Futibatinib for FGFR2-Rearranged Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

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.).

Brightline-2: a phase IIa/IIb trial of brigimadlin (BI 907828) in advanced biliary tract cancer, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma or other solid tumors.

Mouse double minute 2 homolog (MDM2) is a key negative regulator of the tumor suppressor p53. Blocking the MDM2-p53 interaction, and restoring p53 function, is therefore a potential therapeutic strategy in MDM2-amplified, TP53 wild-type tumors. MDM2 is amplified in several tumor types, including biliary tract cancer (BTC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), lung adenocarcinoma and bladder cancer, all of which have limited treatment options and poor patient outcomes. Brigimadlin (BI 907828) is a highly potent MDM2-p53 antagonist that has shown promising activity in preclinical and early-phase clinical studies. This manuscript describes the rationale and design of an ongoing phase IIa/IIb Brightline-2 trial evaluating brigimadlin as second-line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic BTC, PDAC, lung adenocarcinoma, or bladder cancer.

Brightline-2: a phase IIa/IIb trial of brigimadlin (BI 907828) in advanced BTC, PDAC, or other solid tumorsIn some types of cancer, including cancers of the bile duct, pancreas, bladder and lung, the number of copies of a gene called MDM2 is abnormally increased (MDM2 amplification). MDM2 usually regulates p53, a protein that stops cancer cells from growing uncontrollably. When MDM2 is amplified, the cell makes too much of the MDM2 protein, which prevents p53 from stopping cancer growth. Blocking the interaction between MDM2 and p53 may allow p53 to do its job again and stop cancer cells from growing.Brightline-2 is a clinical trial that is currently in progress. This trial is assessing the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug, brigimadlin (or BI 907828), in patients with selected advanced or metastatic cancers. To be included, patients must have advanced biliary tract cancer, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, bladder cancer, or lung adenocarcinoma. The tumor must show amplification of MDM2 when tested by a laboratory. Patients will take a 45 mg tablet of brigimadlin by mouth, once every 3 weeks. In this trial, researchers are investigating the ability of the drug to shrink tumors, the side effects of the drug, and the impact of the drug on a patients' quality of life.The goal of this trial is to assess the potential of brigimadlin as a new treatment option for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, bladder cancer, or lung adenocarcinoma.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05512377 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

COMPANION-002 A clinical trial of investigational drug CTX-009 plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel in second line advanced BTC.

Treatment options for patients with biliary tract cancer are limited, and the prognosis is poor. CTX-009, a novel bispecific antibody targeting both DLL4 and VEGF-A, has demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced cancers as both a monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy. In a phase II study of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who had received one or two prior therapies, CTX-009 with paclitaxel demonstrated a 37.5% overall response rate (ORR). Described here is the design of and rationale for COMPANION-002, a randomized phase II/III study, which will evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTX-009 in combination with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The primary end point is ORR, and crossover is allowed.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05506943 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Looking for new options for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer? Explore COMPANION-002, Compass Therapeutics' phase II/III study of CTX-009 + paclitaxel as a second line treatment.#CMPX #biotech #healthcare #rarecancer.

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).

Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) Versus the Standard of Care Imaging in the Diagnosis of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to the standard of care imaging (SCI) for the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in primary abdominopelvic malignancies. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Identifying PC impacts prognosis and management of multiple cancer types. METHODS: Adult subjects were prospectively and consecutively enrolled from April 2019 to January 2021. Inclusion criteria were: 1) acquisition of whole-body contrast-enhanced (CE) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/MRI, 2) pathologically confirmed primary abdominopelvic malignancies. Exclusion criteria were: 1) greater than 4 weeks interval between SCI and PET/MRI, 2) unavailable follow-up. SCI consisted of whole-body CE PET/computed tomography (CT) with diagnostic quality CT, and/or CE-CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and/or CE-MRI of the abdomen±pelvis. If available, pathology or surgical findings served as the reference standard, otherwise, imaging followup was used. When SCI and PET/MRI results disagreed, medical records were checked for management changes. Follow-up data were collected until August 2021. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four subjects were included, 85 (52%) were female, and the median age was 60 years (interquartile range 50-69). At a subject level, PET/MRI had higher sensitivity (0.97, 95% CI 0.86-1.00) than SCI (0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.71), P < 0.001, without a difference in specificity, of 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.98) for PET/MRI and 0.98 (95% CI 0.93-1.00) for SCI, P » 0.250. PET/MRI and SCI results disagreed in 19 cases. In 5/19 (26%) of the discordant cases, PET/MRI findings consistent with PC missed on SCI led to management changes. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI improves detection of PC compared with SCI which frequently changes management.

