Opinion statement
The standard of care first-line therapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancers eligible for treatment continues to be the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin. Based on the promising results of a phase II study, an ongoing multi-institutional phase III study is assessing the benefit of adding nab-paclitaxel to the chemotherapy doublet, and appropriate patients should be considered for enrollment at participating centers. We would recommend early comprehensive genomic profiling of patients’ tumors to identify potentially targetable aberrations with available therapies. Results with therapeutic implications include tumors with microsatellite instability/deficient mismatch repair, alterations in FGFR, IDH1/2, and HER-2, and potentially other molecular vulnerabilities. Patients in whom a targetable genomic abnormality is found should be matched with appropriate agent. If a targetable fusion or mutation is not detected, patients eligible for second-line therapy should be considered for either clinical trial enrollment or a second-line cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen such as modified FOLFOX. Strategies incorporating immunotherapy into the treatment of patients with microsatellite stable advanced biliary tract cancers have yielded largely disappointing results thus far, and routine use of checkpoint inhibitors outside of a clinical trial is not recommended.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a relatively rare group of malignancies comprised of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), extrahepatic CCA, and gallbladder cancer (GBC). In 2019, over 12,000 individuals in the USA are expected to be diagnosed with almost 4000 patients expected to die from a BTC [1]. While the incidence of extrahepatic CCA has remained relatively stable over the past several decade, the incidence of intrahepatic CCA has continued to rise [2,3,4,5]. The reason for this increase in diagnosis remains unclear, although it may be related to changes in tumor classification and improved diagnostic techniques [3, 5]. Five-year survival for patients with distant disease is < 5% [6]. Whereas GBC is more common in females, both extrahepatic and intrahepatic CCA have a higher incidence in males [2, 7]. Because of its relative rarity and the heterogeneity of subtypes, few randomized prospective studies have been conducted to determine optimal treatment strategies for patients with advanced disease.
Chemotherapy
Cytotoxic chemotherapy was first demonstrated to improve overall survival (OS) for BTC patients in a prospective randomized in a study by Glimelius et al. in which patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and BTCs were treated with 5-fluoruracil (5-FU) + leucovorin ± etoposide compared with best supportive care [8]. Patients with BTCs treated with chemotherapy achieved a median OS of 6.5 months vs 2.5 months with best supportive care alone (p = 0.1). Subsequent phase II studies also demonstrated efficacy of gemcitabine and cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens [9,10,11,12].
The current standard of care first-line treatment for advanced BTCs is combination gemcitabine and cisplatin. In the landmark ABC-02 study, this regimen was found to be superior to gemcitabine alone. In the trial, 410 patients with inoperable, advanced BTCs (including ampullary cancer) were randomized to either cisplatin 25 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycles or gemcitabine monotherapy dosed at 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 4-week cycles. With a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the combination arm experienced a median OS of 11.7 months compared with 8.1 months in the monotherapy arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–0.80; p < 0.001). Rates of neutropenia were increased in the cisplatin-containing arm, but adverse effects were otherwise similar between the groups. Recently, efforts have been made to improve upon this standard of care. A phase II study of 60 patients evaluated the efficacy of the triplet gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced BTCs [13•]. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 11.8 and 19.2 months, respectively, and the objective response rate (ORR) was 45%. Grade 3 and greater toxicities were observed in 57% of patients, with neutropenia the most common toxicity (32%). An ongoing multicenter randomized phase III Southwest Oncology Group study will be comparing first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin with the doublet plus nab-paclitaxel (NCT03768414).
Data on chemotherapy options beyond first-line have historically been scarce. At the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, results from the multicenter phase III ABC-06 study were presented [14••]. This study randomized 162 patients with advanced BTCs previously treated with cisplatin + gemcitabine to either active symptom control (ASC) or ASC + modified 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX). Median OS was 6.2 months in the ASC + mFOLFOX arm compared with 5.3 months in the ASC alone arm with an improvement in 6 month OS rate from 35.5 to 50.6% with the addition of mFOLFOX. Smaller studies have demonstrated modest response rates in pre-treated patients with median PFS of largely 5-FU-based regimens in the 2 to 3 month range [15,16,17].
