Citations

Background & Aims: To evaluate safety and efficacy of FGFR1–3 kinase inhibitor derazantinib, in advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements ( FGFR2 F ), mutations ( FGFR2 M ), or amplifications ( FGFR2 A ), previously treated with chemotherapy. Approach & Results: Open-label, non-controlled Phase 2 trial. Patients with advanced iCCA, ≥1 prior chemotherapy, and FGFR2 F (Substudy 1) or FGFR2 M /FGFR A (Substudy 2), received once-daily oral derazantinib 300 mg until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal or investigator decision to stop. Efficacy was assessed by central radiology review using RECIST v1.1. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; Substudy 1) and 3-month progression-free survival (PFS3; Substudy 2). Other endpoints were PFS, ORR (Substudy 2), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). In Substudy 1, ORR and DCR were 22.3% (23/103 partial responses) and 75.7%, respectively; median (95% CI) PFS was 8.1 (5.5,8.3) months, DOR was 6.5 (4.6,9.2) months, and OS was 17.2 (12.5,22.4) months. In Substudy 2, PFS3 was 63% (27/43), ORR was 9.3% (3 partial, 1 complete response), DCR was 69.8%, and OS was 11.9 (8.4,15.9) months. There were no Grade 4 or 5 drug-related events. FGFR inhibitor class-specific toxicities included drug-related hyperphosphataemia (38%, Grade 3: 3%) and dry eye (36%). Nail disorders (10%, any grade or causality), stomatitis (5%), retinal events (5%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (1%) were infrequent. Conclusions: In previously chemotherapy treated, FGFR-inhibitor-naïve patients with iCCA harboring FGFR2 fusions, mutations, or amplifications, derazantinib showed clinically meaningful efficacy with durable objective responses, and a manageable safety profile.

Background and Aims: Liver transplantation has evolved from a treatment restricted to patients with end-stage liver disease to a therapeutic option for selected patients with primary and metastatic liver malignancies. This review explores the rapidly expanding field of transplant oncology, highlighting its role in hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal liver metastasis, neuroendocrine liver metastasis, and intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Emphasis is placed on strategies to broaden eligibility, optimize donor organ use, and improve oncologic outcomes. Approach and Results: We synthesized current evidence from clinical series, registries, and experimental protocols to evaluate patient selection criteria, outcomes, and peri-transplant management. Key topics include downstaging approaches to meet transplant criteria, such as locoregional therapies and systemic regimens, and their prognostic implications. Advances in donor utilization have been analyzed for their capacity to expand the graft pool. In addition, the review addresses the integration of oncologic principles into immunosuppression regimens, balancing graft protection with cancer control. Collectively, the reported studies demonstrate improved survival and reduced recurrence when stringent selection and multimodal therapy were applied. Conclusions: Transplant oncology reshapes the therapeutic landscape of liver malignancies, with growing evidence supporting liver transplantation in carefully selected patients beyond traditional indications. Optimized downstaging, innovative donor strategies, and tailored immunosuppression are pivotal for safe expansion. Continued collaboration between the transplant and oncology disciplines, along with prospective trials, is essential to further define standardized protocols and solidify transplantation as a cornerstone of multidisciplinary cancer care.

Objective: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. Methods: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. Results: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population (https://rediscover.unipi.it/). Conclusions: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Objective: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). Background: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. Material and Methods: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. Results: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P=0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P=0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P=0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P=0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P=0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P=0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P=0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P<0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. Conclusions: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. Aims: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. Materials and Methods: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. Results: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%–78.2%) (https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/). Conclusions: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Background: In patients with neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM), liver transplantation (LT) is an alternative to liver resection (LR), although the choice of therapy remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we aim to provide novel insight in this dispute. Methods: Following a systematic literature search, 15 large international centers were contacted to provide comprehensive data on their patients after LR or LT for NELM. Survival analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method, while multivariable Cox regression served to identify factors influencing survival after either transplantation or resection. Inverse probability weighting and propensity score matching was used for analyses with balanced and equalized baseline characteristics. Results: Overall, 455 patients were analyzed, including 230 after LR and 225 after LT, with a median follow-up of 97 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 85–110 months]. Multivariable analysis revealed G3 grading as a negative prognostic factor for LR [hazard ratio (HR)=2.22, 95% CI: 1.04–4.77, P=0.040], while G2 grading (HR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.15–5.52, P=0.021) and LT outside Milan criteria (HR=2.40, 95% CI: 1.16–4.92, P=0.018) were negative prognostic factors in transplanted patients. Inverse probability-weighted multivariate analyses revealed a distinct survival benefit after LT. Matched patients presented a median overall survival (OS) of 197 months (95% CI: 143–not reached) and a 73% 5-year OS after LT, and 119 months (95% CI: 74–133 months) and a 52.8% 5-year OS after LR (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9, P=0.022). However, the survival benefit after LT was lost if patients were transplanted outside Milan criteria. Conclusions: This multicentric study in patients with NELM demonstrates a survival benefit of LT over LR. This benefit depends on adherence to selection criteria, in particular low-grade tumor biology and Milan criteria, and must be balanced against potential risks of LT.

