Search

Background: Induction treatment may be beneficial in patients with unresectable locally advanced perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (LAPCCA). Prospective studies are currently lacking. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of gemcitabine and cisplatin as induction treatment in patients with unresectable LAPCCA., Methods: In this prospective single-center registration study, consecutive patients with unresectable LAPCCA who received induction treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin in an intent to downsize the tumor to allow for resection were included. The primary outcomes were resection rate and overall survival., Results: Overall, 265 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma were screened between January 2020 and June 2023, of whom 23 patients (9%) with unresectable LAPCCA met the eligibility criteria. Eight patients (35%) became eligible for resection, of whom six ultimately underwent resection (resection rate, 26% (11-42%)). Two out of 23 patients (9%) experienced adverse events grade≥3, forcing one to stop induction treatment. Compared to baseline, CA19.9 levels decreased by 42% (95 % CI, -65 to -5%; P = 0.039) and 8% (-44 to 112%; P = 0.80) at the first and second restaging, respectively. Tumor size did not significantly decrease after chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 27 months (18-36), with 40 (24-56) in the resected and 19 (13-26) in the unresected group (P = 0.127)., Conclusion: Patients with LAPCCA frequently tolerate induction gemcitabine-cisplatin, leading to a 26% resection rate with 40 months overall survival. These findings support routine re-staging after three to six cycles of palliative treatment, and lay the groundwork for future prospective trials in this patient group., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Recommendations for resection technique of duodenal neuroendocrine neoplasms (D-NEN) with a size between 10 and 20 mm are lacking. The primary aim was to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after endoscopic resection (ER) with surgical resection (SR). The secondary aim was to assess the incidence and clinical variables correlated with OS., Methods: Data of patients with D-NENs between 2008 and 2018 were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank., Results: A total of 259 patients were identified, of which 138 were included: 98 (68 %) underwent ER and 44 patients (32 %) underwent SR. Of these, 38 patients had D-NENs sized between 10 and 20 mm. ER Patients were more frequently male and had a lower T-stage and tumour size than SR patients (all P < 0.05). Positive resection margins were observed more frequently after ER compared to SR (71 % vs 15 %, P < 0.005). No patients with tumours between 10 and 20 mm died after ER or SR (median follow-up 71.8 vs. 52.0 months). PFS rates were not significantly different after ER compared to SR (P = 0.672). Recurrence rates were 13 % for ER and 7 % for SR (P = 0.604)., Conclusion: Between 2008 and 2018, the incidence increased from 0.06 to 0.11 per 100,000 patients per year. OS after ER or SR did not differ for D-NEN between 10 and 20 mm. Recurrence and PFS rates were not significantly different. These results suggest that D-NENs sized between 10 and 20 mm could potentially be treated first with ER. Future studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Our purpose was to assess the impact of muscle quality on overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced HCC., Methods: This is a subanalysis of the SORAMIC trial. Overall, 363 patients were included. The SIRT/Sorafenib treatment group comprised 182 patients and the sorafenib group 181 patients. Myosteatosis was defined as skeletal muscle density (SMD) < 41 HU for patients with a body mass index up to 24.9 kg/m 2 and <33 HU for patients with a body mass index ≥25 kg/m 2 . Albumin-gauge score was calculated as follows: serum albumin (g/dL) × SMD (HU). To assess the impact of muscle quality on clinical variables and OS, a Cox regression model was used. Hazard ratios are presented together with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis., Results: In the SIRT/sorafenib cohort, low albumin-gauge score was an independent predictor of worse OS, HR = 1.74, CI 95% (1.16-2.62), p = 0.01. In the sorafenib cohort, muscle quality parameters did not predict OS. In alcohol-induced HCC (n = 129), myosteatosis independently predicted OS, HR = 1.85, CI 95% (1.10; 3.12), p = 0.02. In viral-induced HCC (n = 99), parameters of muscle quality did not predict OS. In patients with NASH/Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) induced HCC, albumin-gauge score was a strong independent predictor of worse OS in the subgroup undergoing combined treatment with SIRT and sorafenib, HR = 9.86, CI 95% (1.12; 86.5), p = 0.04., Conclusions: Myosteatosis predicts independently worse OS in patients with alcohol-induced HCC undergoing combined treatment with SIRT and sorafenib. In patients with NASH/NAFLD induced HCC undergoing treatment with SIRT and sorafenib, albumin-gauge score predicts independently worse OS., Impact and Implications: Associations between parameters of muscle quality and OS are different in accordance to the treatment strategy and etiology of HCC. These findings highlight the prognostic potential of skeletal muscle quality in patients with advanced HCC., (© 2024 The Author(s). United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

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).)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the biodistribution of (super-)selective trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) with holmium-166 microspheres ( 166 Ho-MS), when administered as adjuvant therapy after RFA of HCC 2-5 cm. The objective was to establish a treatment volume absorbed dose that results in an absorbed dose of ≥ 120 Gy on the hyperemic zone around the ablation necrosis (i.e., target volume)., Methods: In this multicenter, prospective dose-escalation study in BCLC early stage HCC patients with lesions 2-5 cm, RFA was followed by (super-)selective infusion of 166 Ho-MS on day 5-10 after RFA. Dose distribution within the treatment volume was based on SPECT-CT. Cohorts of up to 10 patients were treated with an incremental dose (60 Gy, 90 Gy, 120 Gy) of 166 Ho-MS to the treatment volume. The primary endpoint was to obtain a target volume dose of ≥ 120 Gy in 9/10 patients within a cohort., Results: Twelve patients were treated (male 10; median age, 66.5 years (IQR, [64.3-71.7])) with a median tumor diameter of 2.7 cm (IQR, [2.1-4.0]). At a treatment volume absorbed dose of 90 Gy, the primary endpoint was met with a median absorbed target volume dose of 138 Gy (IQR, [127-145]). No local recurrences were found within 1-year follow-up., Conclusion: Adjuvant (super-)selective infusion of 166 Ho-MS after RFA for the treatment of HCC can be administered safely at a dose of 90 Gy to the treatment volume while reaching a dose of ≥ 120 Gy to the target volume and may be a favorable adjuvant therapy for HCC lesions 2-5 cm., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03437382 . (registered: 19-02-2018)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) encompass a heterogeneous group of rare tumors, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA), gallbladder cancer (GBC) and ampullary cancer (AC). The present first-line palliative treatment regimen comprises gemcitabine and cisplatin in combination with immunotherapy based on two randomized controlled studies. Despite the thorough investigation of these palliative treatments, long-term survival remains low. Moving beyond conventional chemotherapies and immunotherapies, the realm of precision medicine has demonstrated remarkable efficacy in malignancies such as breast and gastric cancers, characterized by notable HER2 overexpression rates. In the context of biliary tract cancer, significant HER2 alterations are observed, particularly within eCCA and GBC, heightening the interest in precision medicine. Various anti-HER2 therapies, including trastuzumab, pertuzumab, trastuzumab-deruxtecan, zanidatamab and neratinib, have undergone investigation. The objective of this review is to summarize the current evidence and outline future directions of targeted HER2 treatment therapy in patients with biliary tract tumors, specially extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Angela Lamarca declares travel and educational support from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan, Delcath Advanz Pharma and Roche; speaker honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Incyte, AAA/Novartis, QED, Servier, Astra Zeneca, EISAI, Roche, Advanz Pharma and MSD; advisory and consultancy honoraria from EISAI, Nutricia, Ipsen, QED, Roche, Servier, Boston Scientific, Albireo Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GENFIT, TransThera Biosciences, Taiho and MSD; Principal Investigator-associated Institutional Funding form QED, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Astra Zeneca, GenFit, Albireo Pharma, Taiho, TransThera and Roche; she is also a member of the Knowledge Network and NETConnect Initiatives funded by Ipsen. Victor Moreno declares consulting fees from Roche, Bayer, BMS, Janssen and Basilea and Principal Investigator – Institutional Funding from AbbVie, AceaBio, Adaptimmune, ADC Therapeutics, Aduro, Agenus, Amcure, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca Bayer Beigene BioInvent International AB, BMS, Boehringer, Boheringer, Boston, Celgene, Daichii Sankyo, DEBIOPHARM,Eisai, e-Terapeutics, Exelisis, Forma Therapeutics, Genmab, GSK, Harpoon, Hutchison, Immutep, Incyte, Inovio, Iovance, Janssen, Kinnate Biopharma, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Loxo, MedSir, Menarini, Merck, Merus, Millennium, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, PharmaMar, Principia, PsiOxus, Puma, Regeneron, Rigontec, Relay therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Sierra Oncology, Synthon, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Transgene, Turning Point Therapeutics, Upshersmith. Heinz-Josef Klümpen declares fees paid to institution as an invited speaker from CCO and Medtalk; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, IPSEN and Janssen; institutional funding as a local PI from Exelixis, Incyte, ITM Solucin GmbH, MSD, Roche and Taiho; is the EURACAN subdomain leader G5.1; member of the national guideline committee for BTC in the Netherlands; member of ESMO guideline for biliary tract cancer. Javier Prato declares Travel and educational support from Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo and Gsk. Speaker Honoraria from: Gilead, Novartis, Astra Zeneca and Gsk. Manuel Pedregal declares advisory/consulting: Lilly, Merck, AstraZeneca, Sevier and MSD; Travel reimbursement: Servier; Researcg support, editorial boards, equity and patents: None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

About 500,000 patients with rare adult solid cancers (RASC) are diagnosed yearly in Europe. Delays and unequal quality of management impact negatively their survival. Since 2017, European reference networks (ERN) aim to improve the quality of care of patients with rare disease. The steering committee of EURACAN, including physicians, researchers and patients review here the previous actions, present objectives of the ERN EURACAN dedicated to RASC. EURACAN promoted management in reference centres, and equal implementation of excellence and innovation in Europe and developed 22 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Additionally, fourteen information brochures translated in 24 EU languages were developed in collaboration with patient advocacy groups (ePAGs) and seventeen training session were organized. Nevertheless, connections to national networks in the 26 participating countries (106 centres), simplification of cross-border healthcare, international multidisciplinary tumour boards, registries and monitoring of the quality of care are still required. In this Health Policy, evaluation criteria of the performances of the network and of health care providers are proposed., Competing Interests: WwdH Consulting fees Novartis, Ipsen, Camurus, ITM Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events Novartis, Ipsen, Camurus, ITM (personal). AMF: Grants or contracts from any entity Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen DompÈ, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid EURACAN Coordination team G1 ISG Coordination of the WG dedicated to education (Institution). AI: Grants or contracts from any entity: Carthera Transgene NutrithÈragËne Sanofi Consulting fees: Novocure Leo Pharma Novartis Boehringer Ingelheim Polytone Laser INC. Support for attending meetings and/or travel Carthera, Enterome (To my institution, unrelated to the submitted work)/DSMB: NCT02331498 (unpaid). HJK: Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board