Search

BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrence of gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) after surgery needs to be estimated when considering adjuvant systemic therapy. We assessed prognostic factors of patients with operable GIST, to compare widely used risk-stratification schemes and to develop a new method for risk estimation. METHODS: Population-based cohorts of patients diagnosed with operable GIST, who were not given adjuvant therapy, were identified from the literature. Data from ten series and 2560 patients were pooled. Risk of tumour recurrence was stratified using the National Institute of Health (NIH) consensus criteria, the modified consensus criteria, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) criteria. Prognostic factors were examined using proportional hazards and non-linear models. The results were validated in an independent centre-based cohort consisting of 920 patients with GIST. FINDINGS: Estimated 15-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) after surgery was 59·9% (95% CI 56·2-63·6); few recurrences occurred after the first 10 years of follow-up. Large tumour size, high mitosis count, non-gastric location, presence of rupture, and male sex were independent adverse prognostic factors. In receiver operating characteristics curve analysis of 10-year RFS, the NIH consensus criteria, modified consensus criteria, and AFIP criteria resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0·79 (95% CI 0·76-0·81), 0·78 (0·75-0·80), and 0·82 (0·80-0·85), respectively. The modified consensus criteria identified a single high-risk group. Since tumour size and mitosis count had a non-linear association with the risk of GIST recurrence, novel prognostic contour maps were generated using non-linear modelling of tumour size and mitosis count, and taking into account tumour site and rupture. The non-linear model accurately predicted the risk of recurrence (AUC 0·88, 0·86-0·90). INTERPRETATION: The risk-stratification schemes assessed identify patients who are likely to be cured by surgery alone. Although the modified NIH classification is the best criteria to identify a single high-risk group for consideration of adjuvant therapy, the prognostic contour maps resulting from non-linear modelling are appropriate for estimation of individualised outcomes. FUNDING: Academy of Finland, Cancer Society of Finland, Sigrid Juselius Foundation and Helsinki University Research Funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the TOPAZ-1, patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) and recurrence within 6 months after surgery were excluded, even if this event is frequently observed in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess if the efficacy of cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab (CGD) in this population is comparable to that reported in the phase 3 trial., Methods: The study cohort included patients with BTC who underwent surgery on the primary tumor, experienced disease recurrence occurring ≤6 months or >6 months after surgery or after the end of adjuvant therapy and started CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)., Results: A total of 178 patients were enrolled. No significant differences were observed between early and late relapse groups in OS (23.4 months vs not reached; HR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.67-2.37; P = .45) and PFS [7.0 months vs 9.8 months; HR 1.3(95% CI, 0.9-2.1) P = .13]. Overall response rate and disease control rate (P = .33 and P = .62) were comparable between the 2 groups, as the overall safety profile. In addition, we compared survival outcomes between the selected population and a historical cohort of patients with BTC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) and found that despite the absence of statistical significance, CGD showed an outcome trend compared with CG regardless of the time of recurrence after surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy [(CG ≤ 6 vs CGD ≤ 6 months: HR 0.59, 95%CI, 0.35-1.01, P = .05; HR 0.70; 95%CI, 0.46-1.06, P = .09, OS and PFS, respectively) and (CG > 6 vs. CGD > 6 months: HR 0.50; 95%CI, 0.29-0.88, P = 0.0165; HR 0.54; 95%CI, 0.35-0.84, P = .0068, OS and PFS, respectively)]., Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that CGD retains its efficacy independently of the timing of relapse after surgery or completion of adjuvant treatment in patients with advanced BTC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is a complex procedure with a high risk of postoperative mortality and early disease recurrence. The objective of this study was to compare patient characteristics and overall survival (OS) between pCCA patients who underwent an R1 resection and patients with localized pCCA who received palliative systemic chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of pCCA between 1997-2021 were identified from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA) registry. pCCA patients who underwent an R1 resection were compared with patients with localized pCCA (i.e., nonmetastatic) who were ineligible for surgical resection and received palliative systemic chemotherapy. The primary outcome was OS., Results: Overall, 146 patients in the R1 resection group and 92 patients in the palliative chemotherapy group were included. The palliative chemotherapy group more often underwent biliary drainage (95% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) and had more vascular encasement on imaging (70% vs. 49%, p = 0.012) and CA 19.9 was more frequently >200 IU/L (64 vs. 45%, p = 0.046). Median OS was comparable between both groups (17.1 vs. 16 months, p = 0.06). Overall survival at 5 years after diagnosis was 20.0% with R1 resection and 2.2% with chemotherapy. Type of treatment (i.e., R1 resection or palliative chemotherapy) was not an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.07)., Conclusions: Palliative systemic chemotherapy should be considered instead of resection in patients with a high risk of both R1 resection and postoperative mortality., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). To understand this combination's real-world efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a global multicenter retrospective analysis of its first-line treatment outcomes., Methods: We included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin at 39 sites in 11 countries (Europe, the United States, and Asia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: 666 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 15.1 months and median PFS was 8.2 months. The investigator-assessed overall response rate was 32.7 %, with stable disease in 45.2 % of patients. High baseline CEA levels, ECOG PS > 0, metastatic disease, and NLR > 3 were associated with poor survival. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92.9 % of patients (grade >2: 46.6 %). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 20.0 % (grade >2: 2.5 %). Three deaths (0.5 %) were deemed treatment-related, none linked to immunotherapy. Common irAEs were rash (8.2 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2), itching (10.3 % all grades; 0.2 % grade >2), and hypothyroidism (5.1 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2). Durvalumab discontinuation rate due to AEs was 1.5 %. ESMO-recommended genes were analyzed and no outcome differences were found. A comparative analysis with a historical cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy alone confirmed the positive survival impact of durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine., Conclusion: This first global real-world analysis largely confirmed the TOPAZ-1 findings, supporting gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab as a first-line standard of care for patients with advanced BTC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LR reports consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Zymeworks. ACG reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, MSD, Roche, Servier; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from AstraZeneca, Eisai. SLC serves an advisory member for AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, BMS, Ipsen, and Hengrui, received research funds from MSD, Eisai, Ipsen, SIRTEX, and Zailab, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, Ipsen, and MSD. TP received consulting fees from Bayer, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; institutional research funding from Roche, Bayer, and AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Roche. CB received honoraria as speaker (Astrazeneca, Incyte, Servier) and consultant (Incyte, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca), received research funds (Avacta, Medannex, Servier) and her spouse is an employee of Astrazeneca. M. Ikeda reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Incyte, Lilly Japan, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Teijin Pharma, Nihon Servier, Taiho and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiome Bioscience, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Delta-Fly Pharma, Invitae, J-Pharma, Merck biopharma, Merus N.V., MSD, Novartis, Nihon Servier, Ono, Syneos Health, and Rakuten Medical. GWP: Advisories and/or Speaker fees: Servier, Bayer, Roche Amgen, Merck, MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Incyte, Arcus, CECOG. F. F. has received travel support from Ipsen, Abbvie, Astrazeneca and speaker’s fees from AbbVie, MSD, Ipsen, Astrazeneca. LP: Advisory role: AstraZeneca, Servier, Travel expenses: AstraZeneca, Ipsen. GG: Consulting Fees: Astra Zeneca, MSD, Servier, Seagen, Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS. Travel Expenses: Astra Zeneca, Servier, Bayer, Novartis. S.L. reports research funding (to Institution) from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Servier; personal honoraria as invited speaker from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Servier; participation in advisory board for Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Takeda, Rottapharm. JD received consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Need Inc., Ipsen, Lilly, MediMix, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Servier. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the increasing of novel therapeutics for the treatment of Biliary Tract Cancers (BTC), and the need to assess their socio-economic impacts for national licence approvals, it is as important as ever to have real-life data in national populations., Methods and Results: We performed an audit of the first 2 year-activity (Sep 2019-Sep 2021) of the centralized West-of-Scotland-BTC clinic. 122 patients accessed the service, including 68% with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), 27% with gallbladder cancer (GBC), and 5% with ampulla of Vater carcinoma with biliary phenotype (AVC). Median age at diagnosis was 66 (28-84), with 30% of newly diagnosed patients being younger than 60 years-old. Thirty-five cases (29%) underwent surgery, followed by adjuvant-chemotherapy in 66%. 60% had recurrent disease (80% with distant relapse). Sixty-four patients (58%) started first-line Systemic-AntiCancer-Treatment (SACT). Of these, 37% received second line SACT, the majority of which had iCCA and GBC. Thirty-% of those who progressed received third line SACT., Conclusions: About 30% of BTC were eligible for curative surgery. Fifty-eight and twenty% of the overall cohort of advanced BTC patients received first and second line SACT. Our data suggest that reflex genomic profiling may not be cost-effective until molecularly driven strategies are limited to second line setting., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The multi-kinase inhibitor (mKi) regorafenib has demonstrated efficacy in chemorefractory patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, lack of predictive biomarkers and concerns over significant toxicities hamper the use of regorafenib in clinical practice., Experimental Design: Serial liquid biopsies were obtained at baseline and monthly until disease progression in chemorefractory patients with mCRC treated with regorafenib in a phase II clinical trial (PROSPECT-R n = 40; NCT03010722) and in a multicentric validation