Search

Cristina Saavedra,1,2 Jorge Barriuso,1,3 Mairéad G McNamara,1,3 Juan W Valle,1,3 Angela Lamarca1,31Medical Oncology Department, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 2Medical Oncology Department, Ramon Y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; 3Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKAbstract: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare cancers with an associated prolonged survival in some patients. A proportion of patients diagnosed with NETs will present with carcinoid syndrome symptoms, characterized by diarrhea, flushing and/or wheezing. This review summarizes the current treatment options for carcinoid syndrome, focusing on the latest novel treatment option, telotristat ethyl. In addition, information on patient-reported outcomes and impact of carcinoid syndrome on quality of life (QOL) and improvement of following treatment with telotristat ethyl are reviewed. This article also provides an overview of the current QOL questionnaires for patients with NETs and addresses unmet needs in this field of patient-reported outcomes.Keywords: telotristat ethyl, carcinoid syndrome, NET, diarrhea

Noor-ul-Ain Tariq,1,2 Mairéad G McNamara,1,2 Juan W Valle1,2 1Faculty of Biomedicine and Health Sciences, Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9NT, UK; 2Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M20 4BX, UK Abstract: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare with poor prognosis. Due to the advent of genomic sequencing, new data have emerged regarding the molecular makeup of this disease. To add to the complexity, various subtypes also harbor a varied genetic composition. The commonly mutated genes associated with this cancer are KRAS, EGFR, IDH, FGFR and BAP1. Various clinical studies are looking at targeting these genetic mutations. Another therapeutic area of note is the potential for the use of immunotherapy in patients with BTC. Although BTC may be a result of chronic inflammation, this does not necessarily translate into increased immunogenicity. This literature review discusses the diverse molecular and immune-related pathways in patients with BTC and their potential therapeutic implications. Keywords: biliary tract cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, genome sequencing, molecular targets, immunotherapy