Janssen, Astra Zeneca, MSD (Advisory board, payments to my institution). JM-B Grants or contracts from any entity (PharmaMar Novartis Eisai IMMIX Biopharma Boehringer Ing. PTC Bio (Preclinical grant, to the institution); Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events PharmaMar Invited speaker Eli-Lilly Invited speaker Bayer Invited speaker Eisai Invited speaker Roche Invited speaker Daichii Invited speaker; IDMC: Tracon –(personal). LL: Grants or contracts: Adlai Nortye, Astrazeneca, BMS, DEbiopharm Eisai Eli Lilly, Exeliixis, Hoffman la Roche Isa therapeutics, Kura oncology, Merck Serono, MSD, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Syneos, Sun Pharma, Incyte Bioscienc ee international, Gilead Science, Genmab, Merck KGa (to the institution); Consulting fees: MSD IT, Merck Serono, Spa Healthcare professional, Merck Healthcare Kga, GSK, Hoffman la Roche, ALX oncology, EMD Serono Research and Development Inst. , Boehringer Ingelheim Int. Payment or honoraria for lectures: Merck Serono Spa, Merck Healthcare Kga, Neutron therapeutics Inc, Merck& Co IOnc., Astrazeneca, MSD IT, EMDSerono Research & Development Institute Inc, Mirati THerapeutics inc, F Hoffmann la Roche Ltd, Novartis Pharma Spa, Janssen Research and Development LLC, SEagen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Genmab US Inc, AstraZeneca uK Ltd, Abbvie Srl (Personal). MC: Consulting fees AAA-NOVARTIS To me IPSEN Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events AAA-NOVARTIS IPSEN INCA (personal). MJS: Consulting fees:Gamida (personal). PGC: Grants or contracts: Advenchen, Amgen, Dompé, AROG Pharma, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer ingelheim, Diichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme inc, Foghorn Ther. Inc, Glaxo, Hutchinson Mredipharma Ltd, Inhibrx Inc, Karyopharm pharmaceuticals, PTC ther, Novartis, Pfize, Pharmamar, Rain Oncology, Springworks (to institution). JYB Grants or contracts: EURACAN grant French NCI (INCA) NETSARC + grant, INTERSARC + grant, LYRICAN + grant; DEpGYN RHU; Fondation ARC:ACSE grant (to the institution); Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer ACSE Grant; Comité de l’Ain de la Ligue contre le Cancer Grant (all for the institution). The other authors report no conflict of interest related to this work., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: There is currently no evidence to support structured use of imaging or biomarkers during follow-up of patients after curative resection of biliary tract cancer (BTC). Besides, the influence of early detection of recurrence and subsequent start of palliative chemotherapy on overall survival remains unknown. The aim of this study is to describe and compare the results of two follow-up strategies., Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared patients from the Amsterdam UMC undergoing pragmatic clinical follow-up, to patients from the observational cohort of the BILCAP study undergoing structured follow-up. Primary outcome was overall survival., Results: A total of 315 patients were included n=91 pragmatic, n=224 structured follow-up). At median follow-up of 56.9 months, 189 (60%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence. After recurrence, more patients received palliative (chemo) therapy in the structured group (43% vs 75%, P<0.001). Median overall survival was lower in the pragmatic group (27.7 vs 39.1 months, P=0.003). Median overall survival of patients who actually received chemotherapy was comparable (27.2 vs 27.7 months, P=0.574)., Conclusion: This study describes the results of two follow-up strategies. Although these groups are biased, it is noted that after pragmatic follow-up fewer patients received palliative chemotherapy but that those who actually received chemotherapy had similar overall survival compared to patients undergoing structured follow-up., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

What Is This Summary About?: This summary describes the results from a phase 2 study called FOENIXCCA2. The study evaluated treatment with futibatinib in people with a rare form of advanced bile duct cancer called intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (or iCCA), where the tumors have changes in the structure of a gene called FGFR2. These changes include FGFR2 gene fusions. Bile duct cancer often returns after surgery or cannot be treated by surgery because the tumor has spread, so it requires treatment with chemotherapy. People live for a median of 1 year after their first chemotherapy treatment and 6 months after their second treatment. This study included people whose cancer had grown/spread after one or more chemotherapy treatments. The aims of the study were to see if futibatinib could shrink the size of tumors and stop the cancer from growing/spreading and to see how long people lived when treated with futibatinib. Clinicians also looked at side effects from taking futibatinib and at how it affected people's quality of life., What Were the Results?: Futibatinib treatment shrank tumors in over 80% of people who received treatment. Tumors shrank by at least 30% in 42% of people. Futibatinib stopped tumors from growing/spreading for a median of 9.7 months. People who took the medicine lived for a median of 21.7 months, and 72% of people were still alive after 1 year. Side effects from taking futibatinib were like those reported for similar medicines, and clinicians considered the side effects to be manageable by adjusting the dose of futibatinib or treating the side effects. Most people reported that their quality of life stayed the same or improved during the first 9 months of taking futibatinib., What Do the Results Mean?: The results support the use of futibatinib for treating people with advanced bile duct cancer. Based on the results of this study, futibatinib is now approved in the US, Europe, and Japan. Futibatinib is approved for treating adults with advanced bile duct cancer who have received previous treatment for their cancer, and whose tumors have a gene fusion or other change in the FGFR2 gene. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02052778 (FOENIX-CCA2).

Introduction: Advancements in the field of oncology are allowing patients to live longer, with enhanced quality of life (QoL). Accordingly, more patients with cancer are expressing the desire to return to work (RTW). Previous research has indicated that patients with a rare or advanced cancer can experience unique problems in the RTW process., Methods: This pilot study evaluated the outcomes and feasibility of the occupational care programme TERRA (i.e., recalibraTe lifE and woRk with and afteR cAncer) for patients with a rare or advanced cancer. Four rare cancer patients and 3 advanced cancer patients completed TERRA; a supportive occupational care programme consisting of five online group sessions over a two-month period. Pre- and post-intervention outcomes were collected using validated self-report questionnaires. The primary outcome was work ability. Secondary outcomes included QoL, anxiety and depression, fatigue, unmet needs, self-efficacy, readiness for RTW, work intention, work involvement, and work-life conflict. Feasibility was assessed using the RE-AIM model., Results: Changes in work ability scores were inconsistent across participants. Well-being outcomes generally improved following the intervention. Feasibility was evaluated positively by both participants and trainers., Conclusion: A multidisciplinary approach may further improve outcomes of occupational interventions supporting rare and advanced cancer patients. An effectiveness study to evaluate the outcomes and feasibility of the programme is deemed necessary., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: A post-hoc analysis of ABC trials included 34 patients with liver-confined unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) who received systemic chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin (gem-cis). The median overall survival (OS) was 16.7 months and the 3-year OS was 2.8%. The aim of this study was to compare patients treated with systemic gem-cis versus hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy for liver-confined unresectable iCCA., Methods: We retrospectively collected consecutive patients with liver-confined unresectable iCCA who received gem-cis in two centers in the Netherlands to compare with consecutive patients who received HAIP chemotherapy with or without systemic chemotherapy in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center., Results: In total, 268 patients with liver-confined unresectable iCCA were included; 76 received gem-cis and 192 received HAIP chemotherapy. In the gem-cis group 42 patients (55.3%) had multifocal disease compared with 141 patients (73.4%) in the HAIP group (p = 0.023). Median OS for gem-cis was 11.8 months versus 27.7 months for HAIP chemotherapy (p < 0.001). OS at 3 years was 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0-13.6%) in the gem-cis group versus 34.3% (95% CI 28.1-41.8%) in the HAIP chemotherapy group. After adjusting for male gender, performance status, baseline hepatobiliary disease, and multifocal disease, the hazard ratio (HR) for HAIP chemotherapy was 0.27 (95% CI 0.19-0.39)., Conclusions: This study confirmed the results from the ABC trials that survival beyond 3 years is rare for patients with liver-confined unresectable iCCA treated with palliative gem-cis alone. With HAIP chemotherapy, one in three patients was alive at 3 years., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To investigate prognostic value of baseline MRI features for time-to-recurrence (TTR) and local recurrence in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Method: Baseline and follow-up images of 88 patients treated with thermal ablation followed by adjuvant sorafenib or matching placebo due to HCC within the phase II prospective randomized trial (SORAMIC) were included. Baseline MRI images were evaluated in terms of atypical enhancement (lack of wash-in or wash-out), lesion diameter, tumor capsule, peritumoral enhancement on arterial phase, intratumoral fat, irregular margin, satellite lesions, and peritumoral hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase. Prognostic value of these features for TTR and local recurrence were assessed with univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models., Results: Recurrence at any location was diagnosed during follow-up in 30 patients, and the median TTR was 16.4 (95% CI, 15 - NA) months. The presence of more than one lesion (p = 0.028) and peritumoral hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase images (p = 0.012) at baseline were significantly associated with shorter TTR in univariable analysis. AFP > 15 mg/dL (p = 0.084), and history of cirrhosis (p = 0.099) were marginally non-significant. Peritumoral hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase images was the only significant risk factor for recurrence in multivariable analysis (p = 0.003). Local recurrence (adjacent to thermal scar) was diagnosed in eleven (8.3%) out of 132 lesions that underwent thermal ablation. The only significant risk factor for local recurrence was a lesion diameter larger than 3 cm (22.2% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.007)., Conclusions: Peritumoral hypointensity on hepatobiliary phase can serve as imaging biomarker to identify increased recurrence risk in patients undergoing thermal ablation for early-stage HCC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Osman Öcal: Honoraria: Bayer. Kerstin Schütte: Honoraria & Advisory Board: Bayer. Thomas Berg: Grants: Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, MSD/Merck, Humedics, Intercept, Merz, Norgine, Novartis, Orphalan, Sequana Medical. Consulting fees: Abbvie, Alexion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, Eisai, Enyo Pharma, HepaRegeniX GmbH, Humedics, Intercept, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD/Merck, Novartis, Orphalan, Roche, Sequana Medical, SIRTEX, SOBI, and Shionogi. Honoraria: Abbvie, Alexion, Bayer, Gilead, Eisai, Falk Foundation, Intercept, Ipsen, Janssen, MedUpdate GmbH, MSD/Merck, Novartis, Orphalan, Sequana Medica, SIRTEX, and SOBI. Travel fees: Gilead, Abbvie, Intercept, Janssen. Heinz Josef Klümpen: Honoraria: MEDtalks, IPSEN. Advisory Board: Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, IPSEN. Najib Ben Khaled: Travel fees: EISAI. Honoraria: Falk. Enrico De Toni: Consultant: AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, EISAI, Eli Lilly & Co, Pfizer, IPSEN, and Roche. Travel fees: Arqule, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Celsion, and Roche. Honoraria: BMS, Falk. Grants: Arqule, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Eli Lilly, and Roche. Jens Ricke: Grants: Sirtex, Bayer; Personal fees: Sirtex, Bayer. Max Seidensticker: Personal fees: Bayer, Sirtex., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Most data on the treatment and outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) derives from expert centers. This study aimed to investigate the treatment and outcomes of all patients diagnosed with iCCA in a nationwide cohort., Methods: Data on all patients diagnosed with iCCA between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry., Results: In total, 1747 patients diagnosed with iCCA were included. Resection was performed in 292 patients (17%), 548 patients (31%) underwent palliative systemic treatment, and 867 patients (50%) best supportive care (BSC). The OS median and 1-, and 3-year OS were after resection: 37.5 months (31.0-44.0), 79.2%, and 51.6%,; with systemic therapy, 10.0 months (9.2-10.8), 38.4%, and 5.1%, and with BSC 2.2 months (2.0-2.5), 10.4%, and 1.3% respectively. The resection rate for patients who first presented in academic centers was 33% (96/292) compared to 13% (195/1454) in non-academic centers (P < 0.001)., Discussion: Half of almost 1750 patients with iCCA over an 8 year period did not receive any treatment with a 1-year OS of 10.4%. Three-year survival was about 50% after resection, while long-term survival was rare after palliative treatment. The resection rate was higher in academic centers compared to non-academic centers., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Effective (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma is lacking due to chemoresistance and the absence of predictive biomarkers. Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) has been described as a potential prognostic and predictive biomarker. In this study, the potential of rabbit-derived (SP120) and murine-derived (10D7G2) antibodies to detect hENT1 expression was compared in tissue samples of patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC), and the predictive value of hENT1 was investigated in three ECC cell lines. Methods: Tissues of 71 chemonaïve patients with histological confirmation of ECC were selected and stained with SP120 or 10D7G2 to assess the inter-observer variability for both antibodies and the correlation with overall survival. Concomitantly, gemcitabine sensitivity after hENT1 knockdown was assessed in the ECC cell lines EGI-1, TFK-1, and SK-ChA-1 using sulforhodamine B assays. Results: Scoring immunohistochemistry for hENT1 expression with the use of SP120 antibody resulted in the highest interobserver agreement but did not show a prognostic role of hENT1. However, 10D7G2 showed a prognostic role for hENT1, and a potential predictive role for gemcitabine sensitivity in hENT1 in SK-ChA-1 and TFK-1 cells was found. Discussion: These findings prompt further studies for both preclinical validation of the role of hENT1 and histochemical standardization in cholangiocarcinoma patients treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Boyd, Nooijen, Ali, Puik, Moustaquim, Fraga Rodrigues, Broos, Belkouz, Meijer, Le Large, Erdmann, Hooijer, Heger, Van Laarhoven, Roos, Kazemier, Giovannetti, Verheij and Klümpen.)

Background: Currently, no practical definition of potentially resectable, borderline or unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is available. Aim of this study was to define criteria to categorize patients for use in a future neoadjuvant or induction therapy study., Method: Using the modified DELPHI method, hepatobiliary surgeons from all tertiary referral centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in this study. During five online meetings, predefined factors determining resectability and additional factors regarding surgical resectability and operability were discussed., Results: The five online meetings resulted in 52 statements. After two surveys, consensus was reached in 63% of the questions. The main consensus included a definition regarding potential resectability. 1) Clearly resectable: no vascular involvement (≤90°) of the future liver remnant (FLR) and expected feasibility of radical biliary resection. 2) Clearly unresectable: non-reconstructable venous and/or arterial involvement of the FLR or no feasible radical biliary resection. 3) Borderline resectable: all patients between clearly resectable and clearly unresectable disease., Conclusion: This DELPHI study resulted in a practical and applicable resectability, or more accurate, an explorability classification, which can be used to categorize patients for use in future neoadjuvant therapy studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Lynn Nooijen reports financial support was provided by Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Parameters of body composition have prognostic potential in patients with oncologic diseases. The aim of the present study was to analyse the prognostic potential of radiomics-based parameters of the skeletal musculature and adipose tissues in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: Radiomics features were extracted from a cohort of 297 HCC patients as post hoc sub-study of the SORAMIC randomized controlled trial. Patients were treated with selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in combination with sorafenib or with sorafenib alone yielding two groups: (1) sorafenib monotherapy (n = 147) and (2) sorafenib and SIRT (n = 150). The main outcome was 1-year survival. Segmentation of muscle tissue and adipose tissue was used to retrieve 881 features. Correlation analysis and feature cleansing yielded 292 features for each patient group and each tissue type. We combined 9 feature selection methods with 10 feature set compositions to build 90 feature sets. We used 11 classifiers to build 990 models. We subdivided the patient groups into a train and validation cohort and a test cohort, that is, one third of the patient groups., Results: We used the train and validation set to identify the best feature selection and classification model and applied it to the test set for each patient group. Classification yields for patients who underwent sorafenib monotherapy an accuracy of 75.51% and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.7576 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6376-0.8776). For patients who underwent treatment with SIRT and sorafenib, results are accuracy = 78.00% and AUC = 0.8032 (95% CI: 0.6930-0.9134)., Conclusions: Parameters of radiomics-based analysis of the skeletal musculature and adipose tissue predict 1-year survival in patients with advanced HCC. The prognostic value of radiomics-based parameters was higher in patients who were treated with SIRT and sorafenib., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: A high SUV max tumor-to-liver ratio (TLR) of 68 Ga-DOTATATE can be used to select patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). In addition, an SUV max TLR ≥ 8.1 is associated with increased progression-free survival in NET patients treated with somatostatin analogs (SSAs). To avoid a theoretical interaction, several guidelines recommend performing PET/CT just before the monthly administration of long-acting SSAs. We aimed to investigate the effect of SSA on the SUV max of 68 Ga-DOTATATE in patients with NET and to identify independent predictors for high SUV max TLR., Patients and Methods: For this retrospective study, 192 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scans of 165 patients without (n = 115) and with (n = 77) SSA (octreotide or lanreotide) in the 3 months before PET/CT were collected and reviewed. The effect of SSA on SUV max values was analyzed by a maximum likelihood mixed model., Results: Patients with SSA had a significantly higher median SUV max TLR than patients without SSA (4.7 [IQR], 3.1-7.7) versus 3.2 [IQR, 2.0-5.4]; P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that SSA use was an independent predictor for SUV max TLR ≥ 8.1 (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.72; P = 0.012)., Conclusions: Our data suggest that higher SSA concentrations do not have a negative effect on 68 Ga-DOTATATE uptake in tumor lesions. In addition, we found that only SSA use was associated with SUV max TLR ≥ 8.1. Our results are consistent with previously conducted studies and in line with the recently published guideline that suggests that the relatively recent use of SSA does not necessitate any delay in 68 Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT imaging., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: To compare transarterial chemoembolization delivered with drug eluting beads (TACE-DEB) with stereotactioc body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a multicenter randomized trial., Methods and Materials: Patients were included if they were eligible for TACE. They could also be recruited if they required treatment prior to liver transplantation. A maximum of four TACE-DEB procedures and ablation after incomplete TACE-DEB were both allowed. SBRT was delivered in six fractions of 8-9Gy. Primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were local control (LC), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), toxicity, and quality of life (QoL). The calculated sample size was 100 patients., Results: Between May 2015 and April 2020, 30 patients were randomized to the study. Due to slow accrual the trial was closed prematurely. Two patients in the SBRT arm were considered ineligible leaving 16 patients in the TACE-DEB arm and 12 in the SBRT arm. Median follow-up was 28.1 months. Median TTP was 12 months for TACEDEB and 19 months for SBRT (p=0.15). Median LC was 12 months for TACE-DEB and >40 months (not reached) for SBRT (p=0.075). Median OS was 36.8 months for TACEDEB and 44.1 months for SBRT (p=0.36). A post-hoc analysis showed 100% for SBRT 1- and 2-year LC, and 54.4% and 43.6% for TACE-DEB (p=0.019). Both treatments resulted in RR>80%. Three episodes of possibly related toxicity grade ≥3 were observed after TACE-DEB. No episodes were observed after SBRT. QoL remained stable after both treatment arms., Conclusions: In this trial, TTP after TACE-DEB was not significantly improved by SBRT, while SBRT showed higher local antitumoral activity than TACE-DEB, without detrimental effects on OS, toxicity and QoL. To overcome poor accrual in randomized trials that include SBRT, and to generate evidence for including SBRT in treatment guidelines, international cooperation is needed., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: - This population-based study aimed to investigate incidence, risk factors, treatment, and survival of synchronous peritoneal metastases (PM) of hepatobiliary origin., Methods: - All Dutch patients diagnosed with hepatobiliary cancer between 2009 and 2018 were selected. Factors associated with PM were identified with logistic regression analyses. Treatments for patients with PM were categorized into local therapy, systemic therapy, and best supportive care (BSC). Overall survival (OS) was investigated using log-rank test., Results: - In total, 12 649 patients were diagnosed with hepatobiliary cancer of whom 8% (n = 1066) were diagnosed with synchronous PM (12% [n = 882/6519] in biliary tract cancer [BTC] vs. 4% [n = 184/5248] in hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]). Factors that were positively associated with PM were the female sex (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03-1.35), BTC (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.46-3.50), diagnosis in more recent years (2013-2015: OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20-1.68; 2016-2018: OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.26-1.75), T3/T4 stage (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.55-2.18), N1/N2 stage (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12-1.53) and other synchronous systemic metastases (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.62-2.12). Of all PM patients, 723 (68%) received BSC only. Median OS was 2.7 months (IQR 0.9-8.2) in PM patients., Conclusion: - Synchronous PM were found in 8% of all hepatobiliary cancer patients and occurred more often in BTC than in HCC. Most patients with PM received BSC only. Given the high incidence and dismal prognosis of PM patients, extended research in hepatobiliary PM is needed to achieve better outcome in these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest IHJTdH: An unrestricted research grant for unrelated research from RanD Biotech and ROCHE, paid to the institute. JdV has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Servier, and has received institutional research funding from Servier. HJK: has served in an advisory board for Jansen, IPSEN and Astra Zeneca, paid to institute. Has received speakers fee from Medtalks and CCO, paid to institute. All outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients with a rare cancer often face delays in their diagnostic and treatment trajectory, which may affect their work. In this study, we explored experiences and needs of: 1) patients with a rare cancer regarding return to work (RTW) and work retention, and 2) (health care) professionals (HCPs) regarding work-related support of patients with a rare cancer, throughout their disease trajectory., Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with working-age patients with a rare cancer ( n  = 16), and HCPs ( n  = 9) were conducted. During the interviews, a predefined topic list was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by means of thematic analysis., Results: In total, three themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Awareness in patients and HCPs as a first step towards work, 2) Being/becoming an expert is a tough job, and 3) Enhancing employability through early personalized guidance., Conclusions: Patients with a rare cancer are confronted with uncertainties regarding work, due to an overall lack of knowledge and experience with these types of cancer. Raising awareness among patients, HCPs and employers about rare cancer and its implications, and providing timely individualized, supportive occupational care are required to improve rare cancer patients' ability to work.Implications for rehabilitationRecognizing and paying attention to the work-related consequences of a rare cancer diagnosis and its treatment is essential to facilitate rare cancer patients' occupational rehabilitation process.Multidisciplinary collaboration and involvement of HCPs specialized in rare cancer are required to provide suitable work-related support.A personalized approach is necessary to adequately address rare cancer patients' RTW and work retention needs.

