Nichetti, Federico

ABSTRACT Many real‐world patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) are excluded by TOPAZ‐1 criteria; this study assessed cisplatin and gemcitabine plus durvalumab (CGD) efficacy and safety in these patients. Data from 1358 patients with advanced BTC treated with first‐line CGD across 55 international centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified as TOPAZ‐1‐in (meeting all inclusion criteria) or TOPAZ‐1‐out (meeting ≥ 1 exclusion criterion). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Furthermore, OS and PFS of the TOPAZ‐1‐out cohort were compared with reconstructed survival data from the phase III trial. 912 (67.1%) patients were classified as TOPAZ‐1‐in , and 446 (32.9%) as TOPAZ‐1‐out . After a median follow‐up of 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.7–36.5), OS was 16.1 months in TOPAZ‐1‐in and 12.5 months in TOPAZ‐1‐out (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 14.6–16.5, p = 0.0001); PFS was 8.2 versus 6.5 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI: 7.1–8.1, p < 0.0001). Median OS in the TOPAZ‐1‐out cohort (12.5 months) was nearly identical to the phase III trial experimental arm (12.9 months; HR 1.15, p = 0.13); for PFS the HR was 1.12 (95% CI 0.93–1.42; p = 0.09). Among TOPAZ‐1‐out patients, active infection, elevated bilirubin, and ECOG PS > 1 were linked to poorer OS, while no detrimental impact emerged for ALT/AST abnormalities, corticosteroid use, renal or hematologic parameters, or prior surgery within 6 months, suggesting treatment effectiveness was broadly maintained across clinical subgroups. Furthermore, TOPAZ‐1‐out patients experienced no significant increase in adverse events compared with the TOPAZ‐1‐in group. Real‐world data suggest CGD may be effective in TOPAZ‐1‐out patients, with no evident increase in toxicity, supporting the potential expanded use of the regimen in clinical practice.

ABSTRACT Surgery after response to first‐line chemoimmunotherapy may offer a potential curative option for patients with locally advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) initially considered unresectable. However, robust real‐world evidence in this setting remains limited. We retrospectively analyzed patients with locally advanced BTC treated with first‐line cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab (CGD) across 55 centers in 12 countries. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), disease‐free survival (DFS) among resected patients, objective response rate (ORR), and the prognostic impact of surgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to predict surgical conversion using baseline clinical and laboratory variables. Among 1358 screened patients, 219 had locally advanced disease and were included in the analysis. Median follow‐up was 14.5 months. ORR was 34.6%, with median PFS and OS of 10.0 and 20.7 months, respectively. Twenty‐four patients (10.9%) underwent surgical resection after systemic therapy. Median OS was 22.5 months in resected patients versus 19.9 months in those who did not undergo surgery. Median DFS after resection was 15.8 months. Pathological lymph node involvement was independently associated with shorter DFS. Larger baseline tumor size correlated with higher odds of radiological response but not with OS. An exploratory elastic‐net model retained four baseline variables and showed moderate discriminative ability for surgical conversion, with an apparent AUC of 0.72 and an optimism‐corrected AUC of 0.65. First‐line CGD enabled secondary resection in approximately 11% of patients with locally advanced BTC. A simple baseline model may support patient selection for conversion surgery, although prospective validation is needed.

ABSTRACT Background We recently published the first real‐world multicenter and multi‐institutional study of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Here we present an expanded patient cohort with an increased sample size and longer median follow‐up. Methods The study population included patients with advanced BTC, who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab at 55 centers across 12 countries in Europe, the United States, and Asia. The primary endpoints of the study were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results Overall, 1358 patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI: 7.2–8.1), and median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI: 14.8–16.5). ORR was 35.6%, and DCR was 82.7%. Any grade AEs occurred in 1213 patients (89.3%). Grade 3–4 AEs occurred in 597 patients (43.2%). The rate of immune‐related AEs (irAE) was 20.3%. Grade 3–4 irAE occurred in 3.0% of patients. At the multivariate analysis for OS, normal albumin level (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57–0.81, p < 0.0001), CEA levels within normal ranges (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57–0.82, p < 0.0001), NLR < 3 (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52–0.74, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS 0 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42–0.61, p < 0.0001), and prior surgery (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.99, p = 0.036) were positive prognostic factors. Conclusion The updated findings, derived from an expanded cohort, further support the adoption of durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in routine clinical practice, reinforcing the efficacy and safety outcomes demonstrated in the phase III TOPAZ‐1 trial.