Context: Patients with periampullary adenocarcinomas undergo the same resectional surgery as that of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Although adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to have a survival benefit for pancreatic cancer, there have been no randomized trials for periampullary adenocarcinomas.Objective: To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil or gemcitabine) provides improved overall survival following resection.Design, Setting, and Patients: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 periampullary trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (July 2000-May 2008) in 100 centers in Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada. Of the 428 patients included in the primary analysis, 297 had ampullary, 96 had bile duct, and 35 had other cancers.Interventions: One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the observation group, 143 patients to receive 20 mg/m2 of folinic acid via intravenous bolus injection followed by 425 mg/m2 of fluorouracil via intravenous bolus injection administered 1 to 5 days every 28 days, and 141 patients to receive 1000 mg/m2 of intravenous infusion of gemcitabine once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks for 6 months.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was overall survival with chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy; secondary measures were chemotherapy type, toxic effects, progression-free survival, and quality of life.Results: Eighty-eight patients (61%) in the observation group, 83 (58%) in the fluorouracil plus folinic acid group, and 73 (52%) in the gemcitabine group died. In the observation group, the median survival was 35.2 months (95%% CI, 27.2-43.0 months) and was 43.1 (95%, CI, 34.0-56.0) in the 2 chemotherapy groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; (95% CI, 0.66-1.11; χ2 = 1.33; P = .25). After adjusting for independent prognostic variables of age, bile duct cancer, poor tumor differentiation, and positive lymph nodes and after conducting multiple regression analysis, the hazard ratio for chemotherapy compared with observation was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.98; Wald χ2 = 4.53, P = .03).Conclusions: Among patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with observation, was not associated with a significant survival benefit in the primary analysis; however, multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic variables demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit associated with adjuvant chemotherapy.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIM: To evaluate the combination of the gastrin antagonist Z-360 and gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with PC were randomly allocated to Z-360 120 mg, 240 mg or placebo. Z-360/placebo was given on day -3 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1 followed by Z-360 on day 2. Thereafter Z-360/placebo was given twice daily concurrently with standard dose of gemcitabine. Pharmacokinetics for both drugs was measured alone and in combination. Toxicity, response and quality of life were also recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with a median age of 62 years were randomised of which six had locally advanced disease and 26 had metastatic disease. Analysis of the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC), the maximum observed concentration (Cmax(obs)) and the time of the maximum observed concentration (Tmax(obs)) for Z-360, gemcitabine and 2,2-difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU), could not exclude an effect on the systemic exposure to Z-360, gemcitabine and dFdU when co-administration of Z-360 and gemcitabine was compared with single agent administration. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting and fatigue. At the end of the study, 62.5%, 25% and 60% had stable disease in the 120 mg, 240 mg and placebo group, respectively. A higher proportion of patients in Z-360 groups reported improvement in pain. CONCLUSIONS: Z-360 is safe and well tolerated when combined with gemcitabine. A Phase III trial is needed to determine whether the combination of Z-360 and gemcitabine is superior to gemcitabine alone in advanced PC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Delphi consensus study was carried out under the auspices of the International and Asia-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Associations (IHPBA-APHPBA) to develop practice guidelines for management of gallbladder cancer (GBC) globally., Method: GBC experts from 17 countries, spanning 6 continents, participated in a hybrid four-round Delphi consensus development process. The methodology involved email, online consultations, and in-person discussions. Sixty eight clinical questions (CQs) covering various domains related to GBC, were administered to the experts. A consensus recommendation was accepted only when endorsed by more than 75% of the participating experts., Results: Out of the sixty experts invited initially to participate in the consensus process 45 (75%) responded to the invitation. The consensus was achieved in 92.6% (63/68) of the CQs. Consensus covers epidemiological aspects of GBC, early, incidental and advanced GBC management, definitions for radical GBC resections, the extent of liver resection, lymph node dissection, and definitions of borderline resectable and locally advanced GBC., Conclusions: This is the first international Delphi consensus on GBC. These recommendations provide uniform terminology and practical clinical guidelines on the current management of GBC. Unresolved contentious issues like borderline resectable/locally advanced GBC need to be addressed by future clinical studies., (Copyright © 2024 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis., Methods: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 ) and cisplatin (25 mg/m 2 ) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235., Findings: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%])., Interpretation: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D-YO reports advisory fees from Arcus Biosciences, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Halozyme, IQVIA, Merck Serono, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Turning Point Therapeutics, Yuhan, and Zymeworks; and institutional research funding from Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Handok, MSD, Novartis, and Servier. ARH reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Genentech/Roche; research funding from Genentech and Merck; and speakers bureau fees from Eisai and Bristol Myers Squibb. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, Roche, and Sirtex Medical; speakers bureau fees from Bayer, Eisai, and Roche; and support for travel and attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sirtex Medical. TO reports advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mundipharma, Nihon Servier, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takara Bio; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult Honsha. L-TC reports personal speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, CStone, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis, PharmaEngine, and TTY; fees for medical monitoring for clinical trials for Taivex; fees received as a data and safety monitoring committee member for clinical trials for OBI Pharma; advisory fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and SynCoreBio; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, HuniLife Biotechnology, Ono Pharmaceutical, ScinoPharm Taiwan, SynCoreBio, and TTY; and research funding from Celgene. MK reports research funding from AbbVie and Takeda; and honoraria from EA Pharma and AstraZeneca. JWK reports research funding from inno.N and Jeil Pharmaceutical; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BeyondBio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eisai, GC Cell, MSD Ono, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and TCUBEit. TS reports speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Baxter, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma (Thailand), Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; and advisory fees from Novartis and Roche. MI reports grant or research support from Aslan Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiome Bioscience, Chugai Pharma, Delta-Fly Pharma, EA Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, J-Pharma, Merck, Merus NV, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Takeda, and Yakult; fees or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, MSD, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Otsuka, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult; and fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, GlaxoSmithKline, Nihon Servier, Novartis, and Takeda. J-SC reports grant or research support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, MSD Oncology, Oncologie, Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche, Senhwa Biosciences, SynCore, and TTY; and consulting fees from Ono Pharmaceutical. PP reports personal fees for an advisory board from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Servier; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Merck; and being a principal investigator for AstraZeneca and Roche. HAB reports research funding from AbbVie, Agios, Arch Pharmalabs, ARMO BioSciences, Array BioPharma, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Biotheryx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CALGB, CicloMed, Coordination Pharmaceuticals, CytomX, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Gossamer Bio, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon Therapeutics, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, Kymab, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Merck, Millennium/Takeda, miRNA Therapeutics, Moderna, NGM Bio, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, Roche/Genentech, Ryvu Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, TG Therapeutics, Verastem Oncology, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, XBiotech, and Zymeworks; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Forma Therapeutics, Grail, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vincerx Pharma. VO reports grant or research support from Dr Reddy's Laboratories and Zydus Cadila; institutional fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Panacea Biotec, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, and Zydus Cadila; travel reimbursement as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca; other institutional financial interests with Alkem Laboratories, Eisai, Intas Pharmaceuticals, and Micro Labs; and non-financial interests with the Indian Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. ST reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Novartis; and non-financial interests with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, and Roche. CM reports institutional grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, J-Pharma, Hitachi, Merck BioReliance, MSD, Kyowa Kirin, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Yakult Honsha; personal fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck BioReliance, MSD, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Yakult; and personal fees received as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Novartis, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult Honsha. REZ reports speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Novartis; and travel grants from Pierre Fabre. MGM reports grant or research support from Ipsen, NuCana, and Servier; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Incyte; and honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications and AstraZeneca. AA reports research funding from Amgen, Bayer, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Eisai, and MSD. JEC reports advisory fees from MSD; and fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and Roche. VB reports consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Russia, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Russia, and Takeda; and travel expenses from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Russia, MSD, and Roche Russia. BT reports research funding from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Exelixis. SS reports grant or research support from Delta-Fly Pharma and Incyte. DT reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. LE reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, Merk, MSD, and Servier. MP reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Roche and Servier; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Ewopharma, and Takeda; and non-financial interests with AstraZeneca and Sanofi. DBZ reports advisory fees from Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals/Zymeworks, and QED Therapeutics; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lily, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Legend Biotech, Merck, and Seagen. VGG holds stock in RPG Life Sciences and Zydus Lifesciences. FD reports grant or research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Ipsen, Signatera, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, and Ipsen; and payment or honoraria from Astellas, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Servier, and Sirtex Medical. JOP reports advisory board fees from Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), MediRama, MedPacto, Merck Serono, and Servier; support for travel to meetings from Minneamrita Therapeutics; and grant or research support from ABL Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), Eutilex, MedPacto, and Servier. HK, CM, and MŻ are employees of AstraZeneca. JW and NR are employees of and hold stock in AstraZeneca. AV reports speaker fees from BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Imaging Equipment, Incyte, Ipsen, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Ipsen, Incyte, Lilly, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sirtex Medical. JWV reports advisory fees from Agios, AstraZeneca, Autem Therapeutics, Baxter, Hutchison MediPharma, Image Equipment, NuCana, QED Therapeutics, Sirtex Medical, Servier, and Zymeworks; speaker fees from Incyte, Ipsen, and Mylan; and research funding from AstraZeneca and Redx. All other authors declare no competing interests., (2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

