Citations

ABSTRACT Many real‐world patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) are excluded by TOPAZ‐1 criteria; this study assessed cisplatin and gemcitabine plus durvalumab (CGD) efficacy and safety in these patients. Data from 1358 patients with advanced BTC treated with first‐line CGD across 55 international centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified as TOPAZ‐1‐in (meeting all inclusion criteria) or TOPAZ‐1‐out (meeting ≥ 1 exclusion criterion). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Furthermore, OS and PFS of the TOPAZ‐1‐out cohort were compared with reconstructed survival data from the phase III trial. 912 (67.1%) patients were classified as TOPAZ‐1‐in , and 446 (32.9%) as TOPAZ‐1‐out . After a median follow‐up of 14.5 months (95% CI: 13.7–36.5), OS was 16.1 months in TOPAZ‐1‐in and 12.5 months in TOPAZ‐1‐out (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 14.6–16.5, p = 0.0001); PFS was 8.2 versus 6.5 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI: 7.1–8.1, p < 0.0001). Median OS in the TOPAZ‐1‐out cohort (12.5 months) was nearly identical to the phase III trial experimental arm (12.9 months; HR 1.15, p = 0.13); for PFS the HR was 1.12 (95% CI 0.93–1.42; p = 0.09). Among TOPAZ‐1‐out patients, active infection, elevated bilirubin, and ECOG PS > 1 were linked to poorer OS, while no detrimental impact emerged for ALT/AST abnormalities, corticosteroid use, renal or hematologic parameters, or prior surgery within 6 months, suggesting treatment effectiveness was broadly maintained across clinical subgroups. Furthermore, TOPAZ‐1‐out patients experienced no significant increase in adverse events compared with the TOPAZ‐1‐in group. Real‐world data suggest CGD may be effective in TOPAZ‐1‐out patients, with no evident increase in toxicity, supporting the potential expanded use of the regimen in clinical practice.

ABSTRACT Surgery after response to first‐line chemoimmunotherapy may offer a potential curative option for patients with locally advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) initially considered unresectable. However, robust real‐world evidence in this setting remains limited. We retrospectively analyzed patients with locally advanced BTC treated with first‐line cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab (CGD) across 55 centers in 12 countries. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), disease‐free survival (DFS) among resected patients, objective response rate (ORR), and the prognostic impact of surgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to predict surgical conversion using baseline clinical and laboratory variables. Among 1358 screened patients, 219 had locally advanced disease and were included in the analysis. Median follow‐up was 14.5 months. ORR was 34.6%, with median PFS and OS of 10.0 and 20.7 months, respectively. Twenty‐four patients (10.9%) underwent surgical resection after systemic therapy. Median OS was 22.5 months in resected patients versus 19.9 months in those who did not undergo surgery. Median DFS after resection was 15.8 months. Pathological lymph node involvement was independently associated with shorter DFS. Larger baseline tumor size correlated with higher odds of radiological response but not with OS. An exploratory elastic‐net model retained four baseline variables and showed moderate discriminative ability for surgical conversion, with an apparent AUC of 0.72 and an optimism‐corrected AUC of 0.65. First‐line CGD enabled secondary resection in approximately 11% of patients with locally advanced BTC. A simple baseline model may support patient selection for conversion surgery, although prospective validation is needed.

PURPOSE Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare cancer associated with poor prognosis. Pemigatinib was the first FGFR1-3 inhibitor approved for second-line therapy and beyond, on the basis of the phase II FIGHT-202 trial. Here, we assess efficacy and safety of first-line pemigatinib. METHODS FIGHT-302 is a phase III, randomized, global trial evaluating pemigatinib as first-line therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03656536 ). Adults with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 rearrangement were randomized 1:1 to receive pemigatinib (13.5 mg once daily) or chemotherapy (1,000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine plus 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin once per day on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle for ≤8 cycles) and were stratified by prior receipt of chemotherapy, geographic region, and tumor burden. Pemigatinib crossover was allowed for patients progressing on chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy, safety, and exploratory end points were also analyzed. RESULTS Overall, 4,563 patients were prescreened, 196 were screened, and 167 randomly assigned to receive pemigatinib (n = 83) or chemotherapy (n = 84) before early closure of the study because of a change in standard of care. The median PFS was 8.3 months in the pemigatinib group versus 6.8 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87]; nominal P = .0078); objective response rate was 47% versus 15%, and the median duration of response was 14.2 versus 6.3 months. Median overall survival was similar (24.4 v 25.0 months, respectively). In the crossover group (n = 42, second-line pemigatinib), the median PFS was 8.1 months. Safety was consistent with the known profile of pemigatinib. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this was the largest, first-line, randomized, phase III trial of a targeted therapy for advanced FGFR2- rearranged cholangiocarcinoma. Pemigatinib demonstrated prolonged median PFS compared with chemotherapy, with no new safety findings.