Targeted therapy
Similar to their anatomic and prognostic diversity, BTCs are genomically diverse. With the growing availability of molecular sequencing, recent studies have demonstrated the multitude of potentially actionable mutations harbored by BTCs, particularly in the case of intrahepatic CCA [18, 19]. In light of these findings, the most promising future for BTC treatment comes from the potential of targeted therapy for these tumors. Novel drugs that target the most frequently encountered aberrations in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2, BRAF, and HER2/neu are beginning to change the treatment landscape for patients with BTCs [20•, 21•, 22, 23•, 24, 25] (Table 1).
IDH1 and IDH2
IDH1 and IDH2 are enzymes that play an important role in a number of cellular pathways including metabolism and epigenetic regulation [26]. Previously most well described in gliomas, mutations in IDH have been identified in approximately 20% off intrahepatic CCAs and a much lower percentage of extrahepatic CCAs [19, 27]. AG-120 (ivosidenib) is an oral IDH1 inhibitor that was initially studied in a phase I trial of patients with IDH1-mutant advanced solid tumors [28]. In the 73 patients with CCA included in the study, 4 (6%) patients had a partial response and 40 (56%) had stable disease. The 6-month PFS rate was 40% with 8 patients on treatment for greater than 1 year. The primary adverse effects were fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The results of the international phase III ClarIDHy study were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2019 Congress [29]. A total of 185 patients with mutant IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to ivosidenib vs placebo, 91% of whom had intrahepatic CCA. The primary endpoint was PFS which was improved with ivosidenib (HR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25–0.54; P < 0.001). The ORR for ivosidenib was 2.4% with 50.8% achieving stable disease. Median OS was 10.8 months for ivosidenib compared with 9.7 months for placebo (HR 0.69), although 57% of placebo patients crossed over to receive ivosidenib. Nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue were the most common adverse effects, all of which occurred in > 20% of patients receiving ivosidenib. These promising results will likely lead to the approval of ivosidenib by the FDA for patients with CCA harboring IDH1 mutations. AG-221 (enasidenib) is an oral inhibitor of the mutant IDH2 enzyme, already approved for IDH2-mutant acute myeloid leukemia, and is currently being evaluated in a phase I/II study of patients with IDH2-mutant advanced solid tumors, including cholangiocarcinoma [30].
FGFR
The FGFR pathway is comprised of 4 transmembrane proteins (FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and FGFR4) and is intimately involved in cell proliferation, among other roles (NCT02273739). Fusions in the FGFR2 gene have been reported in as many as 16% of intrahepatic CCAs, and appears to lead to a distinct clinical course that is more indolent than wild-type FGFR2 CCAs [31,32,33]. Given the prevalence of FGFR pathway aberrations, multiple small molecule inhibitors have been developed in an effort to target this oncogenic driver. After promising activity was noted in a phase I study, an oral pan-FGFR inhibitor, BGJ398, was evaluated in a phase II study of 71 patients with advanced CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or other FGFR alterations who had progressed on prior therapy [21•, 34]. The updated results, presented at the ESMO 2018 Congress, demonstrated an ORR of 31.0% and a disease control rate of 83.6%, and responses were only seen in patients with FGFR2 fusions [35]. The median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.3–7.6 months), and BGJ398 was well tolerated with hyperphosphatemia as the most common adverse effect. Pemigatinib is also an oral pan-FGFR inhibitor which achieved an ORR of 35.5% in a phase II study of 107 patients with pre-treated cholangiocarcinoma with an FGFR2 fusion [36]. The disease control rate was 82%, and the median PFS was 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.2–9.6 months). Development of acquired FGFR2 gatekeeper mutations has already been described as a mechanism of adaptive resistance to FGFR inhibitors [37]. TAS-120 is a third-generation, irreversible FGFR inhibitor that may have a role in treating patients with acquired resistance to earlier generation FGFR inhibitors. Goyal et al. found that both BGJ398 and Debio 1347 were associated with their own spectrum of resistance mutations, most of which were able to be overcome with TAS-120 [23•]. With the projected surge in patients being treated with FGFR inhibitors, continued translational investigation into mechanisms and vulnerabilities of drug resistance will be of increasing importance.