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).

There is a clinical need for 18 F-labeled somatostatin analogs for the imaging of neuroendocrine tumors (NET), given the limitations of using [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptides, particularly with regard to widespread accessibility. We have shown that [ 18 F]fluoroethyl-triazole-[Tyr 3 ]-octreotate ([ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA) has favorable dosimetry and biodistribution. As a step toward clinical implementation, we conducted a prospective, noninferiority study of [ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA PET/CT compared with [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA- peptide PET/CT in patients with NET. Methods: Forty-five patients with histologically confirmed NET, grades 1 and 2, underwent PET/CT imaging with both [ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA and [ 68 Ga]Ga-peptide performed within a 6-mo window (median, 77 d; range, 6-180 d). Whole-body PET/CT was conducted 50 min after injection of 165 MBq of [ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA. Tracer uptake was evaluated by comparing SUV max and tumor-to-background ratios at both lesion and regional levels by 2 unblinded, experienced readers. A randomized, blinded reading of both scans was also then undertaken by 3 experienced readers, and consensus was assessed at a regional level. The ability of both tracers to visualize liver metastases was also assessed. Results: A total of 285 lesions were detected on both imaging modalities. An additional 13 tumor deposits were seen in 8 patients on [ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA PET/CT, and [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide PET/CT detected an additional 7 lesions in 5 patients. Excellent correlation in SUV max was observed between both tracers ( r = 0.91; P < 0.001). No difference was observed between median SUV max across regions, except in the liver, where the median tumor-to-background ratio of [ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA was significantly lower than that of [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide (2.5 ± 1.9 vs. 3.5 ± 2.3; P < 0.001). Conclusion: [ 18 F]FET-βAG-TOCA was not inferior to [ 68 Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide in visualizing NET and may be considered in routine clinical practice given the longer half-life and availability of the cyclotron-produced fluorine radioisotope., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Backgound and Aims: In advanced, liver-only intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) has been suggested as promising in nonrandomized studies. We aimed to compare data from patients with advanced, liver-only iCCA treated in the first line in clinical trials with either chemotherapy alone or the combination with SIRT., Approach and Results: We collected individual patients' data from the ABC-01, ABC-02, ABC-03, BINGO, AMEBICA, and MISPHEC prospective trials. Data from patients with liver-only iCCA treated in chemotherapy-only arms of the first 5 trials were compared with data from patients treated with SIRT and chemotherapy in MISPHEC. Emulated target trial paradigm and Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW methods) using the propensity score were used to minimize biases. We compared 41 patients treated with the combination with 73 patients treated with chemotherapy alone, the main analysis being in 43 patients treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine or gemcitabine-oxaliplatin. After weighting, overall survival was significantly higher in patients treated with SIRT: median 21.7 months (95% CI: 14.1; not reached) versus 15.9 months(95% CI: 9.8; 18.9), HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.34; 0.99), p = 0.049. Progression-free survival was significantly improved: median 14.3 months (95% CI: 7.8; not reached) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.9; 12.1), HR = 0.52 (95% CI: 0.31; 0.89), p < 0.001. Results were confirmed in most sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: This analysis derived from prospective clinical trials suggests that SIRT combined with chemotherapy might improve outcomes over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced, liver-only iCCA. Randomized controlled evidence is needed to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

These guidelines for the diagnosis and management of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology liver section. The guideline writing committee included a multidisciplinary team of experts from various specialties involved in the management of CCA, as well as patient/public representatives from AMMF (the Cholangiocarcinoma Charity) and PSC Support. Quality of evidence is presented using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) format. The recommendations arising are to be used as guidance rather than as a strict protocol-based reference, as the management of patients with CCA is often complex and always requires individual patient-centred considerations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Precision medicine is a major achievement that has impacted on management of patients diagnosed with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) over the last decade. Molecular profiling of CCA has identified targetable alterations, such as fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 (FGFR-2) fusions, and has thus led to the development of a wide spectrum of compounds. Despite favourable response rates, especially with the latest generation FGFRi, there are still a proportion of patients who will not achieve a radiological response to treatment, or who will have disease progression as the best response. In addition, for patients who do respond to treatment, secondary resistance frequently develops and mechanisms of such resistance are not fully understood. This review will summarise the current state of development of FGFR inhibitors in CCA, their mechanism of action, activity, and the hypothesised mechanisms of resistance., 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 © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This ENETS guidance paper for well-differentiated nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NF-Pan-NET) has been developed by a multidisciplinary working group, and provides up-to-date and practical advice on the management of these tumours. Using the extensive experience of centres treating patients with NF-Pan-NEN, the authors of this guidance paper discuss 10 troublesome questions in everyday clinical practice. Our many years of experience in this field are still being verified in the light of the results of new clinical, which set new ways of proceeding in NEN. The treatment of NF-Pan-NEN still requires a decision of a multidisciplinary team of specialists in the field of neuroendocrine neoplasms., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Neuroendocrinology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society for Neuroendocrinology.)

