Ankoma‐Sey, Victor

Background and Aims: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare but aggressive malignancy with poorly understood genetic susceptibility. To date, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigating germline variants associated with CCA risk remain limited. We aimed to identify genetic risk loci for CCA and its clinical subtypes through comprehensive GWAS and post-GWAS analyses. Approach and Results: We conducted a GWAS of 2366 CCA cases and 11,750 controls of European ancestry. Genome-wide significant loci ( p <5×10 −8 ) were identified and further examined through fine-mapping, functional annotation, and HLA imputation. Subgroup analyses were conducted by CCA subtypes and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) status. Cross-trait linkage disequilibrium score regression and Mendelian randomization were employed to investigate the shared genetic architecture and potential causal relationships with a diverse range of traits. We identified 1 new genome-wide significant variant, rs535777 (OR=1.44), near HLA-DRB1/DQA1 associated with CCA, and 2 variants associated with extrahepatic CCA: rs116224263 (OR=0.17) in LINC02506 at 4p15.1 and rs6914950 (OR=1.63) near HLA-DRB1/DQB1 . Stratified analyses revealed rs2395184 (OR=3.51) near HLA-DRA/DRB5 associated with PSC-related CCA, and rs142674434 (OR=2.98) in THSD7A at 7p21.3 associated with non-PSC-related CCA. HLA imputation uncovered new amino acid residues associated with disease risk. Cross-trait analyses identified shared genetic signals between CCA and anthropometric, lipidemic, lifestyle, and medical traits. Mendelian randomization supported putative causal associations for 12 traits with CCA or its subtypes. Conclusions: Our large-scale GWAS highlights new genetic variants and HLA-linked mechanisms underlying CCA susceptibility. Integrating multi-step post-GWAS approaches enhances understanding of CCA pathogenesis and may facilitate the development of risk biomarkers for early detection and precision prevention strategies.

Health care delivery is increasingly evaluated according to quality measures, yet such measures are underdeveloped for cirrhosis. The Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases was charged with developing explicit process‐based and outcome‐based measures for adults with cirrhosis. We identified candidate measures from comprehensive reviews of the literature and input from expert clinicians and patient focus groups. We conducted an 11‐member expert clinician panel and used a modified Delphi method to systematically identify a set of quality measures in cirrhosis. Among 119 candidate measures, 46 were identified as important measures to define the quality of cirrhosis care, including 26 process measures, 7 clinical outcome measures, and 13 patient‐reported outcome measures. The final process measures captured care processes for ascites (n = 5), varices/bleeding (n = 7), hepatic encephalopathy (n = 4), hepatocellular cancer (HCC) screening (n = 1), liver transplantation evaluation (n = 2), and other care (n = 7). Clinical outcome measures included survival, variceal bleeding and rebleeding, early‐stage HCC, liver‐related hospitalization, and rehospitalization within 7 and 30 days. Patient‐reported outcome measures covered physical symptoms, physical function, mental health, general function, cognition, social life, and satisfaction with care. The final list of patient‐reported outcomes was validated in 79 patients with cirrhosis from nine institutions in the United States. Conclusion: We developed an explicit set of evidence‐based quality measures for adult patients with cirrhosis. These measures are a tool for providers and institutions to evaluate their care quality, drive quality improvement, and deliver high‐value cirrhosis care. The quality measures are intended to be applicable in any clinical care setting in which care for patients with cirrhosis is provided.