Phase Ib and Expansion Study of Gemcitabine, Nab-Paclitaxel, and Ficlatuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In preclinical pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) models, inhibition of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) signaling using ficlatuzumab, a recombinant humanized anti-HGF antibody, and gemcitabine reduced tumor burden. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC enrolled in a phase Ib dose escalation study with 3 + 3 design of 2 dose cohorts of ficlatuzumab 10 and 20 mg/kg administered intravenously every other week with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 given 3 weeks on and 1 week off. This was followed by an expansion phase at the maximally tolerated dose of the combination. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (sex, 12 male:14 female; median age, 68 years [range, 49-83 years]) were enrolled, 22 patients were evaluable. No dose-limiting toxicities were identified (N = 7 pts) and ficlatuzumab at 20 mg/kg was chosen as the maximum tolerated dose. Among the 21 patients treated at the MTD, best response by RECISTv1.1: 6 (29%) partial response, 12 (57%) stable disease, 1 (5%) progressive disease, and 2 (9%) not evaluable. Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 11.0 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.4 months) and 16.2 months (95% CI, 9.1 months to not reached), respectively. Toxicities attributed to ficlatuzumab included hypoalbuminemia (grade 3, 16%; any grade, 52%) and edema (grade 3, 8%; any grade, 48%). Immunohistochemistry for c-Met pathway activation demonstrated higher tumor cell p-Met levels in patients who experienced response to therapy. CONCLUSION: In this phase Ib trial, ficlatuzumab, gemcitabine, and albumin-bound paclitaxel were associated with durable treatment responses and increased rates of hypoalbuminemia and edema.

Resection of NAFLD/NASH-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Clinical Features and Outcomes Compared with HCC Due to Other Etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are the leading causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide. Limited data exist on surgical outcomes for NAFLD/NASH-related HCC compared with other HCC etiologies. We evaluated differences in clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing surgical resection for NAFLD/NASH-associated HCC compared with other HCC etiologies. METHODS: Demographic, clinicopathological features, and survival outcomes of patients with surgically resected HCC were collected. NAFLD activity score (NAS) and fibrosis score were assessed by focused pathologic review in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Among 492 patients screened, 260 met eligibility (NAFLD/NASH [n = 110], and other etiologies [n = 150]). Median age at diagnosis was higher in the NAFLD/NASH HCC cohort compared with the other etiologies cohort (66.7 vs. 63.4 years, respectively, P = .005), with an increased percentage of female patients (36% vs. 18%, P = .001). NAFLD/NASH-related tumors were more commonly >5 cm (66.0% vs. 45%, P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of lymphovascular or perineural invasion, histologic grade, or serum AFP levels. The NAFLD/NASH cohort had lower rates of background liver fibrosis, lower AST and ALT levels, and higher platelet counts (P < .01 for all). Median overall survival (OS) was numerically shorter in NAFLD/NASH vs other etiology groups, however, not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC more commonly lacked liver fibrosis and presented with larger HCCs compared with patients with HCC from other etiologies. No differences were seen in rates of other high-risk features or survival. With the caveat of sample size and retrospective analysis, this supports a similar decision-making approach regarding surgical resection for NAFLD/NASH and other etiology-related HCCs.

An Expert, Multidisciplinary Perspective on Best Practices in Biomarker Testing in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive malignancy that arises from the intrahepatic biliary tree and is associated with a poor prognosis. Until recently, the treatment landscape of advanced/metastatic iCCA has been limited primarily to chemotherapy. In recent years, the advent of biomarker testing has identified actionable genetic alterations in 40%-50% of patients with iCCA, heralding an era of precision medicine for these patients. Biomarker testing using next-generation sequencing (NGS) has since become increasingly relevant in iCCA; however, several challenges and gaps in standard image-guided liver biopsy and processing have been identified. These include variability in tissue acquisition relating to the imaging modality used for biopsy guidance, the biopsy method used, number of passes, needle choice, specimen preparation methods, the desmoplastic nature of the tumor, as well as the lack of communication among the multidisciplinary team. Recognizing these challenges and the lack of evidence-based guidelines for biomarker testing in iCCA, a multidisciplinary team of experts including interventional oncologists, a gastroenterologist, medical oncologists, and pathologists suggest best practices for optimizing tissue collection and biomarker testing in iCCA.

Ramucirumab for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Elevated Alpha Fetoprotein Following Non-Sorafenib Systemic Therapy: An Expansion Cohort of REACH-2.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is indicated for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL following sorafenib. Here, we prospectively studied ramucirumab following non-sorafenib systemic therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, non-comparative cohort of REACH-2 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class-A liver disease, and AFP ≥400 ng/mL who had received 1-2 lines of therapy, excluding sorafenib or chemotherapy. Ramucirumab was administered 8 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate (RECIST v1.1), time to progression, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Final analysis occurred after all enrolled patients completed ≥3 treatment cycles or discontinued treatment. RESULTS: Between April 27, 2018, and March 29, 2021, 47 patients were treated at 21 investigative sites in Asia, Europe, and USA. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events, regardless of causality, were hypertension (11%), proteinuria (6%), hyponatremia (6%), and AST increased (6%). Two patients died from adverse events (myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage), deemed related to treatment. Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 1.7 months, 2.8 months, and 8.7 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 10.6% with a median duration response of 8.3 months. Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total score was 4.4 months. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab demonstrated consistent and meaningful clinical activity with no new safety signals following non-sorafenib therapies in patients with advanced HCC and AFP ≥400 ng/mL. This represents one of the first sequencing studies for patients with advanced HCC not treated with sorafenib.

Implementation and Clinical Adoption of Precision Oncology Workflows Across a Healthcare Network.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology relies on molecular diagnostics, and the value-proposition of modern healthcare networks promises a higher standard of care across partner sites. We present the results of a clinical pilot to standardize precision oncology workflows. METHODS: Workflows are defined as the development, roll-out, and updating of disease-specific molecular order sets. We tracked the timeline, composition, and effort of consensus meetings to define the combination of molecular tests. To assess clinical impact, we examined order set adoption over a two-year period (before and after roll-out) across all gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary (GI) malignancies, and by provider location within the network. RESULTS: Development of 12 disease center-specific order sets took ~9 months, and the average number of tests per indication changed from 2.9 to 2.8 (P = .74). After roll-out, we identified significant increases in requests for GI patients (17%; P < .001), compliance with testing recommendations (9%; P < .001), and the fraction of "abnormal" results (6%; P < .001). Of 1088 GI patients, only 3 received targeted agents based on findings derived from non-recommended orders (1 before and 2 after roll-out); indicating that our practice did not negatively affect patient treatments. Preliminary analysis showed 99% compliance by providers in network sites, confirming the adoption of the order sets across the network. CONCLUSION: Our study details the effort of establishing precision oncology workflows, the adoption pattern, and the absence of harm from the reduction of non-recommended orders. Establishing a modifiable communication tool for molecular testing is an essential component to optimize patient care via precision oncology.

Associations of baseline patient-reported outcomes with treatment outcomes in advanced gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessing quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden correlate with clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. However, to the authors' knowledge, data regarding associations between PROs and treatment response are lacking. METHODS: The authors prospectively approached consecutive patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer who were initiating a new treatment. Prior to treatment, patients reported their QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G], 4 subscales: Functional, Physical, Emotional, Social; higher scores indicate better QOL) and symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS], Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]; higher scores represent greater symptoms). Regression models were used to examine associations of baseline PROs with treatment response (clinical benefit or progressive disease [PD] at time of first scan), healthcare utilization, and survival. RESULTS: From May 2019 to April 2020, a total of 112 patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer were enrolled. For treatment response, 64.3% had CB and 35.7% had PD. Higher baseline ESAS-Physical (odds ratio, 1.04; P = .027) and lower FACT-G Functional (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .038) scores were associated with PD. Higher ESAS-Physical (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P = .044) and lower FACT-G Total (HR, 0.96; P = .005), FACT-G Physical (HR, 0.89; P < .001), and FACT-G Functional (HR, 0.87; P < .001) scores were associated with a greater hospitalization risk. Lower FACT-G Total (HR, 0.96; P = .009) and FACT-G Emotional (HR, 0.86; P = .012) scores as well as higher ESAS-Total (HR, 1.03; P = .014) and ESAS-Physical (HR, 1.04; P = .032) scores were associated with worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PROs are associated with treatment response in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer, namely physical symptoms and functional QOL, in addition to health care use and survival. The findings of the current study support the association between PROs and important clinical outcomes, including the novel finding of treatment response.

