Goyal, Lipika

Abstract Background Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, overly restrictive criteria can result in unrepresentative trial populations, leading to gaps in understanding real‐world treatment efficacy. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance trial accessibility and participation without compromising safety. Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed screen‐failed patients with biliary tract cancer or pancreatic cancer between August 2019 and November 2024 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Screen‐failed patients were those who provided informed consent but did not participate for any reason. Clinical data were obtained from screening logs and electronic health records. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results Of 585 screen‐failed patients from 18 trials, 509 were analyzed (367 with pancreatic cancer and 142 with biliary tract cancer) after excluding 76 because of incomplete data. Leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (19%), comorbidities (12%), suboptimal organ function (11%), absence of a biomarker (10%), and insufficient biospecimens (7%). Reasons for declining included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), and competing trials (5%). The authors identified 69 patients (13.6%) who had PMEs (primarily borderline laboratory abnormalities), including liver function (23%), kidney function (20%), platelet count (12%), hemoglobin (7%), and white blood cell count (6%) abnormalities. Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (9%) and viral hepatitis (4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Conclusions Rigid eligibility criteria exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing criteria related to incidental or asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities could broaden trial accessibility and improve enrollment in populations that are more representative of real‐world use.

Abstract Purpose: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2–isoform inhibitors have clinical efficacy in IDH1/IDH2-mutated neoplasms. However, primary resistance and secondary resistance limit their therapeutic potential. LY3410738, an oral, brain-penetrant, dual IDH1/IDH2-mutated isoform-selective inhibitor, was designed to overcome resistance. Patients and Methods: This global, multicenter, open-label, phase I study of patients with IDH-mutant solid tumors evaluated LY3410738 as monotherapy (dose escalation) for advanced solid tumors in combination with cisplatin–gemcitabine (CISGEM) for newly diagnosed cholangiocarcinoma or with durvalumab for relapsed/refractory cholangiocarcinoma (dose expansion; NCT04521686). Primary objectives were the maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase II dose, and preliminary antitumor activity. Safety, pharmacokinetics, inhibition of D-2-hydroxyglutarate, and ctDNA were assessed. Results: Overall, 119 patients received LY3410738 alone (N = 94) or in combination with CISGEM (N = 19) or durvalumab (N = 6). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed; the maximum tolerated dose was not determined. Common adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Overall response rates of 5.2% and 11.1% and disease control rates of 56.9% and 63.0% were observed for patients with relapsed/refractory IDH1- or IDH2-mutant cholangiocarcinoma or IDH1-mutant glioma, respectively. D-2-hydroxyglutarate normalization was rapid and durable. In dose-expansion cohorts, combination treatments were tolerable, with one dose-limiting toxicity in the durvalumab cohort. LY3410738 plus CISGEM demonstrated a response rate of 42.1%, a median duration of response of 8.1 months, and a median progression-free survival of 10.2 months for patients with newly diagnosed IDH-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. Conclusions: LY3410738 demonstrated largely cytostatic antitumor activity in IDH1- or IDH2-mutated cholangiocarcinoma and IDH1-mutated gliomas. LY3410738 plus CISGEM exhibited favorable antitumor activity in patients with treatment-naïve IDH-mutated cholangiocarcinoma, warranting further exploration as a treatment strategy.

PURPOSE Increased awareness of the distinct tumor biology for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has led to improvement in outcomes for this population. However, in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a paucity of data exist on the AYA population. To our knowledge, we present the largest study to date on AYA disease biology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in CCA. METHODS A multi-institutional cohort of patients with CCA diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) was used for analysis. Retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who were 50 years old and younger (young; n = 124) and older than 50 years (older; n = 723). RESULTS Among 1,039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (72% ICC, 28% ECC). Young patients had a larger median tumor size at resection compared with older patients (4.2 v 3.6 cm; P = .048), more commonly had N1 disease (65% v 43%; P = .040), and were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.74). Tumors of young patients were more likely to harbor an FGFR2 fusion, BRAF mutation, or ATM mutation ( P < .05 for each). Young patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic therapy (96% v 69%; P < .001), targeted therapy (23% v 8%; P < .001), and treatment on a clinical trial (31% v 19%; P = .004). Among patients who presented with advanced disease, young patients had a higher median overall survival compared with their older counterparts (17.7 v 13.5 months; 95% CI, 12.6 to 22.6 v 11.4 to 14.8; P = .049). CONCLUSION Young patients with CCA had more advanced disease at resection, more commonly received both adjuvant and palliative therapies, and demonstrated improved survival compared with older patients. Given the low clinical trial enrollment and poor outcomes among some AYA cancer populations, data to the contrary in CCA are highly encouraging.

Abstract Background Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. Methods This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P &lt; .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P &lt; .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P &lt; .001). Conclusions Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

Abstract Purpose: Selective FGFR inhibitors are effective against cholangiocarcinomas that harbor gene alterations in FGFR2. Clinical trials suggest that expression of wild-type FGFR mRNA can predict sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors, but this biomarker has not been well characterized in cholangiocarcinoma. This study explores the prevalence of FGFR mRNA overexpression in cholangiocarcinoma, its role in predicting sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors, and its association with immune markers. Experimental Design: Tissue microarrays of intrahepatic (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (ECC) resected between 2004 and 2015 were used to evaluate FGFR1–4 mRNA expression levels by RNA in situ hybridization (ISH). Expression levels of FGFR2 mRNA were correlated with FGFR2 fusion status and with patient outcomes. Immune markers expression was assessed by IHC and CSF1 and CSF1 receptor expression were examined by RNA ISH. Results: Among 94 patients with resected cholangiocarcinoma, the majority had ICC (77%). FGFR2 fusions were identified in 23% of ICCs and 5% of ECCs. High levels of FGFR mRNA in FGFR2 fusion–negative ICC/ECC were seen for: FGFR1 (ICC/ECC: 15%/0%), FGFR2 (ICC/ECC: 57%/0%), FGFR3 (ICC/ECC: 53%/18%), and FGFR4 (ICC/ECC: 32%/0%). Overall, 62% of fusion-negative cholangiocarcinomas showed high levels of FGFR mRNA. In patients with advanced FGFR2 fusion–positive ICC, high levels of FGFR2 mRNA did not correlate with clinical benefit. FGFR2 fusion–positive tumors showed a paucity of PD-L1 on tumor cells. Conclusions: FGFR mRNA overexpression occurs frequently in cholangiocarcinoma in the absence of genetic alterations in FGFR. This study identifies a molecular subpopulation in cholangiocarcinoma for which further investigation of FGFR inhibitors is merited outside currently approved indications.