Background: Cirrhosis is a risk factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC). However, its exact prevalence is uncertain and its impact on the management of advanced disease is not established., Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy for advanced iCC in the 1st-line setting at 2 tertiary cancer referral centres. Cirrhosis was diagnosed based on at least one element prior to any treatment: pathological diagnosis, baseline platelets <150 × 10 9 /L, portal hypertension and/or dysmorphic liver on imaging., Results: In the cohort of patients (n = 287), 82 (28.6%) had cirrhosis (45 based on pathological diagnosis). Patients with cirrhosis experienced more grade 3/4 haematologic toxicity (44% vs 22%, respectively, P = 0.001), and more grade 3/4 non-haematologic toxicity (34% vs 14%, respectively, P = 0.001) than those without. The overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in patients with cirrhosis: median 9.1 vs 13.1 months for those without (HR = 1.56 [95% CI: 1.19-2.05]); P = 0.002), confirmed on multivariable analysis (HR = 1.48 [95% CI: 1.04-2.60]; P = 0.028)., Conclusion: Cirrhosis was relatively common in patients with advanced iCC and was associated with increased chemotherapy-induced toxicity and shorter OS. Formal assessment and consideration of cirrhosis in therapeutic management is recommended., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

What Is This Summary About?: This is a summary describing the results of a Phase III study called TOPAZ-1. The study looked at treatment with durvalumab (a type of immunotherapy) and chemotherapy to treat participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Advanced BTC is usually diagnosed at late stages of disease, when it cannot be cured by surgery. This study included participants with advanced BTC who had not received previous treatment, or had their cancer come back at least 6 months after receiving treatment or surgery that aimed to cure their disease. Participants received treatment with durvalumab and chemotherapy or placebo and chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to find out if treatment with durvalumab and chemotherapy could increase the length of time that participants with advanced BTC lived, compared with placebo and chemotherapy., What Were the Results of the Study?: Participants who took durvalumab and chemotherapy had a 20% lower chance of experiencing death at any point in the study compared with participants who received placebo and chemotherapy. The side effects experienced by participants were similar across treatment groups, and less than 12% of participants in either treatment group had to stop treatment due to treatment-related side effects., What Do the Results of the Study Mean?: Overall, these results support durvalumab and chemotherapy as a new treatment option for people with advanced BTCs. Based on the results of this study, durvalumab is now approved for the treatment of adults with advanced BTCs in combination with chemotherapy by government organizations in Europe, the United States and several other countries.

Advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor prognosis, often less than 1 year. Honest prognosis discussions guide early community palliative care services input, facilitating timely advance care planning and improving quality of life. The aims were to assess if patients were offered prognosis discussions and community palliative care services referral. A retrospective analysis of consecutive case-notes of new advanced pancreatic cancer patients was conducted. Chi-squared test assessed the association with prognosis discussion and community palliative care services referral. In total, 365 cases (60%) had a documented prognosis discussion at any time-point in the treatment pathway; 54.4% during the first appointment. The frequency of prognosis discussion was greater with nurse clinician review at first appointment ( p < 0.001). In total, 171 patients (28.1%) were known to community palliative care services at the first appointment. Of those not known, 171 (39.1%) and 143 (32.7%) were referred at this initial time-point or later, respectively. There was a significant association between the referral to community palliative care services at first appointment and the reviewing professional (this was greatest for nurse clinicians (frequency 65.2%)) ( p < 0.001), and also if reviewed by clinical nurse specialist at first visit or not (47.8% vs. 35.6%) ( p < 0.01). Prognosis discussions were documented in approximately two-thirds of cases, highlighting missed opportunities. Prognosis discussion was associated with clinician review and was most frequent for nurse clinician, as was referral to community palliative care services. Clinical nurse specialist review increased referral to community palliative care services if seen at the initial visit. Multi-disciplinary review, specifically nursing, therefore, during the first consultation is imperative and additive. It should be considered best practice to offer and negotiate the content and timing of prognosis discussions with cancer patients, and revisit this offer throughout their treatment pathway. Greater attention to prognosis discussion documentation is recommended.

