Radiofrequency ablation via catheter and transpapillary access in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (ACTICCA-2 trial) - a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label investigator-initiated trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent advances in cancer treatment, the therapeutic options for patients with biliary tract cancer are still very limited and the prognosis very poor. More than 50% of newly diagnosed patients with biliary tract cancer are not amenable to curative surgical treatment and thus treated with palliative systemic treatment. Malignant bile duct obstructions in patients with perihilar and/or ductal cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) represents one of the most important challenges in the management of these patients, owning to the risk represented by developing life-threatening cholangitis which, in turn, limits the use of systemic treatment. For this reason, endoscopic stenting and/or bile duct decompression is the mainstay of treatment of these patients. Data on efficacy and safety of adding radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to biliary stenting is not conclusive. The aim of this multicenter, randomized trial is to evaluate the effect of intraductal RFA prior to bile duct stenting in patients with unresectable perihilar or ductal CCA undergoing palliative systemic therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: ACTICCA-2 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, investigator-initiated trial. 120 patients with perihilar or ductal CCA with indication for biliary stenting and systemic therapy will be randomized 1:1 to receive either RFA plus bile duct stenting (interventional arm) or bile duct stenting alone (control arm). Patients will be stratified by trial site and tumor location (perihilar vs. ductal). Both arms receive palliative systemic treatment according to the local standard of care determined by a multidisciplinary tumorboard. The primary endpoint is time to first biliary event, which is determined by an increase of bilirubin to > 5 mg/dl and/or the occurrence of cholangitis leading to premature stent replacement and/or disruption of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety according to NCI CTCAE v5, quality of life assessed by questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BIL21), clinical event rate at 6 months after RFA and total days of over-night stays in hospital. Follow-up for the primary endpoint will be 6 months, while survival assessment will be continued until end of study (maximum follow-up 30 month). All patients who are randomized and who underwent endoscopic stenting will be used for the primary endpoint analysis which will be conducted using a cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model with a frailty for trial site and fixed effects for the treatment group, tumor location, and stent material. DISCUSSION: ACTICCA-2 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to assess efficacy and safety of adding biliary RFA to bile duct stenting in patients with CCA receiving palliative systemic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06175845) and approved by the local ethics committee in Hamburg, Germany (2024-101232-BO-ff). This manuscript reflects protocol version 1 as of January 9th, 2024.

Novel endoscopic scoring system for immune mediated colitis: a multicenter retrospective study of 674 patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No endoscopic scoring system has been established for immune-mediated colitis (IMC). This study aimed to establish such a system for IMC and explore its utility in guiding future selective immunosuppressive therapy (SIT) use compared to clinical symptoms. METHODS: This retrospective, international, 14-center study included 674 patients who developed IMC after immunotherapy and underwent endoscopic evaluation. Ten endoscopic features were selected by group consensus and assigned 1 point each to calculate an IMC endoscopic score (IMCES). IMCES cutoffs were chosen to maximize specificity for SIT use. This specificity was compared between IMCESs, and clinical symptoms were graded according to a standardized instrument. RESULTS: A total of 309 (45.8%) patients received SIT. IMCES specificity for SIT use was 82.8% with a cutoff of 4. The inclusion of ulceration as a mandatory criterion resulted in higher specificity (85.0% for a cutoff of 4). In comparison, the specificity of a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 3 was 74.6%, and the specificity of clinical symptom grading was much lower at 27.4% and 12.3%, respectively. Early endoscopy was associated with timely SIT use (P < .001; r = 0.4084). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to devise an endoscopic scoring system to guide IMC management. An IMCES cutoff of 4 has a higher specificity for SIT use than clinical symptoms, supporting early endoscopic evaluation for IMC.

Unresectable biliary tract cancer: Current and future systemic therapy.

