Citations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.