Background: For palliative drainage of inoperable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) uncovered metal stents are preferred over plastic stents. However, there is a lack of data on re-interventions at the long-term. The aim is to evaluate the potential difference in the number of re-interventions in patients surviving at least 6 months., Methods: Retrospective study including patients with pCCA who underwent plastic stent placement(s) or had metal stent(s) in situ for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of re-interventions per patient-year. A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, Bismuth classification, reason for inoperability, pathological confirmation, systemic therapy and initial approach (endoscopic vs percutaneous)., Results: Patients in the metal stent group (n = 87) underwent fewer re-interventions compared with the plastic stent group (n = 40) (3.0 vs. 4.7 per patient-year; IRR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). When only non-elective re-interventions were included, there was no significant difference (2.1 vs. 2.7; IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.08). Results were similar in the propensity score-matched dataset., Conclusions: This study shows that, also in patients with inoperable pCCA who survive at least 6 months, placement of metal stent(s) leads to fewer re-interventions in comparison with plastic stents., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biliary tract cancers, which arise from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, generally have a poor prognosis and are rising in incidence worldwide. The standard-of-care treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Because most biliary tract cancers have an immune-suppressed microenvironment, immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a low objective response rate. We aimed to assess whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin would improve outcomes compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer., Methods: KEYNOTE-966 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 175 medical centres globally. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles). Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636., Findings: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021, 1564 patients were screened for eligibility, 1069 of whom were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (pembrolizumab group; n=533) or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (placebo group; n=536). Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25·6 months (IQR 21·7-30·4). Median overall survival was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·5-13·6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9·9-11·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·72-0·95]; one-sided p=0·0034 [significance threshold, p=0·0200]). In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events., Interpretation: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RKK, MU, CY, RSF, JF, ZR, TY, H-JK, SLC, MO, CV, MB, JOP, OB, UP, JWV, JE, and AV report funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD), to support conduct of this study. All authors received medical writing and editorial support for the preparation of this manuscript from MSD. RKK additionally reports advisory committee membership for MSD; grants or contracts to their institution from Agios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Loxo Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Partner Therapeutics, QED, Relay Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, and Taiho; consulting fees (advisory board payments) to themself from Compass Therapeutics, Kinnate, Exact Sciences, Regeneron, and Tyra Biosciences; consulting fees (advisory board or steering committee payments) to their institution from Agios, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Ipsen, and MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca and MSD; participation on a data safety monitoring board (uncompensated) for Genentech/Roche and MSD; being a scientific and medical advisory board co-chair (uncompensated) for the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation; and member of governance board (uncompensated) for the International Liver Cancer Association. MU additionally reports grants or contracts to their institution from Taiho Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Merck Biopharma, MSD, Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and J-pharma; and payment or honoraria to themself from Taiho Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Yakult Honsha, MSD, Nihon Servier, Ono Pharmaceutical, Incyte, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, J-pharma, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Mylan EPD, Delta-Fly Pharma, and Novartis. CY additionally reports grants or contracts to themself from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Ipsen, Boryung Pharmaceuticals, Ildong Pharmaceuticals, CKD Pharmaceuticals, and HK inno.N; consulting fees to themself from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Ipsen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Boryung Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Roche, and Janssen; and payment or honoraria to themself from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Ipsen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Boryung Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Roche, and Janssen. RSF additionally reports grants or contracts to their institution from Adaptimmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Genentech; consulting fees to themself from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Cstone, Hengrui, Eisai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Genentech; payment or honoraria to themself from Genentech; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board from AstraZeneca, and Hengrui. JF additionally reports grants or contracts from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Incyte Biosciences Japan, Eisai, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, J-Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Sumitomo Dainippon, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Delta-Fly Pharma, and Chugai Pharma; payment or honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Incyte Biosciences Japan, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, AstraZeneca, Yakult Honsha, Servier Japan, MSD, Novartis Pharma, Takeda, Bayer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, EA Pharma, Teijin Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, and Terumo; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Onco Therapy Science, Chugai Pharma, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Takara Bio, Merck Bio, MSD, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. ZR additionally reports consulting fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Roche and payment or honoraria for lectures from Bayer, MSD, and Roche. TY additionally reports consulting fees from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Ipsen; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and Bayer; stock or stock options in Moderna; medical writing support from Taiho and Ispen; and payments to their institution for clinical trial investigatorship from BMS, MSD, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Taiho. H-JK additionally reports payment or honoraria to their institution from MEDtalks and Ipsen and payments made to their institution for participation on an advisory board from AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, and Ipsen. SLC additionally reports consulting fees to themself from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, and Bayer; payment or honoraria to themself from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and support for attending meetings or travel from Ipsen and Novartis. MO additionally reports payment or honoraria from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Yakult Honsha, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Nihon, Servier, Bayer, and Pfizer. CV additionally reports consulting fees from Bayer, MSD, Roche, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; and payment or honoraria from Bayer, MSD, Roche, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca. MB additionally reports consulting fees from Bayer Pharma, MSD, Eisai, Sirtex Medical, BMS, Roche, and AstraZeneca; and payment or honoraria from Bayer Pharma, MSD, Sirtex Medical, BMS, Roche, and AstraZeneca. JOP additionally reports grants or contracts from BMS (Celgene), Servier, MedPacto, Eutilex, and ABL Bio; support for attending meetings or travel from Minneamrita Therapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Adicet, and Merck Serono. JWV additionally reports consulting fees to themself from Ipsen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, PCI Biotech, Incyte, Keocyt, QED Therapeutics, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Genoscience Pharma, Mundipharma, Wren Laboratories, Nucana, Debiopharm Group, Imaging Equipment Limited, Hutchison MediPharma, Zymeworks, Aptitude Health, Sirtex Medical, Baxter, Medivir, Cantargia AB, Autem Medical, Taiho Oncology, Servier, and Boehringer Ingelheim; payments to themself for speakers bureaus from Novartis, Ipsen, Nucana, Imaging Equipment Limited, Mylan, Incyte, Servier, and Delcath Systems; and support for attending meetings or travel from Nucana, Lilly, Roche, and AstraZeneca/MedImmune. LY reports salary for full-time employment from MSD. UM reports salary for full-time employment from MSD and stock ownership in Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA. ABS reports salary for full-time employment from MSD and stock ownership in Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA. JE additionally reports grants or contracts from BMS, Beigene, and Boston Scientific; and payment or honoraria from MSD, Eisai, BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Basilea, Merck Serono, Incyte, Servier, Beigene, Taiho, and Boston Scientific. AV additionally reports consulting fees to themself from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Beigene, Böhringer Mannheim, BMS, BTG, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, Taiho, and Terumo; payment or honoraria to themself from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Beigene, Böhringer Mannheim, BMS, BTG, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Imaging Equipment (AAA), Incyte, Ipsen, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicines, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, Taiho, and Terumo; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Beigene, Böhringer Mannheim, BMS, BTG, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, Taiho, and Terumo. OB and UP report no additional competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Body composition parameters have been reported to be prognostic factors in patients with oncologic diseases. However, the available data on patients with HCC are conflicting. