Pirrone, Chiara

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.