DUO-E / GOG-3041 / ENGOT-EN10

In newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, does adding durvalumab with or without maintenance olaparib to carboplatin–paclitaxel improve progression-free survival?

Evidence snapshot updated 23 October 2026. Source links are provided below; this is an evidence summary, not a substitute for current local guidelines or individual clinical judgement.

Population and treatment

718 patients with newly diagnosed FIGO stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer randomized among three arms.

Intervention and comparator: Control: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus placebo then placebo maintenance. Durvalumab arm: durvalumab 1,120 mg IV every 3 weeks with chemotherapy for 6 cycles then durvalumab 1,500 mg every 4 weeks. Durvalumab–olaparib arm adds maintenance olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04269200 ↗

Key results

Versus control, PFS HR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.57–0.89; P=.003) for durvalumab and 0.55 (95% CI 0.43–0.69; P<.0001) for durvalumab plus olaparib. Interim OS was immature; the durvalumab–olaparib arm had HR 0.59 (95% CI 0.42–0.83), whereas durvalumab alone had HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.56–1.07).

Hazard ratio for progression or death · Primary PFS analysis; time-to-event

Absolute-effect interpretation: No NNT calculated: the key source summary reports hazard ratios without a fixed-time absolute PFS rate pair in this page. HR 0.55 is a relative time-to-event measure, not a 45-percentage-point absolute reduction.

Toxicity and treatment burden

Monitor marrow suppression, fatigue, nausea, immune-mediated toxicity and olaparib-related anaemia; PARP inhibitor exposure adds treatment burden. Biomarker subgroup analyses are exploratory and should be labelled as such.

Interpretation and limitations

The three-arm design separates durvalumab's contribution from the additional maintenance olaparib strategy. Do not interpret the exploratory pMMR/dMMR subgroup effects as proof of a validated predictive biomarker interaction. Current local guideline and regulatory status should be checked.

Use endpoint definitions, follow-up, analysis population and comparator exactly as reported. Do not infer NNT from a hazard ratio or median survival. Subgroup findings should not be treated as predictive unless the trial design and interaction testing support that interpretation.

Primary source and further reading

Primary publication / authoritative source ↗

Trial registry (NCT04269200) ↗

Automated structural checks can confirm the presence of links and outcome-visual markup; browser-rendered QA and complete source-by-source clinical freshness review remain separate quality-control steps.