cohort (n = 241). Tissue biopsies collected at baseline, after 2 months and at progression in the PROSPECT-R trial were used to establish patient-derived organoids (PDO) and for molecular analyses. MicroRNA profiling was performed on baseline bloods using the NanoString nCounter platform and results were validated by digital-droplet PCR and/or ISH in paired liquid and tissue biopsies. PDOs co-cultures and PDO-xenotransplants were generated for functional analyses., Results: Large-scale microRNA expression analysis in longitudinal matched liquid and tissue biopsies from the PROSPECT-R trial identified MIR652-3p as a biomarker of clinical benefit to regorafenib. These findings were confirmed in an independent validation cohort and in a "control" group of 100 patients treated with lonsurf. Using ex vivo co-culture assays paired with single-cell RNA-sequencing of PDO established pre- and post-treatment, we modeled regorafenib response observed in vivo and in patients, and showed that MIR652-3p controls resistance to regorafenib by impairing regorafenib-induced lethal autophagy and by orchestrating the switch from neo-angiogenesis to vessel co-option., Conclusions: Our results identify MIR652-3p as a potential biomarker and as a driver of cell and non-cell-autonomous mechanisms of resistance to regorafenib., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background & Aims: Patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can now be managed with targeted therapies directed against specific molecular alterations. Consequently, tissue samples submitted to the pathology department must produce molecular information in addition to a diagnosis or, for resection specimens, staging information. The pathologist's role when evaluating these specimens has therefore changed to accommodate such personalised approaches., Methods: We developed recommendations and guidance for pathologists by conducting a systematic review of existing guidance to generate candidate statements followed by an international Delphi process. Fifty-nine pathologists from 28 countries in six continents rated statements mapped to all elements of the specimen pathway from receipt in the pathology department to authorisation of the final written report. A separate survey of 'end-users' of the report including surgeons, oncologists, and gastroenterologists was undertaken to evaluate what information should be included in the written report to enable appropriate patient management., Results: Forty-eight statements reached consensus for inclusion in the guidance including 10 statements about the content of the written report that also reached consensus by end-user participants. A reporting proforma to allow easy inclusion of the recommended data points was developed., Conclusions: These guiding principles and recommendations provide a framework to allow pathologists reporting on patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma to maximise the informational yield of specimens required for personalised patient management., Impact and Implications: Biopsy or resection lesional tissue from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma must yield information about the molecular abnormalities within the tumour that define suitability for personalised therapies in addition to a diagnosis and staging information. Here, we have developed international consensus guidance for pathologists that report such cases using a Delphi process that sought the views of both pathologists and 'end-users of pathology reports. The guide highlights the need to report cases in a way that preserves tissue for molecular testing and emphasises that reporting requires interpretation of histological characteristics within the broader clinical and radiological context. The guide will allow pathologists to report cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a uniform manner that maximises the value of the tissue received to facilitate optimal multidisciplinary patient management., Competing Interests: TK undertakes consultancy work for Perspectum, Clinnovate Health, Kynos Therapeutics, Fibrofind, HistoIndex, Concept Life Sciences, and Resolution Therapeutics, and has received speaker’s fees from Incyte Corporation and Servier Laboratories. JB declares research grants (from Incyte, Albireo, Cymabay), personal fees for lectures (from Incyte, AstraZeneca), and consulting roles (for Albireo Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cymabay, Ikan Biotech and OWL-Rubió Metabolomics). CB received honoraria as speaker (AstraZeneca, Incyte) and consultant (Incyte, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca); received research funds (Avacta, Medannex, Servier) and her spouse is an employee of AstraZneca. CB is supported by a CSO research grant and CRUK Scotland Centre [grant number 100006]. VC received honoraria as speaker (Incyte, Albireo) and consultant (IPSEN); received research funds (Advanz). GC, DO, MG, BG, and EG have no conflicts of interest to declare. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Objective: Cytotoxic agents are the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), despite heterogeneous benefit. We hypothesised that the pretreatment molecular profiles of diagnostic biopsies can predict patient benefit from chemotherapy and define molecular bases of innate chemoresistance., Design: We identified a cohort of advanced iCCA patients with comparable baseline characteristics who diverged as extreme outliers on chemotherapy (survival <6 m in rapid progressors, RP; survival >23 m in long survivors, LS). Diagnostic biopsies were characterised by digital pathology, then subjected to whole-transcriptome profiling of bulk and geospatially macrodissected tissue regions. Spatial transcriptomics of tumour-infiltrating myeloid cells was performed using targeted digital spatial profiling (GeoMx). Transcriptome signatures were evaluated in multiple cohorts of resected cancers. Signatures were also characterised using in vitro cell lines, in vivo mouse models and single cell RNA-sequencing data., Results: Pretreatment transcriptome profiles differentiated patients who would become