The Role of Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of 2,402 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as a treatment option for several malignancies. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab have been approved for the management of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to systematically review the literature and summarize the characteristics and outcomes of patients with HCC treated with ICIs. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed according to the PRISMA statement (end of search date: November 7, 2020). Quality of evidence assessment was also performed. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles including 2,402 patients were analyzed, 2,376 of whom received ICIs for unresectable HCC. Response to ICIs could be evaluated in 2,116 patients; the overall objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 22.7% and 60.7%, respectively, and the mean overall survival (OS) was 15.8 months. The ORR, DCR, and OS for nivolumab (n = 846) were 19.7%, 51.1%, and 18.7 months, respectively; for pembrolizumab (n = 435) they were 20.7%, 64.6% and 13.3 months, respectively. The combination of atezolizumab/bevacizumab (n = 460) demonstrated an ORR and DCR of 30% and 77%, respectively. The overall rate of treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 14.9%. Fifteen patients received ICIs in the liver transplant (LT) setting (one pre-LT for bridging, 14 for post-LT recurrence); fatal graft rejection was reported in 40.0% (n = 6/15) and mortality in 80.0% (n = 12/15). CONCLUSION: ICIs are safe and effective against unresectable HCC, but caution is warranted regarding their use in the LT setting because of the high graft rejection rate. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This systematic review pooled the outcomes from studies reporting on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the management of 2,402 patients with advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 2,376 of whom had unresectable HCC. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 22.7% and 60.7%, respectively, and the mean overall survival was 15.8 months. The overall rate of treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 14.9%. Fifteen patients received ICIs in the liver transplant (LT) setting (one pre-LT for bridging, 14 for post-LT recurrence). Six of these patients experienced graft rejection (40.0%).

Pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma: A multi-center series on clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) is a very rare tumor of the exocrine pancreas, representing less than 1% of all pancreatic malignancies. The majority of data regarding ACC are limited to small case series. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted at a large healthcare system from 1996 to 2019. Patients with pathologically confirmed ACC were included, and demographic data, tumor characteristics, and treatment outcomes were abstracted by chart review. Survival curves were obtained by using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients with ACC were identified. The median patient age at diagnosis was 64, and 42% presented with metastatic disease. The majority presented with abdominal pain or pancreatitis (69%), and laboratory parameters did not correlate with tumor size, metastatic disease, or survival. Several somatic abnormalities were noted in tumors (BRCA2, TP53, and mismatch-repair genes). In patients with localized disease that underwent resection, the median time to develop metastatic lesions was 13 months. The median overall survival (OS) was 24.7 months from diagnosis, with a survival difference based on metastatic disease at diagnosis (median 15 vs 38 mos). Surgery was associated with improved survival in non-metastatic cases (p = 0.006) but not metastatic cases (p = 0.22), and chemotherapy showed OS benefit in metastatic disease (p < 0.01). Patients with metastatic ACC treated after 2010 utilized more platinum-based agents, and there was a OS benefit to FOLFOX or FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy compared to gemcitabine or capecitabine-based regimens (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Pancreatic ACC patients often present with advanced disease. Surgery was associated with survival benefit among patients presenting with localized disease. The use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy regimens was associated with improved OS in metastatic patients. These data add to our knowledge in this rare malignancy, and improves understanding about the genomic underpinnings, prognosis and treatment for acinar cancers.

Integration of Systemic and Liver-Directed Therapies for Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: Harnessing Potential Synergy for New Therapeutic Horizons.

Treatment options in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have evolved considerably over the past few years with the recent approval of multiple systemic therapies and significant advances in locoregional therapy. Given the poor prognosis for patients with unresectable HCC, there is significant interest in rationally designed combination therapies. This article reviews the treatment options available to patients with locally advanced HCC and discusses the rationale, ongoing trials, and future prospects for combining locoregional and systemic therapy in both the definitive and neoadjuvant settings.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Molecular and morphological changes induced by ivosidenib correlate with efficacy in mutant-IDH1 cholangiocarcinoma.