Extra-pulmonary poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma is rare, and evidence for treatment has been limited. In this article, the evidence behind the cytotoxic chemotherapy choices used for metastatic or unresectable EP-PD-NEC is reviewed. In the first-line setting, etoposide and platinum chemotherapy or irinotecan and platinum have been demonstrated to be equivalent in a large phase III trial. Questions remain regarding the optimal number of cycles, mode of delivery, and the precise definition of platinum resistance in this setting. In the second-line setting, FOLFIRI has emerged as an option, with randomized phase 2 trials demonstrating modest, but significant, response rates. Beyond this, data are extremely limited, and several regimens have been used. Heterogeneity in biological behaviour is a major barrier to optimal EP-PD-NEC management. Available data support the potential role of the Ki-67 index as a predictive biomarker for chemotherapy response. A more personalised approach to management in future studies will be essential, and comprehensive multi-omic approaches are required to understand tumour somatic genetic changes in relation to their effects on the surrounding microenvironment.

The treatment of advanced unresectable HCC (aHCC) remains a clinical challenge, with limited therapeutic options and poor prognosis. The results of IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA have changed the treatment paradigm for HCC and established immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI), either combined with anti-angiogenic therapy or dual ICI, as preferred first-line therapy for eligible patients with aHCC. Numerous other combination regimens involving ICI are under investigation with the aim of improving the tumour response and survival of patients with all stages of HCC. This review will explore the current evidence for ICI in patients with advanced HCC and discuss future directions, including the unmet clinical need for predictive biomarkers to facilitate patient selection, the effects of cirrhosis aetiology on response to ICI, and the safety of its use in patients with impaired liver function.

Gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) represent a rare and highly heterogeneous entity with increasing incidence. Based on the results obtained from several trials performed in the last decade, various therapeutic options have been established for the treatment of patients with GEP-NETs. The options include somatostatin analogues, targeted therapies (sunitinib and everolimus), chemotherapy (with temozolomide or streptozocin-based regimens), and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. The treatment choice is influenced by various clinico-pathological factors including tumour grade and morphology, the primary mass location, hormone secretion, the volume of the disease and the rate of tumour growth, as well as patient comorbidities and performance status. In this review, the efficacy and safety of treatment options for patients with GEP-NETs is discussed and the evidence to inform the best sequence of available therapies to control tumour growth, prolong patient survival, and to lower potential toxicity, while maintaining patient quality of life is explored., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Recent literature has significantly advanced our knowledge and understanding of the tumour immune microenvironment of cholangiocarcinoma. Detailed characterisation of the immune landscape has defined new patient subtypes. While not utilised in clinical practice yet, these novel classifications will help inform decisions regarding immunotherapeutic approaches. Suppressive immune cells, such as tumour-associated macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, form a barrier that shields tumour cells from immune surveillance. The presence of this immunosuppressive barrier in combination with a variety of immune escape mechanisms employed by tumour cells leads to poor tumour immunogenicity. Broad strategies to re-equip the immune system include blockade of suppressive immune cell recruitment to priming cytotoxic effector cells against tumour antigens. While immunotherapeutic strategies are gaining traction for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, there is a long road of discovery ahead in order to make meaningful contributions to patient therapy and survival., (Copyright © 2023 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

For unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC), different locoregional treatments (LRT) could be proposed to patients, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or transarterial treatments, depending on patient and tumor characteristics and local expertise. These different techniques of LRT have not been compared in a randomized clinical trial; most of the relevant studies are retrospective and not comparative. The aim of this narrative review is to help clinicians in their everyday practice discuss the pros and cons of each LRT, depending on the individual characteristics of their patients.

