From:  Predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy response in endometrial cancer: current insights and future directions

 Study designs and outcomes of key clinical trials of immunotherapy in 1L a/rEC.

TrialPhasePopulationN ptsTreatment ArmsRPrimary endpointsmFUOutcomes
DUO-E NCT04269200 [24]III1L a/r EC
≥ 12 m after platinum
carcinosarcoma included
718Durvalumab (D), Durvalumab + Olaparib (D+O) vs. Placebo (PBO) + CXT1:1:1PFS ITT [D vs. PBO], PFS ITT [D+O vs. PBO]
  • m

PFS ITT: D 10.2 m vs. PBO 9.6 m; HR 0.71; p = 0.003; D + O 15.1 m vs. PBO 9.6 m; HR 0.55; p < 0.0001*
OS ITT: D NR vs. PBO 25.9 m; HR 0.77; p = 0.120; D + O NR vs. PBO 25.9 m; HR 0.59; p = 0.003
PFS dMMR: D vs. PBO HR 0.42; D + O vs. PBO HR 0.41
PFS MMRp: D vs. PBO HR 0.77; D + O vs. PBO HR 0.57
PFS PD-L1+: D vs. PBO HR 0.63; D + O vs. PBO 0.42
MITO END 3 NCT03503786 [27]II1L a/r EC
carcinosarcoma excluded
125Avelumab (Av) vs. PBO + CXT1:1PFS ITT23 mPFS ITT: Av 9.9 vs. 9.6 m; HR 0.78
12-month PFS dMMR: 60% vs. 35% (p = 0.015)
24-month OS dMMR: 76% vs. 55% (p = 0.029)
RUBY part 1 NCT04853576 [28]III1L a/r EC
≥ 6 m after platinum
clear cell, carcinosarcoma, serous, mixed, IIIC2-IVA included
494Dostarlimab (Do) vs. Placebo (PBO) + CTX1:1PFS dMMR-, PFS ITT and OS ITT 24 mPFS dMMR: Do 61.4% vs. PBO 15.7%; HR 0.28; p < 0.001
PFS ITT: Do 36.1% vs. PBO 18.1%; HR 0.64 (0.51–0.80); p < 0.001
OS ITT: Do 71.3% vs. PBO 56%; HR 64 (0.46–0.87); p = 0.0021
PFS MMRp: Do 28.4% vs. PBO 18.8%; HR 0.76
OS dMMR: Do 83.3% vs. PBO 58.7; HR 0.30
OS MMRp: Do 67.7% vs. PBO 55.1%; HR 0.79
NRG-GY018 NCT03914612 [31, 32]III1L a/r EC
≥ 12 m after platinum
carcinosarcoma excluded
816Pembrolizumab (P) vs. Placebo (PBO) + CTX1:1PFS dMMR, PFS MMRp12 mdMMR PFS: P NR vs. PBO 7.6 m; HR 0.30; p < 0.001
MMRp PFS: P 13.1 m vs. PBO 8.7 m; HR 0.54; p < 0.001
dMMR OS: HR 0.55
MMRp OS: HR 0.79
RUBY part 2 NCT03981796 [33]III1L a/r EC
≥ 6 m after platinum
clear cell, carcinosarcoma, serous, mixed, IIIC2-IVA included
291Dostarlimab (Do) + Niraparib (N) vs. Placebo (PBO) + CTX2:1PFS, ITTNAPFS ITT: Do + Nira 14.5 vs. 8.3; HR 0.60
PFS dMMR: HR 0.45
PFS MMRp: HR 0.63
AtTEnd NCT03603184 [34]III1L a/rEC and ≥ 6 m after platinum
carcinosarcoma included
551Atezolizumab (A) vs. Placebo (PBO) + CXT2:1PFS dMMR > PFS ITT > OS ITT28.3 mPFS dMMR: A NR vs. PBO 6.9 m; HR 0.36; p = 0.0005
PFS ITT: A 10.1 m vs. PBO 8.9 m; HR 0.74; p = 0.022
OS ITT: A 38·7 m vs. PBO 30.2 m; HR 0.82; log-rank p = 0.048
PFS MMRp: HR 0.92
OS MMRp: HR 1.00
LEAP-001 NCT03884101 [38]III1L a/r EC
≥ 6 m after platinum
842Pembrolizumab (P) + Lenvatinib (L) vs. CTX1:1PFS ITT, OS ITT38.4 mPFS MMRp: P + L 9.6 vs. CTX 10.2 m; HR 0.99
PFS ITT: P + L 12.5 vs. CTX 10.2 m; HR 0.91
OS MMRp: P + L 30.9 vs. 29.4 m HR 1.02
OS ITT: 37.7 vs. 32.1 m HR 0.93

1L: first line; a/rEC: advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer; CTX: chemotherapy (platinum plus paclitaxel); D: durvalumab; dMMR: defective mismatch repair; HR: hazard ratio; ITT: intention-to-treat; mFU: median follow-up; MMRp: proficient mismatch repair; NA: not applicable; NR: not reached; OS: overall survival; PD-L1: programmed death-ligand 1; PFS: progression-free survival; R: randomization. * The PFS comparison between Durvalumab alone and placebo was not formally tested for statistical significance according to the predefined hierarchical testing strategy of the DUO-E trial.