EGFR/ERBB/BRAF
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase family includes the ERBB1 (EGFR) and ERBB2 (HER-2/neu) receptors. This is a pathway that has been implicated in oncogenesis in a number of solid tumors including breast, lung, and colon cancers. HER-2 aberrations have been well described in BTCs, and, unlike FGFR and IDH mutations, occur less commonly in intrahepatic CCA [38]. In a retrospective review of 14 BTC patients with HER-2 aberrations treated with HER-2-directed therapy, 9 of whom had gallbladder cancer, 8 patients achieved disease control, including one complete response [25]. A number of early phase studies are assessing the safety and efficacy of HER-2-targeted therapies in solid malignancies with HER-2 over-expression, including BTCs (NCT03602079, NCT03330561, NCT02892123). BRAF and MEK are downstream proteins in the MAPK pathway, and targeting of these in patients with BRAF mutations has demonstrated efficacy in several solid tumors, most notably melanoma [39,40,41,42,43]. While rare, BRAF V600E mutations have been reported in BTCs, primarily intrahepatic CCA [44]. Thirty-three patients BRAF V600E–mutant BTCs were treated in the phase II basket trial, ROAR, with the BRAF and MEK inhibitors, dabrafenib and trametinib [45•]. The ORR in this cohort was 41% with a median PFS of 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.6–10.1 months). With the majority of the responding patients achieving at least 6 months of response, this represents another promising avenue for future therapeutic innovation.
Immunotherapy
Despite the success of immunotherapeutic approaches in the treatment of many advanced solid tumors, most patients with gastrointestinal cancers including BTCs have largely not benefited. Similar to the experiences in other gastrointestinal malignancies, the subset of patients who seem to respond to single agent checkpoint inhibition are those whose tumors are characterized by microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (MMR). Unfortunately, the percentage of BTC patients who are MSI-H is likely in the single digits [46, 47]. In the basket KEYNOTE-158 trial, 104 patients with advanced BTCs were treated with the PD-1 inhibitor, pembrolizumab, all of whom had proficient MMR and 61 of whom had PD-L1-positive tumors as defined in the study protocol [48]. In this cohort, the median PFS and OS were 2.0 and 9.1 months, respectively. The response rate was 5.8% with 16% of patients achieving stable disease as a best response. Twenty-four patients with BTCs were included in the KEYNOTE-028 trial which required PD-L1 positivity for enrollment [48]. In this group of patients, the median PFS and OS were 1.8 and 6.2 months, respectively. The response rate was 13.0%, and the median duration of response was not reached. The initial results of a phase II study assessing the combination of pembrolizumab and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in 27 patients with advanced BTCs reported a promising 6-month PFS of 35% with a response rate of 19% [49]. Results of a randomized phase II trial of the PD-L1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, with or without the MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, in advanced BTCs are eagerly awaited (NCT03201458).
Small studies have evaluated alternative immunotherapy strategies in patients with BTCs including vaccines and adoptive cell therapy. Eight patients with BTCs were included in a phase I study combining gemcitabine with a Wilms tumor protein 1 (WT1) vaccine, which provided 4 patients with stable disease at 2 months [50]. Mucin protein 1 (MUC1) is another antigen commonly found on BTCs, although a phase I study utilizing a MUC1 vaccine in BTC and pancreatic cancer patients demonstrated little efficacy [51].
Future directions
While the present landscape of approved and readily-available therapies for BTCs is largely dominated by cytotoxic chemotherapy, this is likely to soon change with the increasing access to targeted therapies. It will therefore be crucial for the subset of patients whose tumors do harbor genomic vulnerabilities to be studied longitudinally in order for researchers to identify mechanisms of adaptive therapeutic resistance. As mentioned above, novel mutations in FGFR2 have been identified in patients progressing on older generation FGFR2 inhibitors, and these patients proceeded to benefit from third-generation FGFR2 inhibitors such as TAS-120 [23•]. Harding et al. recently described isoform switching from IDH1 to IDH2 or vice versa as a mechanism of adaptive resistance to IDH-targeted therapies in 4 patients, one of whom had intrahepatic CCA [52].
Expanding the armamentarium of targeted therapies to exploit genomic susceptibilities in other BTCs is another important area of need. Currently, targetable mutations are less prevalent in patients with extrahepatic CCA and GBC compared with intrahepatic CCA. The success of inhibitors of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARP) proteins in patients with other solid malignancies who harbor mutations in DNA repair genes has led to excitement about their use in BTCs. In a recent report of 422 patients with BTCs, genomic profiling identified that 12–15% of these patients had mutations in DNA repair genes, which including an expansive set of genes beyond just BRCA1 and BRCA2 [53]. Improving targeted therapies for patients with mutations in chromatin-modifying genes such as ARID1A and BAP1, aberrations found in up to 25% of patients with BTCs, is another area of active investigation [54]. Additionally, the development of pharmacologic agents that better target the KRAS-RAF-MEK-ERK, or PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathways could substantially increase the number of patients who could benefit from targeted therapies.
Conclusion
Cytotoxic chemotherapy continues to represent the mainstay of first-line treatment for patients with advanced BTCs, with combination gemcitabine + platinum as the preferred regimen. The results of the ongoing phase III SWOG S1815 study are eagerly awaited, assessing whether the triplet of gemcitabine + cisplatin + nab-paclitaxel improves upon the standard of care doublet. The recently reported results from the phase III ABC-06 study support the use of mFOLFOX in patients eligible for second-line chemotherapy. The most exciting avenue of therapeutic progress lies in expanding access to targeted therapy. Genomic sequencing of patients with BTCs, particularly in the case of intrahepatic CCA, should be performed early in the course of advanced disease in order to identify those patients who harbor targetable aberrations. Therapies targeting alterations in FGFR, IDH1, IDH2, and HER-2/neu hold promise for pushing the needle towards longer survival in this patient population. While immunotherapy has yet to make its mark on the field of BTCs, optimism remains that the correct combination or sequence of therapies may hold the key to expanding this therapeutic strategy to the majority of patients who do not have MSI-H tumors. Finally, expanding the arsenal of targeted therapies and increasing our understanding of mechanisms of therapeutic resistance represent some of the next breakthroughs that may improve outcomes for patients with advanced BTCs.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34.
Saha SK, Zhu AX, Fuchs CS, Brooks GA. Forty-year trends in cholangiocarcinoma incidence in the U.S.: intrahepatic disease on the rise. Oncologist. 2016;21(5):594–9.
Khan SA, Emadossadaty S, Ladep NG, Thomas HC, Elliott P, Taylor-Robinson SD, et al. Rising trends in cholangiocarcinoma: is the ICD classification system misleading us? J Hepatol. 2012;56(4):848–54.
Shaib YH, Davila JA, McGlynn K, El-Serag HB. Rising incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a true increase? J Hepatol. 2004;40(3):472–7.
Welzel TM, McGlynn KA, Hsing AW, O’Brien TR, Pfeiffer RM. Impact of classification of hilar cholangiocarcinomas (Klatskin tumors) on the incidence of intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(12):873–5.
Noone AM HN, Krapcho M, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute 2018 [Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/.
Rahman R, Simoes EJ, Schmaltz C, Jackson CS, Ibdah JA. Trend analysis and survival of primary gallbladder cancer in the United States: a 1973-2009 population-based study. Cancer Med. 2017;6(4):874–80.
Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Sjoden PO, Jacobsson G, Sellstrom H, Enander LK, et al. Chemotherapy improves survival and quality of life in advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer. Ann Oncol. 1996;7(6):593–600.
Gebbia V, Giuliani F, Maiello E, Colucci G, Verderame F, Borsellino N, et al. Treatment of inoperable and/or metastatic biliary tree carcinomas with single-agent gemcitabine or in combination with levofolinic acid and infusional fluorouracil: results of a multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(20):4089–91.
Kornek GV, Schuell B, Laengle F, Gruenberger T, Penz M, Karall K, et al. Mitomycin C in combination with capecitabine or biweekly high-dose gemcitabine in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a randomised phase II trial. Ann Oncol. 2004;15(3):478–83.
Ducreux M, Van Cutsem E, Van Laethem JL, Gress TM, Jeziorski K, Rougier P, et al. A randomised phase II trial of weekly high-dose 5-fluorouracil with and without folinic acid and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma: results of the 40955 EORTC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(3):398–403.
Valle JW, Wasan H, Johnson P, Jones E, Dixon L, Swindell R, et al. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II study - the UK ABC-01 study. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(4):621–7.
• Shroff RT, Javle MM, Xiao L, Kaseb AO, Varadhachary GR, Wolff RA, et al. Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancers: a phase 2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):824–30 This phase II study demonstrated an impressive response rate and survival with the addition of nab-paclitaxel to the standard-of-care first-line combination, gemcitabine + cisplatin. The triplet is being compared with the doublet in an ongoing phase III study.
•• Lamarca A, Palmer DH, Wasan HS, Ross PJ, Ma YT, Arora A, et al. ABC-06 | A randomised phase III, multi-centre, open-label study of active symptom control (ASC) alone or ASC with oxaliplatin / 5-FU chemotherapy (ASC+mFOLFOX) for patients (pts) with locally advanced / metastatic biliary tract cancers (ABC) previously-treated with cisplatin/gemcitabine (CisGem) chemotherapy. J Clinical Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):4003 This phase III study was the first randomized phase III study to demonstrate a survival benefit for systemic therapy in patients with pre-treated BTCs. mFOLFOX should be considered a standard second-line option for eligible patients who have progressed on first-line gemcitabine + cisplatin.
Brieau B, Dahan L, De Rycke Y, Boussaha T, Vasseur P, Tougeron D, et al. Second-line chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer after failure of the gemcitabine-platinum combination: a large multicenter study by the Association des Gastro-Enterologues Oncologues. Cancer. 2015;121(18):3290–7.
Rogers JE, Law L, Nguyen VD, Qiao W, Javle MM, Kaseb A, et al. Second-line systemic treatment for advanced cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(6):408–13.
Mizrahi J, Gunchick V, Mody K, Xiao L, Surapaneni PK, Shroff RT, et al. FOLFIRI in advanced biliary tract cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(4_suppl):451.
Valle JW, Lamarca A, Goyal L, Barriuso J, Zhu AX. New horizons for precision medicine in biliary tract cancers. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(9):943–62.
Borger DR, Tanabe KK, Fan KC, Lopez HU, Fantin VR, Straley KS, et al. Frequent mutation of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)1 and IDH2 in cholangiocarcinoma identified through broad-based tumor genotyping. Oncologist. 2012;17(1):72–9.
• Lowery MA, Burris HA 3rd, Janku F, Shroff RT, Cleary JM, Azad NS, et al. Safety and activity of ivosidenib in patients with IDH1-mutant advanced cholangiocarcinoma: a phase 1 study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(9):711–20 This phase I study demonstrated the safety and activity of ivosidenib in treating patients with an IDH1 mutation, which occurs in 10–20% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas.
• Javle M, Lowery M, Shroff RT, Weiss KH, Springfeld C, Borad MJ, et al. Phase II study of BGJ398 in patients with FGFR-altered advanced cholangiocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(3):276–82 This is an example of a recent FGFR inhibitor that has shown impressive activity in patients with FGFR2 fusions, which occurs in 15–20% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas.
Papadopoulos KP, El-Rayes BF, Tolcher AW, Patnaik A, Rasco DW, Harvey RD, et al. A phase 1 study of ARQ 087, an oral pan-FGFR inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumours. Br J Cancer. 2017;117(11):1592–9.
• Goyal L, Shi L, Liu LY, Fece de la Cruz F, Lennerz JK, Raghavan S, et al. TAS-120 overcomes resistance to ATP-competitive FGFR inhibitors in patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2019;9(8):1064–79 This study reported mechanisms of adaptive therapeutic resistance to FGFR inhibition and how this resistance may be overcome in some patients with the use of newer FGFR inhibitors.
Lavingia V, Fakih M. Impressive response to dual BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAF mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-2 case reports and a brief review. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7(6):E98–E102.
Javle M, Churi C, Kang HC, Shroff R, Janku F, Surapaneni R, et al. HER2/neu-directed therapy for biliary tract cancer. J Hematol Oncol. 2015;8:58.
Molenaar RJ, Maciejewski JP, Wilmink JW, van Noorden CJF. Wild-type and mutated IDH1/2 enzymes and therapy responses. Oncogene. 2018;37(15):1949–60.
Bridgewater JA, Goodman KA, Kalyan A, Mulcahy MF. Biliary tract cancer: epidemiology, radiotherapy, and molecular profiling. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:e194–203.
Lowery MA, Abou-Alfa GK, Burris HA, Janku F, Shroff RT, Cleary JM, et al. Phase I study of AG-120, an IDH1 mutant enzyme inhibitor: results from the cholangiocarcinoma dose escalation and expansion cohorts. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15_suppl):4015.
TMM GKA-A, Javle M, Kelley RK, Lubner S, Adeva J, Cleary JM, et al. ClarIDHy: A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) vs placebo in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CC) with an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(suppl_5):v851–934.
Celgene, Celgene C. Study of orally administered AG-221 in subjects with advanced solid tumors, including glioma, and with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, with an idh2 mutation subjects with advanced solid tumors, including glioma, and with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, with an IDH2 mutation. 2016.
Javle M, Bekaii-Saab T, Jain A, Wang Y, Kelley RK, Wang K, et al. Biliary cancer: utility of next-generation sequencing for clinical management. Cancer. 2016;122(24):3838–47.
Borad MJ, Champion MD, Egan JB, Liang WS, Fonseca R, Bryce AH, et al. Integrated genomic characterization reveals novel, therapeutically relevant drug targets in FGFR and EGFR pathways in sporadic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(2):e1004135.
Graham RP, Barr Fritcher EG, Pestova E, Schulz J, Sitailo LA, Vasmatzis G, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 translocations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(8):1630–8.
Nogova L, Sequist LV, Perez Garcia JM, Andre F, Delord JP, Hidalgo M, et al. Evaluation of BGJ398, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-3 kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors: results of a global phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):157–65.
Zhu, Goyal L, Borad M, Yong WP, Borbath I, El-Khoueiry A, Philip P, Moran S, Ye Y, Ising M, Lewis N, Bekaii-Saab T: MJRKKSRKHWGKA-ATMSSDWAX. Updated results from a phase II study of infigratinib (BGJ398), a selective pan-FGFR kinase inhibitor, in patients with previously treated advanced cholangiocarcinoma containing FGFR2 fusions. ESMO 2018. Congress. 2018.
Murphy AG, Oh D, Dotan E, Catenacci DV, Van Cutsem E, Lihou CF, Zhen H, Feliz L, Abou-Alfa GK; AVVSAHGVDMRA-RASPMJBDG. FIGHT-202: a phase 2 study of pemigatinib in patients (pts) with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). ESMO 2019 Congress. 2019.
Goyal L, Saha SK, Liu LY, Siravegna G, Leshchiner I, Ahronian LG, et al. Polyclonal secondary FGFR2 mutations drive acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(3):252–63.
