Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study.

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/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) 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.

Comparing Survival of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma After R1 Resection Versus Palliative Chemotherapy for Unresected Localized Disease.

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.

Plain language summary of the FOENIX-CCA2 study: futibatinib for people with advanced bile duct cancer.

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).

Somatostatin Receptor Imaging with [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA PET/CT and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-Peptide PET/CT in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Prospective, Phase 2 Comparative Study.

There is a clinical need for 18F-labeled somatostatin analogs for the imaging of neuroendocrine tumors (NET), given the limitations of using [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptides, particularly with regard to widespread accessibility. We have shown that [18F]fluoroethyl-triazole-[Tyr3]-octreotate ([18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA) has favorable dosimetry and biodistribution. As a step toward clinical implementation, we conducted a prospective, noninferiority study of [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA PET/CT compared with [68Ga]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 [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA and [68Ga]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 [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA. Tracer uptake was evaluated by comparing SUVmax 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 [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA PET/CT, and [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide PET/CT detected an additional 7 lesions in 5 patients. Excellent correlation in SUVmax was observed between both tracers (r = 0.91; P < 0.001). No difference was observed between median SUVmax across regions, except in the liver, where the median tumor-to-background ratio of [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA was significantly lower than that of [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-peptide (2.5 ± 1.9 vs. 3.5 ± 2.3; P < 0.001). Conclusion: [18F]FET-ßAG-TOCA was not inferior to [68Ga]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.

Chemotherapy with or without selective internal radiation therapy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Data from clinical trials.

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.

Choosing the best systemic treatment sequence for control of tumour growth in gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): What is the recent evidence?

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.

Resistance mechanism to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in cholangiocarcinoma.

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.

European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

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.

Influence of cirrhosis on outcomes of patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma receiving chemotherapy.

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 × 109/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.

Prognosis Discussion and Referral to Community Palliative Care Services in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a Tertiary Cancer Centre.

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.

Selection of Chemotherapy in Advanced Poorly Differentiated Extra-Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Carcinoma.

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.

Locoregional Treatment in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Which Treatment for Which Patient?

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.

Plain language summary of the TOPAZ-1 study: durvalumab and chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer.

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.

Current Evidence for Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

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.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the diagnosis and management of cholangiocarcinoma.

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.

Patients Undergoing Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Who Require Surgical Intervention: What Surgeons Need to Know.

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.