Approximately 30% of primary endometrial cancers are microsatellite instability high/hypermutated (MSI-H), and 13% to 30% of recurrent endometrial cancers are MSI-H or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR). Given the presence of immune dysregulation in endometrial cancer as described, immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has been explored as a therapeutic mechanism, both as monotherapy and in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy, other immunotherapy, or targeted agents. In MSI-H or dMMR advanced endometrial cancers, PD-1 inhibitors dostarlimab and pembrolizumab have shown response rates of 49% and 57%, respectively, whereas PD-L1 inhibitors avelumab and durvalumab have shown response rates of 27% and 43%, respectively. In microsatellite stable (MSS) or PD-L1–positive advanced endometrial cancers, modest activity of PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab and dostarlimab and PD-L1 inhibitors atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab has been seen, with response rates ranging from 3% to 23%. Based on substantial activity in a phase Ib/II study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted lenvatinib and pembrolizumab combination therapy accelerated approval in 2019 for the treatment of advanced endometrial cancer that is not MSI-H or dMMR and has progressed following prior therapy. Although these developments have been highly impactful, a more robust understanding of the molecular and immunologic drivers of response and resistance will be critical to optimally design next-generation studies in endometrial cancer.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States, accounting for 6% of cancers in women. In 2017, an estimated 61,380 women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer, and approximately 11,000 died from this disease. From 1987 to 2008, there was a 50% increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer, with an approximate 300% increase in the number of associated deaths. Although there are many chemotherapeutic and targeted therapy agents approved for ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers, since the 1971 approval of megestrol acetate for the palliative treatment of advanced endometrial cancer, only pembrolizumab has been Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) endometrial cancer; this highlights the need for new therapies to treat advanced, recurrent, metastatic endometrial cancer. In this review, we discuss current and emerging treatment options for endometrial cancer, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and others are now focusing their efforts on the design of scientifically rational targeted therapy and immunotherapy trials for specific molecular phenotypes of endometrial cancer. This is essential for the advancement of cancer care for women, which is threatened by a severe enrollment decline of approximately 80% for gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

Background. In this paper, we provide background and context regarding the potential for a new data-sharing platform, the Project Data Sphere (PDS) initiative, funded by financial and inkind contributions from the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, to transform cancer research and improve patient outcomes. Given the relatively modest decline in cancer death rates over the past several years, a new research paradigm is needed to accelerate therapeutic approaches for oncologic diseases. Phase III clinical trials generate large volumes of potentially usable information, often on hundreds of patients, including patients treated with standard of care therapies (i.e., controls). Both nationally and internationally, a variety of stakeholders have pursued data-sharing efforts to make individual patientlevel clinical trial data available to the scientific research community. Potential Benefits and Risks of Data Sharing. For researchers, shared data have the potential to foster a more collaborative environment, to answer research questions in a shorter time frame than traditional randomized control trials, to reduce duplication of effort, and to improve efficiency. For industry participants, use of trial data to answer additional clinical questions could increase research and development efficiency and guide future projects through validation of surrogate end points, development of prognostic or predictive models, selection of patients for phase II trials, stratification in phase III studies, and identification of patient subgroups for development of novel therapies. Data transparency also helps promote a public image of collaboration and altruism among industry participants. For patient participants, data sharing maximizes their contribution to public health and increases access to information that may be used to develop better treatments. Concerns about data-sharing efforts include protection of patient privacy and confidentiality. To alleviate these concerns, data sets are deidentified to maintain anonymity. To address industry concerns about protection of intellectual property and competitiveness, we illustrate several models