As part of routine cancer care, patients may undergo elective surgery with the aim of long-term cure. Some of these patients will receive systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. The majority of patients, usually with locally advanced or metastatic disease, will receive SACT with palliative intent. These treatment options are expanding beyond traditional chemotherapy to include targeted therapies, immunotherapy, hormone therapy, radionuclide therapy and gene therapy. During treatment, some patients will require surgical intervention on an urgent or emergency basis. This narrative review examined the evidence base for SACT-associated surgical risk and the precautions that a surgical team should consider in patients undergoing SACT.

Background & Aims: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), heterogeneous biliary tumours with dismal prognosis, lacks accurate early diagnostic methods especially important for individuals at high-risk (i.e. those with primary sclerosing cholangitis [PSC]). Here, we searched for protein biomarkers in serum extracellular vesicles (EVs)., Methods: EVs from patients with isolated PSC (n = 45), concomitant PSC-CCA (n = 44), PSC who developed CCA during follow-up (PSC to CCA; n = 25), CCAs from non-PSC aetiology (n = 56), and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 34) and healthy individuals (n = 56) were characterised by mass spectrometry. Diagnostic biomarkers for PSC-CCA, non-PSC CCA, or CCAs regardless of aetiology (Pan-CCAs) were defined and validated by ELISA. Their expression was evaluated in CCA tumours at a single-cell level. Prognostic EV biomarkers for CCA were investigated., Results: High-throughput proteomics of EVs identified diagnostic biomarkers for PSC-CCA, non-PSC CCA, or Pan-CCA, and for the differential diagnosis of intrahepatic CCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, which were cross-validated by ELISA using total serum. Machine learning-based algorithms disclosed CRP/FIBRINOGEN/FRIL for the diagnosis of PSC-CCA (local disease [LD]) vs. isolated PSC (AUC = 0.947; odds ratio [OR] =36.9) and, combined with carbohydrate antigen 19-9, overpowers carbohydrate antigen 19-9 alone. CRP/PIGR/VWF allowed the diagnosis of LD non-PSC CCAs vs. healthy individuals (AUC = 0.992; OR = 387.5). It is noteworthy that CRP/FRIL accurately diagnosed LD Pan-CCA (AUC = 0.941; OR = 89.4). Levels of CRP/FIBRINOGEN/FRIL/PIGR showed predictive capacity for CCA development in PSC before clinical evidence of malignancy. Multi-organ transcriptomic analysis revealed that serum EV biomarkers were mostly expressed in hepatobiliary tissues, and single-cell RNA sequencing and immunofluorescence analysis of CCA tumours showed their presence mainly in malignant cholangiocytes. Multivariable analysis unveiled EV prognostic biomarkers, with COMP/GNAI2/CFAI and ACTN1/MYCT1/PF4V associated negatively and positively with patients' survival, respectively., Conclusions: Serum EVs contain protein biomarkers for the prediction, early diagnosis, and prognostication of CCA that are detectable using total serum, representing a tumour cell-derived liquid biopsy tool for personalised medicine., Impact and Implications: The accuracy of current imaging tests and circulating tumour biomarkers for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) diagnosis is far from satisfactory. Most CCAs are considered sporadic, although up to 20% of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) develop CCA during their lifetime, constituting a major cause of PSC-related death. This international study has proposed protein-based and aetiology-related logistic models with predictive, diagnostic, or prognostic capacities by combining two to four circulating protein biomarkers, moving a step forward into personalised medicine. These novel liquid biopsy tools may allow the (i) easy and non-invasive diagnosis of sporadic CCAs, (ii) identification of patients with PSC with higher risk for CCA development, (iii) establishment of cost-effective surveillance programmes for the early detection of CCA in high-risk populations (e.g. PSC), and (iv) prognostic stratification of patients with CCA, which, altogether, may increase the number of cases eligible for potentially curative options or to receive more successful treatments, decreasing CCA-related mortality., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)