For decades, treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) was confined to the use of chemotherapy. In recent years however, the number of therapeutic options available for patients with unresectable BTC have drastically increased, with immunotherapy and targeted treatment gradually joining the ranks of guideline-recommended treatment regimens. The aim of the present review is to summarise the current knowledge on unresectable BTC focusing on epidemiology, anatomical distribution and current strategies for systemic treatment. We further outline ongoing clinical trials and provide an outlook on future therapeutic interventions. In the realm of gastrointestinal malignancies, the increasing number of systemic treatment options for BTC is finally delivering on the longstanding commitment to personalised oncology. This emphasises the need for considering a comprehensive genomic-based pathology assessment right from the initial diagnosis to fully leverage the expanding array of therapeutic options that have recently become accessible.

Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: Biology, Diagnosis, and Management.

Background: Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-iCCA) is a rare type of primary liver cancer displaying characteristics of both hepatocytic and cholangiocytic differentiation. Summary: Because of its aggressive nature, patients with cHCC-iCCA exhibit a poorer prognosis than those with HCC. Surgical resection and liver transplantation may be considered curative treatment approaches; however, only a minority of patients are eligible at the time of diagnosis, and postoperative recurrence rates are high. For cases that are not eligible for surgery, locoregional and systemic therapy are often administered based on treatment protocols applied for HCC or iCCA. Owing to the rarity of this cancer, there are still no established standard treatment protocols; therefore, the choice of therapy is often personalized and guided by the suspected predominant component. Further, the genomic and molecular heterogeneity of cHCC-iCCA can severely compromise the efficacy of the available therapies. Key Messages: In the present review, we summarize the latest advances in cHCC-iCCA and attempt to clarify its terminology and molecular biology. We provide an overview of the etiology of cHCC-iCCA and present new insights into the molecular pathology of this disease that could contribute to further studies aiming to improve the patient outcomes through new systemic therapies.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From the Phase III HIMALAYA Study of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: In the phase III HIMALAYA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), the Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) regimen significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib, and durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a secondary outcome from HIMALAYA, are reported here. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. PROs were assessed (preplanned secondary outcome) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 18-item HCC module. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline and improvement rate in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), functioning, and disease-related symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 1,171 participants were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389) and were evaluable for PRO assessments. Across treatment arms, compliance rates for PROs were >77% at baseline and >70% overall. Baseline scores were comparable across treatment arms. TTD in GHS/QoL, physical functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and abdominal pain was numerically longer for both STRIDE and durvalumab versus sorafenib. Clinically meaningful deterioration in PROs was not observed in any treatment arm. However, TTD in nausea and abdominal swelling was numerically longer for STRIDE versus sorafenib, and the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in GHS/QoL, role, emotional and social functioning, and disease-related symptoms was greater with STRIDE and durvalumab versus sorafenib. PROs with STRIDE and durvalumab were generally similar. CONCLUSION: Compared with sorafenib, STRIDE and durvalumab were associated with clinically meaningful, patient-centered GHS/QoL, functioning, and symptom benefits in people with uHCC. These findings support the benefits of the STRIDE regimen compared with sorafenib for a diverse population reflective of the global uHCC population.

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma: Multicenter real-world study with focus on bleeding and thromboembolic events.

Background & Aims: Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and lenvatinib have demonstrated efficacy as first-line therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition with these therapies may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety with focus on the bleeding and thromboembolic events of atezo/bev vs. lenvatinib in a large, multicenter real-world population. Methods: This study is based on HCC cohorts from seven centers in Germany and Austria. Incidences of bleeding or thromboembolic events and efficacy outcomes were assessed and compared. Results: In total, 464 patients treated with atezo/bev (n = 325) or lenvatinib (n = 139) were analyzed. Both groups were balanced with respect to demographics, presence of liver cirrhosis, and variceal status. Duration of therapy did not differ between groups. Within 3 months of therapy, bleeding episodes were described in 57 (18%) patients receiving atezo/bev compared with 15 (11%) patients receiving lenvatinib (p = 0.07). Variceal hemorrhage occurred in 11 (3%) patients treated with atezo/bev compared with 4 (3%) patients treated with lenvatinib (p = 0.99). Thromboembolic events were reported in 19 (6%) of patients in the atezo/bev cohort compared with 5 (4%) patients in the lenvatinib cohort (p = 0.37). In addition, incidence of overall bleeding, variceal hemorrhage, and thromboembolic events did not differ significantly in patients who received either atezo/bev or lenvantinib for 6 months. Conclusions: Safety considerations related to bleeding and thromboembolic events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezo/bev and lenvatinib. Impact and implications: The inhibition of VEGF by current first-line therapies for HCC, such as atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib, may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Studies comparing the incidence of these side effects between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib, which are preferred treatments over sorafenib for HCC, are needed. Differences in this side effect profile may influence the choice of first-line therapy by treating physicians. Because no significant differences were observed regarding bleeding or thromboembolic events between both therapies in the present study, we conclude that safety considerations related to these events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib.

