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.

Abstract In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the possible prognostic impact of concomitant medications in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy combinations. This real‐world analysis aims to evaluate the impact of concomitant medications on survival outcomes in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTCs) treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine and durvalumab (CGD) therapy. The study cohort included patients with a diagnosis of advanced BTCs who were taking concomitant medications for their comorbidities before the start of CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). The initial population consisted of 666 patients, who were retrospectively collected from 41 sites in 12 countries. Data on concomitant medications were available for 493 patients. After a median follow‐up of 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.8–9.8), patients who did not take steroids (prednisone >10 mg/day or equivalent) or nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, before the start of CGD, had longer OS and PFS in univariate analysis. The multivariate analysis confirmed longer OS for patients who did not take steroids. Patients who did not take steroids had an OS of 14.8 months (95% CI: 13.1–29.1) versus 5.0 months (95% CI: 2.14–11.32) of patients who took prednisone >10 mg/day or equivalent. No differences were reported in terms of overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) ( p = 1.0 and p = .16, respectively), and safety profile between the two groups. Our analysis suggests that patients who did not receive steroids before the start of GCD had longer survival and highlighted the relevance of balancing concomitant medications and chemoimmunotherapy.

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.

AbstractStandard of care first‐line systemic treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer includes chemo‐immunotherapy with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab, followed by maintenance durvalumab monotherapy. The present work aims to investigate the differences in baseline clinical and molecular characteristics between patients with early progression during chemo‐immunotherapy and those who reach durvalumab maintenance therapy. The study population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC who received treatment at 38 clinical Institutions in 12 countries from July 2021 to December 2023. The primary objective of the study was to investigate whether baseline clinical and molecular characteristics differed between patients with early progression during chemo‐immunotherapy versus those reaching durvalumab maintenance therapy. Four hundred forty‐eight patients were included in this study. Two hundred twenty‐seven patients (50.7%) received maintenance with durvalumab monotherapy, whereas 221 (49.3%) did not receive maintenance therapy due to PD during first‐line chemo‐immunotherapy before completing 8 cycles. Results show that patients who received maintenance were more likely to be older (≥70 years), have an ECOG = 0, locally advanced disease, and a neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) <3. A higher proportion of patients with BAP1 mutations received maintenance, while TP53 mutations were more common in those who progressed early. According to the present analysis, a substantial proportion of patients (50.7%) with advanced BTC who were treated with chemotherapy plus durvalumab proceeded to receive maintenance therapy with durvalumab monotherapy, with a median treatment duration of 4.4 cycles. Patients ≥70 years, with ECOG PS 0, with locally advanced disease, and with NLR <3 had a higher likelihood of receiving maintenance therapy.

Abstract Background In the TOPAZ-1, patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) and recurrence within 6 months after surgery were excluded, even if this event is frequently observed in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess if the efficacy of cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab (CGD) in this population is comparable to that reported in the phase 3 trial. Methods The study cohort included patients with BTC who underwent surgery on the primary tumor, experienced disease recurrence occurring ≤6 months or &gt;6 months after surgery or after the end of adjuvant therapy and started CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Results A total of 178 patients were enrolled. No significant differences were observed between early and late relapse groups in OS (23.4 months vs not reached; HR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.67-2.37; P = .45) and PFS [7.0 months vs 9.8 months; HR 1.3(95% CI, 0.9-2.1) P = .13]. Overall response rate and disease control rate (P = .33 and P = .62) were comparable between the 2 groups, as the overall safety profile. In addition, we compared survival outcomes between the selected population and a historical cohort of patients with BTC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) and found that despite the absence of statistical significance, CGD showed an outcome trend compared with CG regardless of the time of recurrence after surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy [(CG ≤ 6 vs CGD ≤ 6 months: HR 0.59, 95%CI, 0.35-1.01, P = .05; HR 0.70; 95%CI, 0.46-1.06, P = .09, OS and PFS, respectively) and (CG &gt; 6 vs. CGD &gt; 6 months: HR 0.50; 95%CI, 0.29-0.88, P = 0.0165; HR 0.54; 95%CI, 0.35-0.84, P = .0068, OS and PFS, respectively)]. Conclusion Our analysis suggests that CGD retains its efficacy independently of the timing of relapse after surgery or completion of adjuvant treatment in patients with advanced BTC.

427 Background: Derazantinib, a potent anti- FGFR1-3 oral kinase inhibitor, has shown clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity (21%), durable responses (median, 6.4 months), and progression-free survival (median, 8.0 months) in patients (pts) with FGFR2 fusion (FGFR2F)-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), and with a manageable toxicity profile. Herein, we report an interim analysis of the clinical efficacy data of derazantinib for pts with iCCA harboring FGFR2 mutations or amplifications (FGFR2M/A), a potential therapeutic option currently not addressed by FGFR inhibitors. Methods: Study FIDES-01 enrolls in a dedicated cohort pts with FGFR2M/A+ advanced iCCA who received previous chemotherapy. Pts receive 300 mg derazantinib daily until disease progression, death or intolerance. The primary endpoint is the proportion of pts alive and free of disease progression at 3 months (PFS3; RECIST 1.1, central imaging review) using a Simon’s two-stage sample-size minimizing statistical design. The interim analysis population comprises 23 pts dosed (intention to treat) who had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment (or clinical progression, or died) by June 3, 2021, using investigator assessments based on RECIST 1.1. Results: To date, 28 pts have been enrolled and dosed. FGFR2M/A observed in these pts included missense point mutations (78%), other short variants (11%) and amplifications (11%). Transition from stage 1 to stage 2 of the study was achieved earlier than planned after 8 (67%) of 12 pts were assessed as PFS3 based on central imaging review. In 23 pts included in this interim analysis for efficacy, the best overall response (investigator assessment) was confirmed partial response in two (8.7%) and stable disease in additional 15 pts (65.2%), resulting in a disease control rate of 73.9% (95% CI, 51.6–89.8). Using Kaplan-Meier analyses, the median PFS was 7.3 months (95%CI, 3.5–16.7) and the probability of being progression-free at 3 months and at 6 months were 76.3% (95%CI, 51.9–89.4) and 50.3% (95%CI, 21.7–73.4), respectively. Clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy was observed across all types of genetic aberrations. The safety profile of derazantinib in FGFR2M/A+ iCCA pts was consistent with that previously reported for FGFR2F+ iCCA pts. Conclusions: This interim data in study FIDES-01 suggest that derazantinib treatment provides clinical benefit to pts with advanced iCCA harboring FGFR2M/A who progressed after at least one line of standard chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the first report of clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy in a prospectively planned cohort of iCCA pts harboring FGFR2M/A. The study is ongoing to accrue 43 patients, assessing derazantinib as a therapeutic option for FGFR2M/A+ iCCA pts after disease progression on first-line treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03230318.