4100 Background: Checkpoint inhibition with anti-PD1 is able to elicit objective response rates (ORR) of ̃ 20% in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but molecular biomarkers predicting response remain unknown. Here, we define biomarkers of response and primary resistance to anti-PD1 in aHCC by analyzing molecular features prior to systemic therapy. Methods: Through an international consortium of 13 referral centers, we gathered 111 fresh and archived tumor samples from patients with advanced HCC treated with single agent anti- PD1 therapy. Genomic analysis was performed with whole genome expression arrays, CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation assessment and histological evaluation. Results: Overall, we performed transcriptomic analysis in 83 patients, 28 of which were treated in first-line (ORR: 42.9%) while the remaining 55 patients were treated either in 2nd (41 patients, ORR 29.3%) or 3rd line (14 patients, ORR 7.1%) after prior therapy with tyrosine- kinase inhibitors (TKI) sorafenib or lenvatinib. In patients treated in frontline, response was associated with a significant upregulation in Interferon-γ signaling (IFNγ) and genesets relatedto the antigen presentation machinery (FDR < 0.05). Through differential expression analysis we defined an 11-gene signature that was significantly associated with both major pathways (FDR < 0.01) and was capable of predicting OR as well as progression-free- (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with aHCC. The signature was validated in three independent cohorts of melanoma, lung cancer, and head and neck squamous cell cancer patients were high expression was associated with a significant increase in ORR and longer PFS. In HCC, high expression of the signature was associated with a distinct profile in the immune infiltrate, where an increase in M1 macrophages (p = 0.003), CD4 memory T cell (p < 0.01) and CD4 naïve T cell-infiltration (p = 0.026) was observed. Conversely, low expression of the signature was associated with a marked upregulation of regulatory T cells (p < 0.001). No association was found, however, between either the overall immune infiltrate or CTNNB1 mutations and response. In patients that were treated with TKIs in frontline before receiving subsequent anti-PD1 therapy, the signature was no longer able to predict either OR or PFS/OS, suggesting that TKIs may reshape the microenvironment in a way that renders previously inflamed tumors no longer amenable to anti-PD1. Conclusions: Here, we define an 11-gene signature of response to anti-PD1 in first line aHCC. The signature was validated in patients with other solid cancer types, where it retained its predictive ability. Of note, the signature was not able to identify responders among HCC patients that were treated with TKIs prior to anti-PD1 therapy. The molecular changes induced by different treatment lines would, thus, require fresh biopsies prior to anti-PD1to enable biomarker-driven treatment.

Transplant oncology defines any application of transplant medicine and surgery aimed at improving cancer patients’ survival and/or quality of life. In practice, liver transplantation for selected hepato-biliary cancers is the only solid organ transplant with demonstrated efficacy in curing cancer. Four are the proposed future contributions of transplant oncology in hepato-biliary cancer (4-e). (1) evolutionary approach to cancer care that includes liver transplantation; (2) elucidation of self and non-self recognition systems, by linking tumor and transplant immunology; (3) exploration of innovative endpoints both in clinical and experimental settings taking advantage from the access to the entire liver explant; (4) extension of surgical limitation in the multidisciplinary approach to hepato-biliary oncology. The aim of this review is to define the principles of transplant oncology that may be applied to hepato-biliary cancer treatment and research, attempting to balance current evidences with future opportunities.

The presence of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a cirrhotic liver is a contraindication for liver transplantation in most centers worldwide. Recent investigations have shown that “very early” iCCA (single tumors ≤2 cm) may have acceptable results after liver transplantation. This study further evaluates this finding in a larger international multicenter cohort. The study group was composed of those patients who were transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma or decompensated cirrhosis and found to have an iCCA at explant pathology. Patients were divided into those with “very early” iCCA and those with “advanced” disease (single tumor >2 cm or multifocal disease). Between January 2000 and December 2013, 81 patients were found to have an iCCA at explant; 33 had separate nodules of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 had only iCCA (study group). Within the study group, 15/48 (31%) constituted the “very early” iCCA group and 33/48 (69%) the “advanced” group. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative characteristics. At explant, the median size of the largest tumor was larger in the “advanced” group (3.1 [2.5‐4.4] versus 1.6 [1.5‐1.8]). After a median follow‐up of 35 (13.5‐76.4) months, the 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year cumulative risks of recurrence were, respectively, 7%, 18%, and 18% in the very early iCCA group versus 30%, 47%, and 61% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.01. The 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 93%, 84%, and 65% in the very early iCCA group versus 79%, 50%, and 45% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.02. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis and very early iCCA may become candidates for liver transplantation; a prospective multicenter clinical trial is needed to further confirm these results. (H epatology 2016;64:1178‐1188)