Background: IDH1 mutations occur in approximately 13% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (IHCCs). The oral, targeted, mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) inhibitor ivosidenib (AG-120) suppresses production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, promoting disease stabilization and improved progression-free survival (PFS) in mIDH1 IHCC. Materials & methods: Harnessing matched baseline and on-treatment biopsies, we investigate the potential mechanisms underlying ivosidenib's efficacy. Results: mIDH1 inhibition leads to decreased cytoplasm and expression of hepatocyte lineage markers in patients with prolonged PFS. These findings are accompanied by downregulation of biliary fate, cell cycle progression and AKT pathway activity. Conclusion: Ivosidenib stimulates a hepatocyte differentiation program in mIDH1 IHCC, a phenotype associated with clinical benefit. mIDH1 inhibition could be a paradigm for differentiation-based therapy in solid tumors. Clinical trial registration: NCT02073994 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations occur in approximately 13% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a relatively uncommon cancer with a poor clinical outcome. The aim of this international phase 3 study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a small-molecule targeted inhibitor of mutated IDH1-in patients with previously treated IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study included patients from 49 hospitals in six countries aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma who had progressed on previous therapy, and had up to two previous treatment regimens for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and a measurable lesion as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with a block size of 6 and stratified by number of previous systemic treatment regimens for advanced disease to oral ivosidenib 500 mg or matched placebo once daily in continuous 28-day cycles, by means of an interactive web-based response system. Placebo to ivosidenib crossover was permitted on radiological progression per investigator assessment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent central review. The intention-to-treat population was used for the primary efficacy analyses. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of ivosidenib or placebo. Enrolment is complete; this study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02989857. FINDINGS: Between Feb 20, 2017, and Jan 31, 2019, 230 patients were assessed for eligibility, and as of the Jan 31, 2019 data cutoff date, 185 patients were randomly assigned to ivosidenib (n=124) or placebo (n=61). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6·9 months (IQR 2·8-10·9). Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo (median 2·7 months [95% CI 1·6-4·2] vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6]; hazard ratio 0·37; 95% CI 0·25-0·54; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event in both treatment groups was ascites (four [7%] of 59 patients receiving placebo and nine [7%] of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (30%) of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib and 13 (22%) of 59 patients receiving placebo. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo, and ivosidenib was well tolerated. This study shows the clinical benefit of targeting IDH1 mutations in advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. FUNDING: Agios Pharmaceuticals.

Randomized trial of a hospice video educational tool for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have substantial misperceptions regarding hospice, which contributes to its underuse. METHODS: The authors conducted a single-site randomized trial of a video educational tool versus a verbal description of hospice in 150 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients without a caregiver were eligible. Intervention participants (75 patients and 18 caregivers) viewed a 6-minute video depicting hospice. Control participants (75 patients and 26 caregivers) received a verbal description identical to the video narrative. The primary outcome was patient preference for hospice. Secondary outcomes included patient and/or caregiver knowledge and perceptions of hospice, and hospice use. RESULTS: Between February 2017 and January 2019, approximately 55.7% of eligible patients (150 of 269 eligible patients) and 44 caregivers were enrolled. After the intervention, there was no difference noted with regard to patients' preferences for hospice (86.7% vs 82.7%; P = .651). Patients in the video group reported greater knowledge regarding hospice (9.0 vs 8.4; P = .049) and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (6.7% vs 21.6%; P = .010). Among deceased patients, those assigned to the intervention were more likely to have used hospice (85.2% vs 63.6%; P = .01) and to have had a longer hospice length of stay (median, 12 days vs 3 days; P < .001). After the intervention, caregivers assigned to view the video were more likely to prefer hospice for their loved ones (94.4% vs 65.4%; P = .031), reported greater knowledge concerning hospice (9.7% vs 8.0%; P = .001), and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (0.0% vs 23.1%; P = .066). CONCLUSIONS: A hospice video did not significantly impact patients' preferences for hospice care. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers who were assigned to view the video were more informed regarding hospice and reported more favorable perceptions of hospice. Patients were more likely to use hospice and to have a longer hospice length of stay.