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of body composition on survival in patients with HCC treated with sorafenib or selective internal radioembolization (SIRT) and sorafenib., Methods: This is an exploratory subanalysis of the prospective, randomized controlled SORAMIC trial. Within the palliative arm of the study, patients were selected if a baseline abdominal CT was available. A broad set of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue parameters were measured at the L3 level. Low skeletal muscle mass (LSMM) and density parameters were defined using published cutoffs. The parameters were correlated with overall survival., Results: Of 424 patients in the palliative study arm, 369 patients were included in the analysis. There were 192 patients in the combined sorafenib/SIRT and 177 patients in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 9.9 months for the entire cohort and 10.8 and 9.2 months for the SIRT/sorafenib and sorafenib groups, respectively. There was no relevant association of either body composition parameter with overall survival in either the overall cohort or in the SIRT/sorafenib or sorafenib subgroups., Conclusions: This subanalysis of the prospective SORAMIC trial does not suggest a relevant influence of body composition parameters of survival in patients with advanced HCC. Body composition parameters therefore do not serve in patient allocation in this palliative treatment cohort., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Introduction: The optimal treatment for unresected nonmetastatic biliary tract cancer (uBTC) is not well-established. The objective of this study was to analyze the treatment patterns and compare the differences in overall survival (OS) between different treatment strategies amongst older adults with uBTC., Materials and Methods: We identified patients aged ≥65 years with uBTC using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (2004-2015). Treatments were classified into chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and radiotherapy. The primary outcome was OS. The differences in OS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression., Results: A total of 4352 patients with uBTC were included. The median age was 80 years and median OS was 4.1 months. Most patients (67.3%, n = 2931) received no treatment, 19.1% chemotherapy (n = 833), 8.1% chemoradiotherapy (n = 354), and 5.4% radiotherapy alone (n = 234). Patients receiving no treatment were older and had more comorbidities. Chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS than no treatment in uBTC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.95), but no difference was found in the subgroups of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.00) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86-1.39). In the sensitivity analyses, capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy showed significantly longer OS in uBTC compared to chemotherapy (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95)., Discussion: A minority of older patients with uBTC receive systemic treatments. Chemotherapy was associated with longer OS compared to no treatment in uBTC, but not in the subgroups of iCCA and GBC. The efficacy of chemoradiotherapy, especially in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma using capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy, may be further evaluated in prospective clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant sorafenib treatment compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent local ablation., Methods: The SORAMIC trial is a randomised controlled trial with diagnostic, local ablation, and palliative sub-study arms. After initial imaging within the diagnostic study, patients were assigned to local ablation or palliative arms. In the local ablation cohort, patients were randomised 1:1 to local ablation + sorafenib vs. local ablation + placebo. The primary endpoint was time-to-recurrence (TTR). Secondary endpoints were local control rate and safety in terms of adverse events and quality-of-life., Results: The recruitment was terminated prematurely after 104 patients owing to slow recruitment. One patient was excluded because of a technical failure. Fifty-four patients were randomised to local ablation + sorafenib and 49 to local ablation + placebo. Eighty-eight patients who underwent standardised follow-up imaging comprised the per-protocol population. The median TTR was 15.2 months in the sorafenib arm and 16.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.53-2.2; p  = 0.82). Out of 136 lesions ablated within the trial, there was no difference in local recurrence rate between sorafenib (6/69, 8.6%) and placebo groups (5/67, 5.9%; p  = 0.792).Overall (92.5% vs. 71.4%, p  = 0.008) and drug-related (81.4% vs. 55.1%, p  = 0.003) adverse events were more common in the sorafenib arm compared with the placebo arm. Dose reduction because of adverse events were common in the sorafenib arm (79.6% vs. 30.6%, p <0.001)., Conclusions: Adjuvant sorafenib did not improve in TTR or local control rate after local ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within the limitations of an early terminated trial., Impact and Implications: Local ablation is the standard of care treatment in patients with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma, along with surgical therapies. However, there is a risk of disease recurrence during follow-up. Sorafenib, an oral medication, is a routinely used treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This study found that sorafenib treatment after local ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma did not significantly improve the disease-free period compared with placebo., Clinical Trial Number: EudraCT 2009-012576-27, NCT01126645., Competing Interests: MS: Personal fees: Bayer, Sirtex. OÖ: Honoraria: Bayer. PM: Grants: Bayer, Sirtex. TB: Grants/research support: Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, MSD/Merck, Humedics, Intercept, Merz, Novartis, Sequana Medical. Honoraria or consultation fees: Abbvie, Alexion, Bayer, Gilead, Eisai, Humedics, Intercept, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD/Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sequana Medical, SIRTEX, SOBI, and Shionogi. ENdT: Consultant fees: AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, EISAI, Eli Lilly & Co, Pfizer, IPSEN, and Roche. Travel fees: Arqule, Astrazeneca, BMS, Bayer, Celsion, and Roche and lecture honoraria from BMS and Falk. Grants: Arqule, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Eli Lilly, and Roche. BS: Consultancy fees: Adaptimmune, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, BTG, Eisai, Eli Lilly, H3 Biomedicine, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Sirtex Medical and Terumo. Speaker fees: Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, BTG, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Sirtex Medical and Terumo. Grants (to Institution): BMS and Sirtex Medical. MP: Grants: Sirtex, Bayer; Personal fees: Sirtex. JR: Grants: Sirtex, Bayer; Personal fees: Sirtex, Bayer. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: The DRAINAGE trial was a randomized controlled trial comparing preoperative endoscopic (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with potentially resectable, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes., Methods: Patients were randomized in four tertiary referral centers. Follow-up data were available for all included patients. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were readmissions, and re-interventions not including in-trial interventions., Results: A total of 54 patients were randomized; 27 in both groups. Median follow-up for both groups was 62 months (95% CI 54-70). The median OS was 13 months (95% CI 7.9-18.1) in the EBD and 7 months (95% CI 0.0-17.2) in the PTBD group (P = 0.28). Twenty (37%, n = 8 EBD vs n = 12 PTBD, P = 0.43) of 54 patients were readmitted at least once, mostly due to drainage-related complications (n = 13, 24%). Of note, 14 out of the 54 patients died within the trial. A total of 76 drainage procedures (32 EBD and 44 PTBD) were performed in 28 patients. The median number of stent or drain placements was 2 (2-4) for the EBD group and 2 (1-3) for the PTBD group (P = 0.77)., Discussion: Although this follow-up study represented a small cohort, no long-term differences in survival, readmissions, and drainage procedures for EBD and PTBD were found, even when comparing the resected and unresected group. However, this study demonstrates the complexity of biliary drainage for patients with potentially resectable pCCA, even in tertiary referral centers., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure AV reports personal fees for speaker, consultancy and advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Basilea, BeiGene, Bayer, Boehringer Mannheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), BTG, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Imaging Equipment Ltd (AAA), Incyte, Ipsen, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicines, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sirtex, Tahio and Terumo; research funding from Incyte and Servier; participation in educational activities for Onclive and Oncowissen.de. JB reports personal fees for advisory board membership from Basilea, BMS, Incyte and Taiho and institutional funding from Incyte. JE reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, Roche and Servier; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BeiGene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche and Servier; personal fees for steering committee membership from MSD; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from Agios, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Servier and Taiho, and as a coordinating PI from BeiGene, BMS and a non-remunerated role as a PI for Unicancer. RKK reports personal fees for advisory board membership from Exact Sciences, Gilead and Kinnate Biopharma; personal fees for Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) membership (2018-2020) from Genentech/Roche; institutional funding from Partner Therapeutics; institutional funding as a local PI from Agios, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Novartis, QED, Relay Therapeutics, Surface Oncology and Taiho and as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Exelixis and Merck; institutional funding as a steering committee member from Agios, AstraZeneca and Merck and non-remunerated roles as a PI for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Exelixis, and Merck; a non-remunerated advisory role as chair and member of the IDMC for Genentech/Roche and Merck. HJK reports fees paid to his institution as an invited speaker from CCO and Medtalk; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca and Janssen; institutional funding as a local PI from Exelixis, Incyte, ITM Solucin GmbH, MSD, Roche and Taiho; is the EURACAN subdomain leader G5.1; member of the national guideline committee for BTC and HCC in the Netherlands. DM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Foundation Medicine, HalioDX, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Veracyte and Viatris; personal fees for advisory board membership from Agios, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, HalioDX, Incyte, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier and Taiho; personal fees for a writing engagement from Medscape; personal fees for expert testimony from AbbVie; travel expenses for medical congresses from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier and Viatris. JNP reports personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca. LR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi and Servier; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine, Genenta, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology and Zymeworks; institutional funding as a local PI from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, FibroGen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche and Zymeworks; travel expenses from AstraZeneca and Ipsen. AS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Incyte and Roche; personal fees for advisory board membership from Aignostics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics and Thermo Fisher; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from BMS, Novartis and Takeda; institutional funding from Bayer, BMS, Chugai and Incyte. JWV reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Incyte, Ipsen, Mylan, Servier and Delcath; personal fees for advisory board membership from Agios, AstraZeneca, Autem, Baxter, Cantargia, Debiopharm, Genoscience Pharma, HUTCHMED, Imaging Equipment Ltd (AAA), Incyte, Keocyt, Medivir, Mundipharma EDO, NuCana BioMed, QED, Servier, Sirtex, Taiho and Zymeworks; institutional funding from AstraZeneca and Redx. MD reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Roche; personal fees for advisory board membership from Basilea, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, HalioDX, Ipsen, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Rafael, Roche, Servier, SOTIO Biotech and Zymeworks; institutional funding from Bayer, Keocyt and Roche; institutional funding as a local PI from Amgen and Rafael.

