Citations

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers (BTCs) provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts is convened at least once annually to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. This manuscript focuses on the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation treatment options for BTCs as well as the systemic treatment recommendations for patients with advanced BTCs.

e23011 Background: Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, they often exclude patients due to medical conditions that are not relevant, leading to gaps in understanding the real-world effectiveness of treatments. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance accessibility and participation in trials without compromising safety, particularly given the low rates of enrollment. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed ‘screen-failed’ patients (those who were excluded after providing consent because they did not meet the eligibility criteria or other protocol requirements) with biliary tract (BTC) or pancreatic cancer (PDAC) between August 2019 and November 2024. Screening logs and electronic health records provided clinical data. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results: Of 585 screen-failed patients from 18 trials, 76 were excluded due to incomplete data. Among the 509 patients analyzed (367-PDAC, 142-BTC), the leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (99, 19%), comorbidities (59, 12%), suboptimal organ function (56, 11%), absence of biomarker (49, 10%), and insufficient biospecimens (36, 7%). Among patients declining participation, reasons included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), competing trials (5%), adverse event concerns (4%), financial issues (3%), and unknown reasons (43%). Of the 509 patients deemed ineligible for study entry at screening, we identified 69 patients (13.6%) with PMEs, primarily related to borderline laboratory abnormalities: liver function (16, 23%), kidney function (14, 20%), platelet count (8, 12%), hemoglobin (5, 7%), and white blood cell count (4, 6%). Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (6, 9%) and viral hepatitis (3, 4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Notably, all screen-failed patients proceeded to receive standard therapy. Conclusions: This analysis underscores the potential for rigid eligibility criteria to exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing specific criteria, particularly those related to laboratory abnormalities, could broaden trial accessibility. Furthermore, examining the reasons for declined participation and addressing PMEs could help develop strategies to enhance trial enrollment.

In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.

4084 Background: Treatment of advanced CCA has changed dramatically over the past five years with the advent of molecularly targeted therapy, now approved in the 2nd line and beyond. However, real world utilization of molecular profiling and targeted therapy is still unknown and these data are critical to empower treatment decision-making. Methods: In 2019, the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation (CCF) and Ciitizen (a wholly owned subsidiary of Invitae Corporation) collaboratively launched a registry platform that directly consents patients and collects comprehensive medical records. De-identified data including clinical characteristics, molecular testing, interventions, and outcomes are extracted and standardized for research use. The data is longitudinal with regularly planned updates; registry participants can be re-engaged to obtain additional data and communicate tailored insights. Results: We quantified the rate of molecular testing, the presence of targetable biomarkers, and the utilization and outcomes on matched targeted therapies for 372 individuals with CCA. 328 (88.2%) individuals had molecular testing, with the identified targetable mutations and matched therapies reported. Of 328 individuals who had molecular testing, 111 (33.8%) individuals had one or more targetable mutations (116 mutations total). Only 46% (51) of individuals with targetable mutations received targeted therapy. Of the 54% (60) individuals with targetable mutations that did not receive any matched therapy, the majority (61.7%, 37) were in early disease or first line of treatment and therefore not yet eligible for targeted therapy. These individuals will be informed that based on their molecular profile, a targeted therapy may be an option, and suggest they discuss with their treating physician. Conclusions: A novel prospectively-maintained database registry for CCA has been formed in collaboration between a patient advocacy organization (CCF) and industry (Invitae). Prevalence of actionable biomarkers was higher than historically expected and may reflect patient utilization bias of the registry platform. Molecular profiling and access to targeted therapeutics remains suboptimal at this time in CCA. Future directions for the registry include identifying and targeting disparities in care and supporting biopharmaceutical development and regulatory decisions. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network's research. Methods: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network's research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. Results: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. Conclusions: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. Impact: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement.

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.

PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with resected biliary tract cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on adjuvant therapy for resected biliary tract cancer and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS Three phase III randomized controlled trials, one phase II trial, and 16 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on evidence from a phase III randomized controlled trial, patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a duration of 6 months. The dosing used in this trial is described in the qualifying statements, while it should be noted that the dose of capecitabine may also be determined by institutional and regional practices. Patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer and a microscopically positive surgical resection margin (R1 resection) may be offered chemoradiation therapy. A shared decision-making approach is recommended, considering the risk of harm and potential for benefit associated with radiation therapy for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .