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.

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.

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.

489 Background: To determine if SBRT followed by sorafenib (SBRT/S) improves overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QOL) vs. sorafenib alone (S), in patients (pts) with HCC. Methods: Eligible pts had new or recurrent HCC, unsuitable for surgery, ablation or TACE, with Zubrod performance status (PS) 0-2, Child-Pugh (CP) A, BCLC stage B or C, ≤ 5 HCCs, sum of hepatic HCCs ≤ 20 cm, and distant metastases ≤ 3 cm. Pts were randomized 1:1 to S 400 mg BID vs. SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by S 200 mg BID, increased to 400 mg BID after 28 days. Primary endpoint was OS; reported secondary endpoints - PFS, adverse events (AEs - CTCAEv4), and QOL (improvement in FACT-Hep score by ≥ 5 points from baseline to 6 months). Planned sample size was 292 pts (238 OS events, HR=0.72, 80% power, 1-sided α=0.05). Accrual closed early, due to a change in HCC standard of care. Statistics were amended to report as of 7/1/2022, projecting 155 OS events, with 65% power and the same α. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and arms compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze treatment effect. Secondary endpoints were tested with 2-sided α=0.05. Results: Of 193 pts accrued from April 2013 to March 2021 from 23 sites, 177 eligible pts were randomized to S (n=92) vs. SBRT/S (n=85). Median age was 66 yrs (27-84); 41% had Hep. C; 19% had Hep. B or B/C. 82% were BCLC stage C. 74% had macrovascular invasion (MVI), 63% with VP3 or VP4 MVI. 4% had metastases. Median sum of max diameter of HCCs was 8.2 cm for S and 6.7 cm for SBRT/S; 40% had a single HCC. Median follow-up for all and alive pts was 13.2 and 33.7 mo. 22% of S pts received SBRT after discontinuing S. With 153 OS events, median OS was improved from 12.3 mo. (90% CI 10.6, 14.3) with S to 15.8 mo. (90% CI 11.4-19.2) with SBRT/S (HR=0.77, 1-sided p=0.0554). After adjusting for PS, M stage, CP A5 vs. 6, and degree of MVI, OS was statistically significantly improved for SBRT/S (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99, 2-sided Cox p=0.042). Median PFS was improved from 5.5 mo. (95% CI 3.4-6.3) with S to 9.2 months (95% CI 7.5-11.9) with SBRT/S (HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.75, 2-sided p=0.0001). 8 grade (G) 3+ bleeds were seen: 5 in S arm (1 G3 variceal, 2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 hepatic, and 1 G4 abdominal) and 3 post SBRT/S (2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 lower GI). Treatment-related G3+ AEs were not significantly different (S - 42%; SBRT/S - 47%; p=0.52), with 3 G5 AEs (S - 1 hepatic failure, 1 death NOS; SBRT/S - 1 lung infection). 83 (47%) pts consented to QoL. Of 20 S and 17 SBRT/S pts with QoL assessments at baseline and 6 months, 10% on S improved in FACT-Hep score vs 35% on SBRT/S. Conclusions: Compared to S alone, SBRT improved OS & PFS in patients with HCC, with no observed increase in AEs, and a strong suggestion for QOL benefit at 6 months. Supported by U10CA180868 (NRG Onc. Op., U10CA180822 (NRG Onc. SDMC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), and U24CA180803 (IROC) from the NCI. Clinical trial information: NCT01730937 .

4069 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

266 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ~20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (m IDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ~780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

Objective Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)—a rare liver malignancy with limited therapeutic options—is characterised by aggressive progression, desmoplasia and vascular abnormalities. The aim of this study was to determine the role of placental growth factor (PlGF) in ICC progression. Design We evaluated the expression of PlGF in specimens from ICC patients and assessed the therapeutic effect of genetic or pharmacologic inhibition of PlGF in orthotopically grafted ICC mouse models. We evaluated the impact of PlGF stimulation or blockade in ICC cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) using in vitro 3-D coculture systems. Results PlGF levels were elevated in human ICC stromal cells and circulating blood plasma and were associated with disease progression. Single-cell RNA sequencing showed that the major impact of PlGF blockade in mice was enrichment of quiescent CAFs, characterised by high gene transcription levels related to the Akt pathway, glycolysis and hypoxia signalling. PlGF blockade suppressed Akt phosphorylation and myofibroblast activation in ICC-derived CAFs. PlGF blockade also reduced desmoplasia and tissue stiffness, which resulted in reopening of collapsed tumour vessels and improved blood perfusion, while reducing ICC cell invasion. Moreover, PlGF blockade enhanced the efficacy of standard chemotherapy in mice-bearing ICC. Conclusion PlGF blockade leads to a reduction in intratumorous hypoxia and metastatic dissemination, enhanced chemotherapy sensitivity and increased survival in mice-bearing aggressive ICC.