Background: Alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 ( FGFR2 ) have emerged as promising drug targets for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. Futibatinib, a next-generation, covalently binding FGFR1-4 inhibitor, has been shown to have both antitumor activity in patients with FGFR -altered tumors and strong preclinical activity against acquired resistance mutations associated with ATP-competitive FGFR inhibitors., Methods: In this multinational, open-label, single-group, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic FGFR2 fusion-positive or FGFR2 rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and disease progression after one or more previous lines of systemic therapy (excluding FGFR inhibitors). The patients received oral futibatinib at a dose of 20 mg once daily in a continuous regimen. The primary end point was objective response (partial or complete response), as assessed by independent central review. Secondary end points included the response duration, progression-free and overall survival, safety, and patient-reported outcomes., Results: Between April 16, 2018, and November 29, 2019, a total of 103 patients were enrolled and received futibatinib. A total of 43 of 103 patients (42%; 95% confidence interval, 32 to 52) had a response, and the median duration of response was 9.7 months. Responses were consistent across patient subgroups, including patients with heavily pretreated disease, older adults, and patients who had co-occurring TP53 mutations. At a median follow-up of 17.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months and overall survival was 21.7 months. Common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (in 30% of the patients), an increased aspartate aminotransferase level (in 7%), stomatitis (in 6%), and fatigue (in 6%). Treatment-related adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of futibatinib in 2% of the patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Quality of life was maintained throughout treatment., Conclusions: In previously treated patients with FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the use of futibatinib, a covalent FGFR inhibitor, led to measurable clinical benefit. (Funded by Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceutical; FOENIX-CCA2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02052778.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Currently, the potential benefits of additional resection after positive proximal intraoperative frozen sections (IFS) in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) on residual disease and oncological outcome remain uncertain. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the number of R0 resections after additional resection of a positive proximal IFS and the influence of additional resections on overall survival (OS) in patients with pCCA., Materials and Methods: A retrospective, multicenter, matched case-control study was performed, including patients undergoing resection for pCCA between 2000 and 2019 at three tertiary centers. Primary outcome was the number of achieved 'additional' R0 resections. Secondary outcomes were OS, recurrence, severe morbidity and mortality., Results: Forty-four out of 328 patients undergoing resection for pCCA had a positive proximal IFS. An additional resection was performed in 35 out of 44 (79.5%) patients, which was negative in 24 (68.6%) patients. Nevertheless, seven out of these 24 patients were eventually classified as R1 resection due to other positive resection margins. Therefore, 17 (48.6%) patients could be classified as "true" R0 resection after additional resection. Ninety-day mortality after R1 resections was high (25%) and strongly influenced OS. After correction for 90-day mortality, median OS after negative additional resection was 33 months (95%CI:29.5-36.5) compared to 30 months (95%CI:24.4-35.6) after initial R1 (P = 0.875) and 46 months (95%CI:32.7-59.3) after initial R0 (P = 0.348)., Conclusion: There were only 17 patients (out of a total of 328 patients) that potentially benefitted from routine IFS. Additional resection for a positive IFS leading to R0 resection was not associated with improved long-term survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acetaminophen is metabolized through a nontoxic sulfation and glucuronidation pathway and toxic oxidation pathway (via CYP2E1 and CYP1A2). A short-term high-fat diet induces alterations in the steatotic liver and may alter hepatic drug enzyme activity. In the case of acetaminophen, these alterations may result in an increased risk of hepatotoxicity. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the effect of a 3-day hypercaloric high-fat diet on the plasma levels of acetaminophen metabolites., Methods: Nine healthy subjects participated in this randomized, crossover intervention study. The subjects consumed a regular diet or a regular diet supplemented with 500 mL of cream (1700 kcal) for 3 days and then fasted overnight. After ingesting 1000-mg acetaminophen, the plasma concentration of acetaminophen (APAP) and its metabolites [acetaminophen glucuronide, acetaminophen sulfate, 3-cysteinyl-acetaminophen, and 3-(N-acetyl-L-cystein-S-yl)-acetaminophen, and 3-methoxy-acetaminophen] were measured., Results: The 3-day high-fat diet increased the extrapolated area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (area under the curve 0-inf ) of APAP-Cys by approximately 20% ( P = 0.02) and that from 0 to 8 hours (area under the curve 0-8 ) of APAP-Cys-NAC by approximately 39% ( P = 0.01). The 3-day high-fat diet did not alter the pharmacokinetic parameters of the parent compound acetaminophen and other metabolites., Conclusions: A short-term, hypercaloric, high-fat diet increases the plasma levels of the APAP metabolites formed by the oxidation pathway, which may increase the risk of hepatotoxicity., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.)

Background: In patients with resected gallbladder cancer (GBC), the role of adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) remains ill-defined, especially in elderly patients. This study evaluates the value of aCT in elderly patients with GBC and assesses response according to tumor stage., Methods: Patients of ≥65 years of age with resected GBC diagnosed from 2004-2015 were identified using a Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)/Medicare linked database. After propensity score matching, survival of patients treated with aCT was compared to survival of patients who did not receive aCT using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis., Results: Of 2,179 patients with resected GBC, 876 (25%) received aCT. In the full cohort of 810 propensity-score matched patients, survival did not differ between patients treated with aCT (17.6 months ) and without aCT (19.5 months, P=0.7720). Subgroup analysis showed that survival was significantly better after aCT in T3/T4 disease (12.3 vs. 7.2 months, P=0.013). Interaction analysis showed that benefit of aCT was primarily seen in combined T3/T4, node-positive disease (HR 0.612 , P=0.006)., Conclusions: In this large cohort of elderly patients with resected GBC, aCT was not associated with increased survival. However, aCT may provide a survival benefit in T3/4, node-positive disease., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-22-348/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare the treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received sorafenib treatment either alone or combined with radioembolization (RE)., Methods: Follow-up images of the patients treated within a multicenter phase II trial (SORAMIC) were assessed by mRECIST. A total of 177 patients (73 combination arm [RE + sorafenib] and 104 sorafenib arm) were included in this post-hoc analysis. Response and progression characteristics were compared between treatment arms. Survival analyses were done to compare PFS and post-progression survival between treatment arms. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to compare survival with factors known to influence PFS in patients with HCC., Results: The combination arm had significantly higher objective response rate (61.6% vs. 29.8%, p &lt; 0.001), complete response rate (13.7% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.022), and a trend for higher disease control rate (79.2% vs. 72.1%, p = 0.075). Progression was encountered in 116 (65.5%) patients and was more common in the sorafenib arm (75% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.001). PFS (median 8.9 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.022) and hepatic PFS were significantly better in the combination arm (9.0 vs. 5.7 months, p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis confirmed the treatment arm as an independent predictor of PFS., Conclusion: In advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib, combination with RE has an additive anticancer effect on sorafenib treatment resulting in a higher and longer tumor response. However, the enhanced response did not translate into prolonged survival. Better patient selection and superselective treatment could improve outcomes after combination therapy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings on the management of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs)., Methods: All newly referred gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP)-NEN patients discussed from 1 April to 1 October 2017 in the MDT of seven European expert centres were prospectively included. The impact on patients' management was defined as a change in diagnosis, grade, stage or treatment., Results: A total of 292 patients were included, mainly small intestinal (siNENs) (32%) and pancreatic NENs (28%), with distant metastases in 51%. Patients had received prior surgery in 43% of cases and prior medical treatment in 32%. A significant change occurred in 61% of NENs: 7% changes in diagnosis, 