RPs or LSs on chemotherapy. Biologically, this signature originated from altered tumour-myeloid dynamics, implicating tumour-induced immune tolerogenicity with poor response to chemotherapy. The central role of the liver microenviroment was confrmed by the association of the RPLS transcriptome signature with clinical outcome in iCCA but not extrahepatic CCA, and in liver metastasis from colorectal cancer, but not in the matched primary bowel tumours., Conclusions: The RPLS signature could be a novel metric of chemotherapy outcome in iCCA. Further development and validation of this transcriptomic signature is warranted to develop precision chemotherapy strategies in these settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JBA is a member of the scientific advisory board at SEALD, Norway and reports scientific consultancies for QED Therapeutics and Flagship Pioneering. JBA has received research funding from Incyte. CB received honoraria as speaker (Astrazeneca, Incyte) and consultant (Incyte, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca), received research funds (Avacta, Medannex, Servier) and her spouse is an employee of Astrazeneca. JML is receiving research support from Eisai, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, and consulting fees from Eisai, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Genentech, Ipsen, Glycotest, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Omega Therapeutics, Mina Alpha, Boston Scientific, Exelixis, Bluejay and Captor Therapeutics. RM has received consulting and lecture fees from Servier and Roche and travel and education funding from MSD, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Roche, Astrazeneca. AL reports receiving consulting fees from Intercept Pharma, Alfa Sigma, Takeda, and Albireo Pharma, and speakers’ fees from Gilead, Abbvie, MSD, Intercept Pharma, AlfaSigma, GSK and Incyte., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Several additional COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered in the Brazilian population to prevent the disease caused by the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant. The efficacy of a third dose as a booster is already well described. However, it is important to clarify the humoral immune response gain induced by a fourth dose. In this study, we evaluate the effect of the fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose in a diverse Brazilian population, considering a real-life context. Our study reveals that the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine increased the neutralizing antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and significantly contributed in the reduction of the disease caused by this variant., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Over the past years, there has been a remarkable advance in the systemic treatment options for advanced HCC. The overall survival has gradually increased over time, with larger benefits for patients with sensitive tumors and preserved liver function, the latter being an essential condition for the delivery of sequential lines of treatment and optimization of clinical outcomes. With the approval of new first-line agents and the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies, the treatment landscape of advanced HCC is becoming wider than ever. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and, more recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab have entered the clinical practice and are the current standard of care for treatment-naïve patients, surpassing sorafenib and lenvatinib monopoly. As no head-to-head comparisons are available among all the first-line treatment options, the recommendation for the most appropriate choice and sequence is patient-driven and integrates efficacy data with clinical comorbidities, background liver disease, and the safety profile of available drugs. In addition, predictive biomarkers for successful patients' stratification are yet to be available and constitute the focus of ongoing research. The treatment algorithm is likely to become even more complex since systemic therapeutic approaches are now being translated into earlier stages of the disease, with an impact on the evolution of the sequential treatment of patients with HCC., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Immunotherapy has recently been incorporated into the spectrum of biliary tract cancer (BTC) treatment. The identification of predictive response biomarkers is essential in order to identify those patients who may benefit most from this novel treatment option. Here, we propose a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of PD-1, PD-L1, and other immune-related biomarker expression levels in patients with BTC., Methods: Prisma guidelines were followed for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligible studies were searched on PubMed. Studies published between 2017 and 2022, reporting data on PD-1/PD-L1 expression and other immune-related biomarkers in patients with BTC, were considered eligible., Results: A total of 61 eligible studies were identified. Despite the great heterogeneity between 39 studies reporting data on PD-L1 expression, we found a mean PD-L1 expression percentage (by choosing the lowest cut-off per study) of 25.6% (95% CI 21.0 to 30.3) in BTCs. The mean expression percentages of PD-L1 were 27.3%, 21.3%, and 27.4% in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (iCCAs-15 studies), perihilar-distal CCAs (p/dCCAs-7 studies), and gallbladder cancer (GBC-5 studies), respectively. Furthermore, 4.6% (95% CI 2.38 to 6.97) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.75 to 3.34) of BTCs could be classified as TMB-H and MSI/MMRd tumors, respectively., Conclusion: From our analysis, PD-L1 expression was found to occur approximately in 26% of BTC patients, with minimal differences based on anatomical location. TMB-H and MSI molecular phenotypes occurred less frequently. We still lack a reliable biomarker, especially in patients with mismatch-proficient tumors, and we must need to make an effort to conceive new prospective biomarker discovery studies.