most Often in European Phase II & III Gastric, GEJ, and Esophageal Cancer Trials?

9 July 2026

Across 88 unique CTIS/EU Phase II–III gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and esophageal cancer trial records authorized in 2024–2026, overall survival (OS) was the most frequently measured endpoint family, appearing in 67/88 trials (76.1%). Safety/tolerability followed in 65/88 (73.9%) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 60/88 (68.2%). Phase III trials were especially OS-centered at 23/25 (92.0%), while Phase II-containing trials were led by safety/tolerability at 44/58 (75.9%).

Included CTIS/EU cancer trials88Unique Phase II/III records authorized in 2024–2026
Endpoint entries621154 primary, 455 secondary, 12 other/exploratory
Median CTIS interval77.5 daysInitial CTIS submission to first authorization
Top measured endpoint families
Overall survival (OS)76.1% · 67/88
Safety / tolerability73.9% · 65/88
Progression-free survival (PFS)68.2% · 60/88

Which endpoint families appear most often overall?

Overall survival (OS) appeared in 67/88 trials (76.1%), followed by safety/tolerability in 65/88 (73.9%) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 60/88 (68.2%). Objective response rate (ORR) was present in 48/88 (54.5%), making tumor-response measurement common but less universal than survival and safety.

Top endpoint families across 88 CTIS/EU gastric, GEJ and esophageal cancer trials
Overall survival (OS)76.1% · 67/88
Safety / tolerability73.9% · 65/88
Progression-free survival (PFS)68.2% · 60/88
Objective response rate (ORR)54.5% · 48/88
Duration of response (DoR)45.5% · 40/88
Quality of life / PRO42.0% · 37/88
Pharmacokinetics (PK)34.1% · 30/88
Immunogenicity / ADA31.8% · 28/88
Surgical / postoperative28.4% · 25/88
Disease control rate (DCR)26.1% · 23/88
Interpretation

European Phase II–III gastric/GEJ/esophageal cancer trials remain survival-anchored: OS and PFS form the core efficacy language, while safety/tolerability is nearly as common because combination regimens, ADCs, immune therapies, radiopharmaceuticals and surgical approaches all require explicit risk monitoring.

How do endpoints split across primary, secondary and exploratory roles?

Secondary endpoints carried most of the measurement breadth: 455/621 endpoint entries (73.3%) were secondary, compared with 154/621 (24.8%) primary and 12/621 (1.9%) other/exploratory entries. OS was the most frequent primary endpoint family at 25/88 trials (28.4%), narrowly ahead of safety/tolerability and ORR at 24/88 each (27.3%).

Endpoint role matrix: trials measuring each family by endpoint role
Endpoint familyPrimarySecondaryExploratory/other
Overall survival (OS)25 / 28.4%57 / 64.8%1 / 1.1%
Safety / tolerability24 / 27.3%52 / 59.1%1 / 1.1%
Progression-free survival (PFS)21 / 23.9%51 / 58.0%2 / 2.3%
Objective response rate (ORR)24 / 27.3%40 / 45.5%2 / 2.3%
Duration of response (DoR)1 / 1.1%40 / 45.5%0 / 0.0%
Quality of life / PRO0 / 0.0%35 / 39.8%3 / 3.4%
Pharmacokinetics (PK)2 / 2.3%28 / 31.8%1 / 1.1%
Immunogenicity / ADA0 / 0.0%27 / 30.7%1 / 1.1%
Surgical / postoperative11 / 12.5%22 / 25.0%2 / 2.3%
Disease control rate (DCR)1 / 1.1%23 / 26.1%1 / 1.1%
Biomarker / translational5 / 5.7%9 / 10.2%4 / 4.5%
Interpretation

Primary endpoints are concentrated around OS, ORR, safety and PFS. Secondary endpoints absorb the broader clinical package: DoR, QoL/PRO, PK, immunogenicity and DCR are mostly secondary rather than pivotal decision endpoints.

How does endpoint selection differ between Phase II and Phase III?

Phase II-containing trials numbered 58/88 (65.9%), Phase III trials 25/88 (28.4%), and mixed Phase II/III trials 5/88 (5.7%). Safety/tolerability was the most frequent Phase II-containing endpoint family at 44/58 (75.9%), while OS dominated Phase III at 23/25 (92.0%).

Endpoint frequency by CTIS phase label
Endpoint familyPhase II-containing
n=58
Phase III
n=25
Phase II/III
n=5
Overall survival (OS)41 / 70.7%23 / 92.0%3 / 60.0%
Safety / tolerability44 / 75.9%18 / 72.0%3 / 60.0%
Progression-free survival (PFS)39 / 67.2%19 / 76.0%2 / 40.0%
Objective response rate (ORR)32 / 55.2%14 / 56.0%2 / 40.0%
Quality of life / PRO19 / 32.8%17 / 68.0%1 / 20.0%
Pharmacokinetics (PK)18 / 31.0%11 / 44.0%1 / 20.0%
Diagnostic imaging / sensitivity-specificity7 / 12.1%0 / 0.0%2 / 40.0%
Interpretation

The phase shift is clear: Phase II-containing trials emphasize safety, ORR and PFS as development and signal-finding measures, while Phase III trials move strongly toward OS and QoL/PRO, consistent with confirmatory benefit-risk and patient-impact packages.

Which disease groups and sub-diseases drive the endpoint pattern?

Mixed gastric/GEJ plus esophageal cancer labels were the largest group at 45/88 trials (51.1%), followed by multi-tumor basket trials including gastric or esophageal cancer at 23/88 (26.1%). The mixed gastric/GEJ-esophageal group had high OS use at 40/45 (88.9%) and high PFS use at 34/45 (75.6%).

Endpoint families by disease group
Disease groupOverall survival (OS)Safety/tolerabilityProgression-free survival (PFS)Objective response rate (ORR)Quality of life/PROSurgical/postoperativeDiagnostic imaging/sensitivity-specificity
Mixed gastric/GEJ + esophageal
n=45
40 / 88.9%32 / 71.1%34 / 75.6%30 / 66.7%22 / 48.9%14 / 31.1%0 / 0.0%
Multi-tumor basket incl. gastric/esophageal
n=23
14 / 60.9%19 / 82.6%13 / 56.5%14 / 60.9%3 / 13.0%2 / 8.7%6 / 26.1%
Gastric / GEJ / gastroesophageal
n=12
8 / 66.7%9 / 75.0%7 / 58.3%4 / 33.3%6 / 50.