8% in grade and 16% in stage. The MDT recommended a new treatment for 51% of patients, mainly surgery (9%) or somatostatin analogues (20%). A significant change was most frequently observed in patients with Stage IV disease (hazard ratio [HR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-6.9 vs. Stage I) and G2 NENs (vs. G1, HR 2.1 95% CI: 1.2-3.8)., Conclusion: NEN-dedicated MDT discussion in expert centres yields significant management changes in over 60% of patients and thus represents the gold standard for the management of these patients., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Gadoxetic acid uptake on hepatobiliary phase MRI has been shown to correlate with ß-catenin mutation in patients with HCC, which is associated with resistance to certain therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of gadoxetic acid uptake on hepatobiliary phase MRI in patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib., Methods: 312 patients with available baseline hepatobiliary phase MRI images received sorafenib alone or following selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) within SORAMIC trial. The signal intensity of index tumor and normal liver parenchyma were measured on the native and hepatobiliary phase MRI images, and relative tumor enhancement higher than relative liver enhancement were accepted as high gadoxetic acid uptake, and its prognostic value was assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models., Results: The median OS of the study population was 13.4 (11.8-14.5) months. High gadoxetic acid uptake was seen in 51 (16.3%) patients, and none of the baseline characteristics was associated with high uptake. In univariate analysis, high gadoxetic acid uptake was significantly associated with shorter overall survival (10.7 vs. 14.0 months, p = 0.005). Multivariate analysis confirmed independent prognostic value of high gadoxetic acid uptake (HR, 1.7 [1.21-2.3], p = 0.002), as well as Child-Pugh class (p = 0.033), tumor diameter (p = 0.002), and ALBI grade (p = 0.015)., Conclusion: In advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib (alone or combined with SIRT), high gadoxetic acid uptake of the tumor on pretreatment MRI, a surrogate of ß-catenin mutation, correlates with shorter survival. Gadoxetic acid uptake status might serve in treatment decision-making process., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) comprise a group of rare malignant tumours with heterogeneous behaviour. This study aimed to assess long-term survival and prognostic factors associated with survival, in order to optimise counselling., Patients and Methods: This population-based study included all GEP-NENs diagnosed between 1989 and 2016 in the Netherlands, selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS) were calculated. A Cox Proportional Hazard analysis was used to identify prognostic factors (gender, age, tumour stage, location and treatment) for OS. Analyses were stratified by metastatic disease status and tumour grade., Results: In total, 9697 patients were included. In grade 1, 2 and 3 non-metastatic GEP-NENs (N = 6544), 5-year OS and RS were 81% and 88%, 78% and 83%, and 26% and 30%, respectively. In grade 1 non-metastatic GEP-NENs 10-year OS and RS were 68% and 83%. In grade 1, 2 and 3 metastatic GEP-NENs (N = 3153), 5-year OS and RS rates were 47% and 52%, 38% and 41%, and 5% and 5%, respectively. The highest (relative) survival rates were found in appendicular and rectal NENs, demonstrating 10-year OS and RS of 87% and 93%, and 81% and 95%, respectively., Conclusions: These long-term follow-up data demonstrate significant differences in survival for different grades, tumour stage, and primary origin of GEP-NENs, with the most favourable overall and RS rates in patients with non-metastatic grade 1 appendicular and rectal NENs. This study demonstrates unique long-term OS and RS rates using combined stratification by tumour site, grade and stage., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: AMEW reports institutional research grants and study funding from IPSEN, Novartis, Abbvie, BMS, Genzyme, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Roche and Polyphor. All outside the submitted work. BCMH reports personal fees from Ipsen, Pfizer and Novartis Pharma. All outside the submitted work. EJMS has served as an advisory board member for Amgen, Lilly, Novartis and AstraZeneca, has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis and Bayer, and has received non-financial support from Biocartis and Abbvie. All outside the submitted work. FALME reports fees for advisory board and speaker's fee from IPSEN. All outside the submitted work. FAV has received consultancy fees from Sanofi and EISAI, speaker honoraria from Sanofi and research support from EISAI. All outside the submitted work. HJK reports fees for advisory board and speaker's fee from IPSEN paid to his institution. All outside the submitted work. JdV has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Servier, and has received institutional research funding from Servier. All outside the submitted work. JH has received speaker fees from Ipsen, and received compensation from Novartis and Ipsen for service on advisory boards. All outside the submitted work. SMEG has received institutional research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. All outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate the biodistribution of holmium-166 microspheres ( 166 Ho-MS) when administered after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim is to establish a perfused liver administration dose that results in a tumoricidal dose of holmium-166 on the hyperaemic zone around the ablation necrosis (i.e. target volume)., Materials and Methods: This is a multicentre, prospective, dose-escalation study in HCC patients with a solitary lesion 2-5 cm, or a maximum of 3 lesions of ≤ 3 cm each. The day after RFA patients undergo angiography and cone-beam CT (CBCT) with (super)selective infusion of technetium-99 m labelled microalbumin aggregates ( 99m Tc-MAA). The perfused liver volume is segmented from the CBCT and 166 Ho-MS is administered to this treatment volume 5-10 days later. The dose of holmium-166 is escalated in a maximum of 3 patient cohorts (60 Gy, 90 Gy and 120 Gy) until the endpoint is reached. SPECT/CT is used to determine the biodistribution of holmium-166. The endpoint is met when a dose of ≥ 120 Gy has been reached on the target volume in 9/10 patients of a cohort. Secondary endpoints include toxicity, local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival., Discussion: This study aims to find the optimal administration dose of adjuvant radioembolization with 166 Ho-MS after RFA. Ultimately, the goal is to bring the efficacy of thermal ablation up to par with surgical resection for early-stage HCC patients., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03437382., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To investigate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous or open irreversible electroporation (IRE) in a prospective cohort of patients with locally advanced, unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC)., Materials and Methods: In a multicenter Phase I/II study, patients with unresectable PHC due to extensive vascular involvement or N2 lymph node metastases or local recurrence after resection for PHC were included and treated by open or percutaneous IRE combined with palliative chemotherapy (current standard of care). The primary outcome was the number of major adverse events occurring within 90 d after IRE (grade ≥3), and the upper limit was predefined at 60%. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, hospital stay, and overall survival (OS)., Results: Twelve patients (mean age, 63 y ± 12) were treated with IRE. The major adverse event rate was 50% (6 of 12 patients), and no 90-d mortality was observed. All procedures were technically successful, with no intraprocedural adverse events requiring additional interventions. The median OS from diagnosis was 21 mos (95% confidence interval, 15-27 mos), with a 1-y survival rate of 75% after IRE., Conclusions: Percutaneous IRE in selected patients with locally advanced PHC seems feasible, with a major adverse event rate of 50%, which was below the predefined upper safety limit in this prospective study. Future comparative research exploring the efficacy of IRE is warranted., (Copyright © 2022 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lymph node metastasis and positive resection margins have been reported to be major determinants of overall survival (OS) and poor recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients who underwent resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). However, the prognostic value of positive lymph nodes independently from resection margin status on OS has not been evaluated. Methods: From the European Cholangiocarcinoma (ENSCCA) registry, patients who underwent resection for pCCA between 1994 and 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was OS stratified for resection margin and lymph node status. The secondary outcome was recurrence-free survival. Results: A total of 325 patients from 11 different centers and six European countries were included. Of these, 194 (59.7%) patients had negative resection margins. In 113 (34.8%) patients, positive lymph nodes were found. Lymph node status, histological grade, and ECOG performance status were independent prognostic factors for survival. The median OS for N0R0, N0R1, N+R0, and N+R1 was 38, 30, 18, and 12 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion: These data indicate that in the presence of positive regional lymph nodes, resection margin status does not determine OS or RFS in patients with pCCA. Achieving negative margins in patients with positive nodes should not come at the expense of more extensive surgery and associated higher mortality.