Abstract Background Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab combination is a standard first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer. This study aimed to assess the impact of genetic alterations on outcomes in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab in real-world clinical practice. Methods Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine plus durvalumab across 39 centers in 11 countries in Europe, the United States, and Asia were included in this analysis. Results The cohort included 513 patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The 5 most frequently altered genes were TP53 (22.1%), KRAS (13.7%), CDKN2A/B (13.6%), ARID1A (12.2%), and IDH1 (9.2%). In multivariate analysis, SMAD4 mutations were associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, P = .018) and overall survival (HR = 0.11, P = .023), while TP53 mutations were linked to worse PFS (HR = 1.62, P = .0047) and TERT mutations to worse overall survival (HR = 8.92, P = .0012). No other genomic alterations were statistically associated with outcomes. Subgroup analysis showed that TP53 mutations negatively affected PFS and overall survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, while KRAS mutations were associated with poorer PFS in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. No gene alterations were linked to outcomes in gallbladder cancer. Conclusions This large-scale analysis, with comprehensive molecular profiling, supports the positive prognostic impact of SMAD4 mutations for PFS and overall survival and highlights the negative prognostic roles of TP53 (PFS) and TERT (overall survival) mutations, providing valuable insights for personalized treatment strategies in biliary tract cancer.

ABSTRACT Background Over the years, prognostic indexes have been developed to help clinicians stratify patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) into risk groups. This study aims to identify a new prognostic index for patients with BTC treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine and durvalumab (CGD) in the first‐line setting. Patients and Methods The study population consisted of patients with BTC from 11 Eastern and Western Countries. Using multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS), we identified 5 baseline statistically significant variables: stage, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, albumin levels, gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels, neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Metastatic disease is a prognostic factor with a superior weight considering the HR of 3.62, while all the others can be considered prognostic factors with equivalent weight as the HRs are quite similar (HRs between 1.55 and 1.92). Based on these reasons, we developed a prognostic model called the MAGIC‐D index by assigning a score of 2 for metastatic disease, and a score of 1 for CEA increased levels, albumin decreased levels, GGT increased levels, NLR ≥ 3. Patients were stratified into three risk groups as follows: low‐risk group (Score from 0 to 2), intermediate‐risk group (Score from 3 to 4) and high‐risk group (Score from 5 to 6). At the first data cutoff (April 2024), these data were available for 319 patients that composed the training cohort used for the analysis. At the second data cutoff (May 2025), 79 patients were further enrolled and composed the validation cohort. Results Median progression‐free survival was 11.7 months in low‐risk group (20.7%), 8.7 months in intermediate‐risk group (46.4%) and 5.4 months in high‐risk group (32.9%) [low‐risk hazard ratio (HR): 0.27, intermediate‐risk HR: 0.55, high‐risk HR: 1, p < 0.0001]. Median OS was 18.4 months in low‐risk group,15.9 months in intermediate‐risk group and 7.8 months in high‐risk group (low‐risk HR: 0.17, intermediate‐risk HR: 0.43, high‐risk HR: 1, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in overall response rate (low‐risk: 31.8%, intermediate‐risk: 36.5% and high‐risk: 25.7%; p = 0.0718), while disease control rate was significantly different across the three risk groups (low‐risk: 83.3%, intermediate‐risk: 70.9% and high‐risk: 60.9%; p < 0.0001) as well as the rate of patients receiving a second‐line therapy (low‐risk: 54.5%, intermediate‐risk: 48.6% and high‐risk: 25.7%; p = 0.0061). Finally, the prognostic role in terms of OS and PFS of the MAGIC‐D index was confirmed in a validation cohort of 79 patients. Conclusion The MAGIC‐D index is an easy‐to‐use tool able to stratify patients with BTC with different prognoses undergoing first‐line therapy with CGD.

PURPOSE The investigation of multiple molecular targets with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has entered clinical practice in oncology, yielding to a paradigm shift from the histology-centric approach to the mutational model for personalized treatment. Accordingly, most of the drugs recently approved in oncology are coupled to specific biomarkers. One potential tool for implementing the mutational model of precision oncology in daily practice is represented by the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary team whereby molecular pathologists, biologists, bioinformaticians, geneticists, medical oncologists, and pharmacists cooperate to generate, interpret, and match molecular data with personalized treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS Since May 2020, the institutional MTB set at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan met weekly via teleconference to discuss molecular data and potential therapeutic options for patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. RESULTS Up to October 2021, among 1,996 patients evaluated, we identified >10,000 variants, 43.2% of which were functionally relevant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic). On the basis of functionally relevant variants, 711 patients (35.6%) were potentially eligible to targeted therapy according to European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets tiers, and 9.4% received a personalized treatment. Overall, larger NGS panels (containing >50 genes) significantly outperformed small panels (up to 50 genes) in detecting actionable gene targets across different tumor types. CONCLUSION Our real-world data provide evidence that MTB is a valuable tool for matching NGS data with targeted treatments, eventually implementing precision oncology in clinical practice.