Abstract Background: Atezolizumab (atezo) and bevacizumab (bev) combination therapy has demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with unresectable HCC who have not received prior systemic therapy (Lee et al., APPLE 2019; Cheng et al., ESMO Asia 2019). In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to identify tumor-based molecular biomarkers that may be associated with clinical response or resistance to atezo + bev. We also investigated how VEGF blockade with bev could potentiate PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition with atezo in pts with advanced HCC. Methods: Archival tumor tissues or fresh biopsies taken prior to treatment were collected from HCC pts enrolled in the Phase 1b trial GO30140 (NCT02715531). Arm A (n = 104) was a single-arm evaluation of atezo + bev; Arm F (n = 119) was a randomized arm comparing atezo + bev with atezo. Whole-exome sequencing was carried out on these tumor tissues to determine tumor mutation burden (TMB). Gene expression in tumors was profiled by RNAseq analysis. The association between biomarker expression and clinical response (responders [R] vs. non-responders [NR]) or PFS was assessed by t-tests or Cox regression models, respectively. All p-values are descriptive. Results: In Arm A, 90/104 pts were biomarker evaluable. TMB was not associated with response to atezo + bev or PFS. In contrast, analysis of baseline tumor gene expression showed that pre-existing immunity appeared to be associated with clinical response and longer PFS, which included high expression of CD274 (PD-L1) (R vs. NR, p &lt; 2.1 × 10−5; PFS: HR = 0.42 [0.25-0.72]), and T effector signature (GZMB, PRF1, CXCL9) (R vs. NR, p &lt; 0.0004; PFS: HR = 0.46 [0.27-0.78]). Gene expression related to Notch pathway activation (i.e. high expression of HES1) appeared to be associated with lack of response to atezo + bev (p &lt; 0.039) and shorter PFS (HR = 2.1 [1.3-3.6]). In Arm F, 91/119 pts were biomarker evaluable. High expression of VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2; HR = 0.36 [0.16-0.81]), Treg (HR = 0.35 [0.15-0.82]), myeloid inflammation (HR = 0.43 [0.19-0.95]), and TREM1/MDSC signatures (HR = 0.43 [0.19-0.94]) was associated with longer PFS in patients treated with atezo + bev than in those treated with atezo alone. Analysis of 12 serial biopsy pairs confirmed reduced levels of VEGFR2 and Treg signatures after atezo + bev treatment. Conclusion: We identified candidate biomarkers for predicting response to atezo + bev in HCC. Furthermore, the findings in Arm F are consistent with previous preclinical studies supporting a multi-faceted role of VEGF/VEGFR signaling in promoting immune suppression in addition to angiogenesis. Overall, the data presented here further support the mechanistic hypotheses on how anti-VEGF may combine with immune checkpoint blockade to increase its clinical benefit. As these results are exploratory, future study is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population. Citation Format: Andrew X. Zhu, Yinghui Guan, Alexander R. Abbas, Hartmut Koeppen, Shan Lu, Chih-Hung Hsu, Kyung-Hun Lee, Michael S. Lee, Aiwu Ruth He, Amit Mahipal, Beiying Ding, Jessica Spahn, Wendy Verret, Baek-Yeol Ryoo, Yulei Wang. Genomic correlates of clinical benefits from atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab vs. atezolizumab alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT044.

3531 Background: ctDNA has emerged as a promising biomarker for noninvasive monitoring of treatment response and disease progression in many tumor types. However, the clinical use of ctDNA in patients with HCC has not been established. Here, we evaluated longitudinal and personalized detection of ctDNA for monitoring the treatment response to atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) in patients with unresectable HCC not previously treated with systemic therapy. Methods: A subset (n = 48) of 104 patients with HCC who enrolled in Arm A of GO30140 (NCT02715531; Phase 1b) and received atezo + bev treatment were included in this study. These patients had 10 CR, 11 PR, 12 SD and 15 PD per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1. Serial plasma samples were collected at baseline (Cycle [C]1 Day [D]1), during treatment (C2D1, C4D1) and at disease progression. Somatic mutations in individual tumors were identified via whole exome sequencing of archival tumor tissues or fresh biopsies collected before treatment. Personalized ctDNA assays (Signatera 16-plex multiplex PCR next-generation sequencing assay) specific to each patient’s tumor mutational signatures were successfully designed for 47 of 48 patients. Results: At C1D1, a median of 25.7 ng of cell-free DNA was extracted from 2-mL plasma samples. ctDNA was detected in 45 of 47 patients (96%), with a median of 70.6 mean tumor molecules/mL of plasma (MTM/mL) and a median of 1.8% mean variant allele frequency (mean VAF) in plasma. Higher ctDNA levels detected at C1D1 appeared to be associated with increased tumor burden ( P < 0.03). Dynamic changes in ctDNA levels post-treatment were associated with response at C4D1. ctDNA status changed from positive at baseline to negative in 7 of 10 CR (70%), 3 of 11 PR (27%), 1 of 11 SD (9%) and 0 of 11 PD (0%) patients. Longer PFS was observed in patients whose ctDNA became undetectable post-treatment. The median PFS in patients with ctDNA present vs cleared at C4D1 was 6.5 months and not reached, respectively (HR, 12 [1.7-93], log-rank P < 0.00029). Conclusions: Our study showed that Signatera, a personalized and tumor-informed ctDNA assay, could be used as a sensitive method for detecting ctDNA in patients with unresectable HCC. More importantly, our results illustrate the promise of ctDNA as an emerging biomarker that may potentially help to monitor treatment responses and disease progression in patients with HCC.