Background: Various prognostic factors are associated with overall survival (OS) after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for 3-year OS after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA., Methods: The derivation cohort consisted of all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA in the Netherlands (2009-2016). Clinically relevant variables were selected based on the Akaike information criterion using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, with model performance being assessed by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plots. External validation was performed using patients from the Belgium Cancer Registry (2008-2016), and patients from two university hospitals of Southampton (U.K.) and Verona (Italy)., Results: Independent prognostic factors for OS in the derivation cohort of 454 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), pT (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90) and pN category (pN1: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.32; pN2: HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.63-3.01), resection margin status (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.39-2.29) and tumour differentiation (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.62-2.53). The prediction model was based on these prognostic factors. The optimism-adjusted C-indices were similar in the derivation cohort (0.69), and in the Belgian (0.66) and Southampton-Verona (0.68) validation cohorts. Calibration was accurate in the Belgian validation cohort (slope = 0.93, intercept = 0.12), but slightly less optimal in the Southampton-Verona validation cohort (slope = 0.88, intercept = 0.32). Based on this model, three risk groups with different prognoses were identified (3-year OS of 65.4%, 33.2% and 11.8%)., Conclusions: The prediction model for 3-year OS after resection of dCCA had reasonable performance in both the derivation and geographically external validation cohort. Calibration slightly differed between validation cohorts. The model is readily available via www. pancreascalculator.com to inform patients from Western European countries on their prognosis, and may be used to stratify patients for clinical trials., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background & Aims: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare and heterogeneous biliary cancer, whose incidence and related mortality is increasing. This study investigates the clinical course of CCA and subtypes (intrahepatic [iCCA], perihilar [pCCA], and distal [dCCA]) in a pan-European cohort., Methods: The ENSCCA Registry is a multicenter observational study. Patients were included if they had a histologically proven diagnosis of CCA between 2010-2019. Demographic, histomorphological, biochemical, and clinical studies were performed., Results: Overall, 2,234 patients were enrolled (male/female=1.29). iCCA (n = 1,243) was associated with overweight/obesity and chronic liver diseases involving cirrhosis and/or viral hepatitis; pCCA (n = 592) with primary sclerosing cholangitis; and dCCA (n = 399) with choledocholithiasis. At diagnosis, 42.2% of patients had local disease, 29.4% locally advanced disease (LAD), and 28.4% metastatic disease (MD). Serum CEA and CA19-9 showed low diagnostic sensitivity, but their concomitant elevation was associated with increased risk of presenting with LAD (odds ratio 2.16; 95% CI 1.43-3.27) or MD (odds ratio 5.88; 95% CI 3.69-9.25). Patients undergoing resection (50.3%) had the best outcomes, particularly with negative-resection margin (R0) (median overall survival [mOS] = 45.1 months); however, margin involvement (R1) (hazard ratio 1.92; 95% CI 1.53-2.41; mOS = 24.7 months) and lymph node invasion (hazard ratio 2.13; 95% CI 1.55-2.94; mOS = 23.3 months) compromised prognosis. Among patients with unresectable disease (49.6%), the mOS was 10.6 months for those receiving active palliative therapies, mostly chemotherapy (26.2%), and 4.0 months for those receiving best supportive care (20.6%). iCCAs were associated with worse outcomes than p/dCCAs. ECOG performance status, MD and CA19-9 were independent prognostic factors., Conclusion: CCA is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage, a proportion of patients fail to receive cancer-specific therapies, and prognosis remains dismal. Identification of preventable risk factors and implementation of surveillance in high-risk populations are required to decrease cancer-related mortality., Lay Summary: This is, to date, the largest international (pan-European: 26 hospitals and 11 countries) observational study, in which the course of cholangiocarcinoma has been investigated, comparing the 3 subtypes based on the latest International Classification of Diseases 11 th Edition (ICD-11) (i.e., intrahepatic [2C12], perihilar [2C18], or distal [2C15] affected bile ducts), which come into effect in 2022. General and tumor-type specific features at diagnosis, risk factors, biomarker accuracy, as well as patient management and outcomes, are presented and compared, outlining the current clinical state of cholangiocarcinoma in Europe., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest AF declares lecture fees (from Bayer HealthCare, Gilead, Roche, MSD and Boston Scientific), and consultancy fees (from Bayer HealthCare, AstraZeneca, Roche, Guerbert, SIRTEX and Exact Science). AL reported travel and educational support (from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, Advanced Acceletaro Applications, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan and Delcath), speaker honoraria (from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Incyte and AAA), advisory honoraria (from EISAI, Nutricia Ipsen, QED and Roche), and she is Member of the Knowledge Network and NETConnect Initiatives funded by Ipsen. ALl declares lecture fees (from Intercept Pharma, Abbvie, Gilead, AlfaSigma, and MSD) and consultancy fees (from Intercept and Alfa Sigma). AL-M declares travel and educational support (from Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Rovi, Pharma Mar and Merck). CB declares consultancy honoraria (from Incyte). GV declares consultancy fee (from Bayer HealthCare). JBA declares consulting role (for QED Therapeutics and SEALD). JMB declares research grants (from Incyte), personal fees for lecturer (from Bayer and Intercept), and consulting role (for QED Therapeutics, Albireo Pharma and OWL Metabolomics). JWV reports personal fees (from Agios, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Genoscience Pharma, Hutchison Medipharma, Imaging Equipment Ltd (AAA), Incyte, Ipsen, Mundipharma EDO, Mylan, QED, Servier, Sirtex, Zymeworks), and grants, personal fees and non-financial support (from NuCana). LF declares research grants (from Progetto di Ricerca Dipartimentale), honoraria (from Obesity 4C Complex Clinical Cases Contest), leadership role (for HCERES, NCN), and travel expenses (from AASLD, AISF and EASL). MP-S declares honoraria (from Roche and Servier), consulting or advisory role (for AstraZeneca) and travel expenses (from Roche, BMS and Incyte). KU declares fees for advisory role (BMS). ALC, AS, ASc, AS-L, AV, BGK, DA, FL-L, GC, GLG, HJK, JA, JI, JIE, JJGM, JK, JPJ, KE, LB, LI-S, LK, MK, MM, NJ, RB, RIRM, SB, TF, VC, VS, WH, and ZS declare no competing interests. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is the anatomical sub-group of biliary tract cancer (BTC) arising between the second-order intrahepatic bile ducts and the cystic duct. Together with distal and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA and iCCA; originating distal to, and proximal to this, respectively), gallbladder cancer (GBC) and ampulla of Vater carcinoma (AVC), these clinicopathologically and molecularly distinct entities comprise biliary tract cancer (BTC). Most pCCAs are unresectable at diagnosis, and for those with resectable disease, surgery is extensive, and recurrence is common. Therefore, the majority of patients with pCCA will require systemic treatment for advanced disease. The prognosis with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains poor, driving interest in therapies targeted to the molecular nature of a given patient's cancer. In recent years, the search for efficacious targeted therapies has been fuelled both by whole-genome and epigenomic studies, looking to uncover the molecular landscape of CCA, and by specifically testing for aberrations where established therapies exist in other indications. This review aims to provide a focus on the current molecular characterisation of pCCA, targeted therapies applicable to pCCA, and future directions in applying personalised medicine to this difficult-to-treat malignancy.

Background: Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade is an objective measure of liver function for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib is approved for patients with advanced HCC who have received prior sorafenib based on the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426). Cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with previously treated HCC., Methods: Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive cabozantinib 60 mg or placebo orally every day. Clinical outcomes in patients with ALBI grade 1 or 2 at baseline were evaluated in CELESTIAL. ALBI scores were retrospectively calculated based on baseline serum albumin and total bilirubin, with an ALBI grade of 1 defined as  ≤ -2.60 score and a grade of 2 as a score of > -2.60 to  ≤ -1.39., Results: Cabozantinib improved OS and PFS versus placebo in both ALBI grade 1 (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.63 [0.46-0.86] and 0.42 [0.32-0.56]) and ALBI grade 2 (HR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.66-1.06] and 0.46 [0.37-0.58]) subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with those in the overall population. Rates of grade 3/4 adverse events associated with hepatic decompensation were generally low and were more common among patients in the ALBI grade 2 subgroup., Discussion: These results provide initial support of cabozantinib in patients with advanced HCC irrespective of ALBI grade 1 or 2., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01908426., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To explore the potential correlation between baseline interleukin (IL) values and overall survival or objective response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving sorafenib., Methods: A subset of patients with HCC undergoing sorafenib monotherapy within a prospective multicenter phase II trial (SORAMIC, sorafenib treatment alone vs. combined with Y90 radioembolization) underwent baseline IL-6 and IL-8 assessment before treatment initiation. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, the best cut-off points for baseline IL-6 and IL-8 values predicting overall survival (OS) were evaluated, as well as correlation with the objective response., Results: Forty-seven patients (43 male) with a median OS of 13.8 months were analyzed. Cut-off values of 8.58 and 57.9 pg/mL most effectively predicted overall survival for IL-6 and IL-8, respectively. Patients with high IL-6 (HR, 4.1 [1.9-8.9], p < 0.001) and IL-8 (HR, 2.4 [1.2-4.7], p = 0.009) had significantly shorter overall survival than patients with low IL values. Multivariate analysis confirmed IL-6 (HR, 2.99 [1.22-7.3], p = 0.017) and IL-8 (HR, 2.19 [1.02-4.7], p = 0.044) as independent predictors of OS. Baseline IL-6 and IL-8 with respective cut-off values predicted objective response rates according to mRECIST in a subset of 42 patients with follow-up imaging available (IL-6, 46.6% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.007; IL-8, 50.0% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.011)., Conclusion: IL-6 and IL-8 baseline values predicted outcomes of sorafenib-treated patients in this well-characterized prospective cohort of the SORAMIC trial. We suggest that the respective cut-off values might serve for validation in larger cohorts, potentially offering guidance for improved patient selection., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are a rare group of malignancies characterized by dismal prognosis. There are currently no standardized guidelines for multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in CCAs., Material and Methods: An online survey was built with the aim of defining the current practice of MDTs in CCAs and identifying possible areas of improvement, providing minimum standards of practice for an ideal CCA MDT. Analysis of the replies regarding current and ideal MDT practice was carried out by calculating weighted average (WA) of likelihood of every item. The survey was shared with members of the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma and other medical centers with expertise in biliary tract cancer part of the EURO-CHOLANGIO-NET (European Cholangiocarcinoma Network: https://eurocholangionet.eu/) COST Action CA18122 initiative., Results: The role of the MDT coordinator was a recognized priority in an ideal well-functioning MDT (WA 3.31/4), together with providing minimum clinical information before the meeting to secure adequate case preparation (WA 3.54/4). Optimal frequency of MDT meetings was weekly according to 76.92% of the participants; 73.06% believed that ideally all newly diagnosed patients and each new treatment should be discussed, although that happened only in less than half of the MDTs (46.15%) in current practice. Most participants stated that they always (46.15%) or often (50.00%) used guidelines, mainly international (61.00%) (European and American), followed by national/local (39.00%). We defined the ideal setup of a CCA MDT, identifying specialists whose presence is mandatory with WA >3.0 (oncologist, clinician responsible for patient's care, surgeon, diagnostic and interventional radiologist, hepatologist, pathologist, endoscopist and gastroenterologist) and those whose presence would be recommended with a WA <3.0 (palliative care, nurse, dietitian, basic researcher, psychologist and social worker)., Conclusions: Our identified minimum requirements should be taken into account at the time of CCA MDT setup and quality assessment., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)