Revisiting MET: Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic, MET-Amplified Esophagogastric Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic esophagogastric cancers (EGCs) have a poor prognosis with an approximately 5% 5-year survival. Additional treatment approaches are needed. c-MET gene-amplified tumors are an uncommon but potentially targetable subset of EGC. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated in patients with MET-amplified EGC and compared with those without MET amplification to facilitate identification of these patients and possible treatment approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic MET-amplified EGC at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were identified using fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis, with a gene-to-control ratio of ≥2.2 defined as positive. Non-MET-amplified patients identified during the same time period who had undergone tumor genotyping and treatment at MGH were evaluated as a comparison group. RESULTS: We identified 233 patients evaluated for MET amplification from 2002 to 2019. MET amplification was seen in 28 (12%) patients versus 205 (88%) patients without amplification. Most MET-amplified tumors occurred in either the distal esophagus (n = 9; 32%) or gastroesophageal junction (n = 10; 36%). Of MET-amplified patients, 16 (57%) had a TP53 mutation, 5(18%) had HER2 co-amplification, 2 (7.0%) had EGFR co-amplification, and 1 (3.5%) had FGFR2 co-amplification. MET-amplified tumors more frequently had poorly differentiated histology (19/28, 68.0% vs. 66/205, 32%; p = .02). Progression-free survival to initial treatment was substantially shorter for all MET-amplified patients (5.6 vs. 8.8 months, p = .026) and for those with metastatic disease at presentation (4.0 vs. 7.6 months, p = .01). Overall, patients with MET amplification had shorter overall survival (19.3 vs. 24.6 months, p = .049). No difference in survival was seen between low MET-amplified tumors (≥2.2 and <25 MET copy number) compared with highly amplified tumors (≥25 MET copy number). CONCLUSION: MET-amplified EGC represents a distinct clinical entity characterized by rapid progression and short survival. Ideally, the identification of these patients will provide opportunities to participate in clinical trials in an attempt to improve outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes 233 patients who received MET amplification testing and reports (a) a positivity rate of 12%, similar to the rate of HER2 positivity in this data set; (b) the clinical characteristics of poorly differentiated tumors and nodal metastases; and (c) markedly shorter progression-free survival and overall survival in MET-amplified tumors. Favorable outcomes are reported for patients treated with MET inhibitors. Given the lack of published data in MET-amplified esophagogastric cancers and the urgent clinical importance of identifying patients with MET amplification for MET-directed therapy, this large series is a valuable addition to the literature and will have an impact on future practice.

Patterns of Failure and the Need for Biliary Intervention in Resected Biliary Tract Cancers After Chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed patterns of failure and rates of subsequent biliary intervention among patients with resected biliary tract cancers (BTCs) including gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) and extra- and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA and iCCA) treated with adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). METHODS: In this single-institution retrospective analysis of 80 patients who had GBC (n = 29), eCCA (n = 43), or iCCA (n = 8) treated with curative-intent resection and adjuvant CRT from 2007 to 2017, the median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy (range 36-65 Gy) with concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy. All but two of the patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The 2-year locoregional failure (LRF), 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), and 2-year overall survival (OS), and univariate predictors of LRF, RFS, and OS were calculated for the entire cohort and for a subgroup excluding patients with iCCA (n = 72). The predictors of biliary interventions also were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients (median follow-up period, 30.5 months; median OS, 33.9 months), 54.4% had American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage 1 or 2 disease, 57.1% were lymph node-positive, and 66.3% underwent margin-negative resection. For the entire cohort, 2-year LRF was 23.8%, 2-year RFS was  43.7%, and 2-year OS was 62.1%.  When patients with iCCA were excluded, the 2-year LRF was 22.6%, the 2-year RFS was 43.9%, and the 2-year OS was 59.2%. In the overall and subgroup univariate analyses, lymph node positivity was associated with greater LRF, whereas resection margin was not. Biliary intervention was required for 12 (63.2%) of the 19 patients with LRF versus 11 (18%) of the 61 patients without LRF (P < 0.001). Of the 12 patients with LRF who required biliary intervention, 4 died of biliary complications. CONCLUSIONS: The LRF rates remained significant despite adjuvant CRT. Lymph node positivity may be associated with increased risk of LRF. Positive margins were not associated with greater LRF, suggesting that CRT may mitigate LRF risk for this group. An association between LRF and higher rates of subsequent biliary interventions was observed, which may yield significant morbidity. Novel strategies to decrease the rates of LRF should be considered.