Imaging-Derived Biomarkers Integrated with Clinical and Laboratory Values Predict Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Transplantation.

Purpose: To investigate the prognostic value of computed tomography (CT) derived imaging biomarkers in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) and develop a predictive nomogram model. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included 178 patients with histopathologically confirmed HCC who underwent liver transplantation between 2007 and 2021 at the two academic liver centers. We evaluated dedicated imaging features from baseline multiphase contrast-enhanced CT supplemented by several clinical findings and laboratory parameters. Time-to-recurrence was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression and multivariable Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression were used to assess independent prognostic factors for recurrence. A nomogram model was then built based on the independent factors selected through LASSO regression, to predict the probabilities of HCC recurrence at one, three, and five years. Results: The rate of HCC recurrence after LT was 17.4% (31 of 178). The LASSO analysis revealed six independent predictors associated with an elevated risk of tumor recurrence. These predictors included the presence of peritumoral enhancement, the presence of over three tumor lesions, the largest tumor diameter greater than 3 cm, serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels exceeding 400 ng/mL, and the presence of a tumor capsule. Conversely, a history of bridging therapies was found to be correlated with a reduced risk of HCC recurrence. In addition, Kaplan-Meier curves showed patients with irregular margin, satellite nodules, or small lesions displayed shorter time-to-recurrence. Our nomogram demonstrated good performance, yielding a C-index of 0.835 and AUC values of 0.86, 0.88, and 0.85 for the predictions of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year TTR, respectively. Conclusion: Imaging parameters derived from baseline contrast-enhanced CT showing malignant behavior and aggressive growth patterns, along with serum AFP and history of bridging therapies, show potential as biomarkers for predicting HCC recurrence after transplantation.

Worldwide Incidence and Mortality of Biliary Tract Cancer.

Background and Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) consists of a group of hepatic and perihepatic tumors that are in close proximity but are anatomically different, including gallbladder cancer (GBC), cholangiocarcinoma (extrahepatic and intrahepatic [ICC]), and ampulla of Vater cancer (AVC). Most epidemiologic research has focused on 1 or more anatomic subtypes, or does not differentiate BTC from hepatocellular carcinoma or other primary liver cancers. Here, we provide a descriptive update on global incidence and mortality rates for BTC, overall and by anatomic subtypes. Methods: Age-standardized rates (per 100,000 person-years) were derived from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Volume XI (2008-2012; 22 countries), and the World Health Organization Mortality Database (2006-2016; 38 countries). Results: BTC incidence varied by country, with the highest in Chile (14.35) and the lowest in Vietnam (1.25). Mortality rates for BTC were highest for the Republic of Korea (11.64) and lowest for the Republic of Moldova (1.65). BTC mortality rates increased over time in 24 of 34 countries. Patients aged ≥75 years had 5-10 times higher mortality rates than the overall BTC rate in all countries. In most countries, incidence rates were highest for GBC, and mortality rates highest for ICC, while both were lowest for AVC. Females had and died from GBC more frequently than males. For ICC, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and AVC, males trended toward higher incidence and mortality rates. Conclusion: The increasing incidence and mortality trends reported here indicate a need for improved prevention and treatment for all BTC subtypes.

Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte­associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti­programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)