4017 Background: First-line mCCA treatment is chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Based on the phase 2 FIGHT-202 trial, pemigatinib was the first FGFR1-3 inhibitor approved in second line and beyond for mCCA with FGFR2 rearrangement. Results from the phase 3, randomized, global FIGHT-302 trial evaluating pemigatinib as first-line therapy are reported here (NCT03656536). Methods: Patients (pts) aged ≥18 y with previously untreated mCCA with FGFR2 rearrangement were randomized 1:1 to receive oral pemigatinib (13.5 mg once daily q21) or intravenous chemotherapy (1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine + 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin d1,8 q21 ≤8 cycles) stratified by previous receipt of 1 chemotherapy cycle, geographic region, and tumor burden. Pemigatinib crossover was allowed for control arm pts progressing on chemotherapy. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy, safety, and exploratory end points were also analyzed. Results: After prescreening >4000 pts, only 196 had FGFR2 rearrangement and were screened; 167 were randomized to receive pemigatinib (n=83) or chemotherapy (n=84) before closing the study early due to slow accrual. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between arms. Median PFS (mPFS) with pemigatinib versus chemotherapy was 8.3 versus 6.8 mo, respectively (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.58 [0.39-0.87]; nominal P =.0078); secondary efficacy endpoints generally supported primary results (Table). Median OS was similar, although these results are confounded by FGFR inhibitor administration as second-line treatment. In the crossover group (n=42, second-line pemigatinib), mPFS was 8.1 mo. Safety was consistent with previous results (Table). Exploratory analyses of genetic co-alterations associated with treatment response will be presented. Conclusions: FIGHT-302 was the first phase 3 trial of a targeted therapy for untreated mCCA. Pemigatinb demonstrated superior activity and prolonged mPFS compared with first-line chemotherapy. The results confirm the current management paradigm of pemigatinib administration after disease progression on chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03656536 . Pemigatinib Gemcitabine + cisplatin mPFS (95% CI), mo a 8.3 (6.5-12.2) 6.8 (6.1-8.3) Objective response rate, n/N (%) a 39/83 (47) 13/84 (15.5) Median duration of response (95% CI), mo a 14.2 (8.7-24.7) 6.3 (4.3-not estimable) Median overall survival (95% CI) a,b , mo 24.4 (18.6-35.9) 25.0 (18.7-34.2) Treatment related TEAEs, n/N c (%) 80/83 (96) 70/73 (96) Serious TEAEs, n/N (%) c,d 23/83 (28) 17/73 (23) Grade ≥3 TEAEs, n/N (%) c 65/83 (78) 49/73 (67) TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation, n/N (%) c 5/83 (6) 8/73 (11) Fatal TEAE, n/N (%) c,d 3/83 (4) 0 a All randomized pts. b Interpretation limited by second-line treatment with FGFR inhibitor in gemcitabine + cisplatin arm. c Pts who received ≥1 study dose. d None deemed treatment related.

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.

ABSTRACT Background We recently published the first real‐world multicenter and multi‐institutional study of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Here we present an expanded patient cohort with an increased sample size and longer median follow‐up. Methods The study population included patients with advanced BTC, who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab at 55 centers across 12 countries in Europe, the United States, and Asia. The primary endpoints of the study were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results Overall, 1358 patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI: 7.2–8.1), and median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI: 14.8–16.5). ORR was 35.6%, and DCR was 82.7%. Any grade AEs occurred in 1213 patients (89.3%). Grade 3–4 AEs occurred in 597 patients (43.2%). The rate of immune‐related AEs (irAE) was 20.3%. Grade 3–4 irAE occurred in 3.0% of patients. At the multivariate analysis for OS, normal albumin level (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57–0.81, p < 0.0001), CEA levels within normal ranges (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57–0.82, p < 0.0001), NLR < 3 (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52–0.74, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS 0 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42–0.61, p < 0.0001), and prior surgery (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.99, p = 0.036) were positive prognostic factors. Conclusion The updated findings, derived from an expanded cohort, further support the adoption of durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in routine clinical practice, reinforcing the efficacy and safety outcomes demonstrated in the phase III TOPAZ‐1 trial.

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.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.