Churi CR, Shroff R, Wang Y, Rashid A, Kang HC, Weatherly J, et al. Mutation profiling in cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic and therapeutic implications. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115383.
Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, Rutkowski P, Mackiewicz A, Stroiakovski D, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(1):30–9.
Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dreno B, Atkinson V, Liszkay G, Maio M, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(20):1867–76.
Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ, Arance A, Mandala M, Liszkay G, et al. Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):603–15.
Kopetz S, Grothey A, Yaeger R, Van Cutsem E, Desai J, Yoshino T, et al. Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(17):1632–43.
Planchard D, Smit EF, Groen HJM, Mazieres J, Besse B, Helland A, et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously untreated BRAF(V600E)-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1307–16.
Goeppert B, Frauenschuh L, Renner M, Roessler S, Stenzinger A, Klauschen F, et al. BRAF V600E-specific immunohistochemistry reveals low mutation rates in biliary tract cancer and restriction to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(7):1028–34.
• Wainberg ZA, Lassen UN, Elez E, Italiano A, Curigliano G, FGD B, et al. Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E–mutated biliary tract cancer (BTC): a cohort of the ROAR basket trial. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(4_suppl):187 The recently reported results of BTC patients with BRAF V600E mutations treated with dual BRAF and MEK inhibition made a strong case for treating these patients with these therapies which have been very effective in BRAF-mutant melanoma patients.
Bonneville R, Krook MA, Kautto EA, Miya J, Wing MR, Chen H-Z, et al. Landscape of Microsatellite Instability Across 39 Cancer Types. JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;(1):1–15.
Silva VW, Askan G, Daniel TD, Lowery M, Klimstra DS, Abou-Alfa GK, et al. Biliary carcinomas: pathology and the role of DNA mismatch repair deficiency. Chin Clin Oncol. 2016;5(5):62.
Bang Y-J, Ueno M, Malka D, Chung HC, Nagrial A, Kelley RK, et al. Pembrolizumab (pembro) for advanced biliary adenocarcinoma: Results from the KEYNOTE-028 (KN028) and KEYNOTE-158 (KN158) basket studies. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):4079.
Kelley RK, Mitchell E, Behr S, Hwang J, Keenan B, Umetsu SE, et al. Phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab (PEM) plus granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in advanced biliary cancers (ABC): Clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15_suppl):4087.
Kaida M, Morita-Hoshi Y, Soeda A, Wakeda T, Yamaki Y, Kojima Y, et al. Phase 1 trial of Wilms tumor 1 (WT1) peptide vaccine and gemcitabine combination therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary tract cancer. J Immunother. 2011;34(1):92–9.
Yamamoto K, Ueno T, Kawaoka T, Hazama S, Fukui M, Suehiro Y, et al. MUC1 peptide vaccination in patients with advanced pancreas or biliary tract cancer. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(5):3575–9.
Harding JJ, Lowery MA, Shih AH, Schvartzman JM, Hou S, Famulare C, et al. Isoform switching as a mechanism of acquired resistance to mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2018;8(12):1540–7.
Abdel-Wahab R, Ali SM, Borad MJ, Shroff RT, Kwong L, Vauthey J-N, et al. Variations in DNA repair genomic alterations and tumor mutation burden in biliary tract cancer (BTC) subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4_suppl):263.
Chan-On W, Nairismagi ML, Ong CK, Lim WK, Dima S, Pairojkul C, et al. Exome sequencing identifies distinct mutational patterns in liver fluke-related and non-infection-related bile duct cancers. Nat Genet. 2013;45(12):1474–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Jonathan D. Mizrahi declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rachna T. Shroff has received research funding from Merck, Exelixis, Halozyme, Pieris, and Taiho, and has served as an advisory board member for Merck, Seattle Genetics, Exelixis, QED Therapeutics, Debiopharm, Agios, and Clovis Oncology.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mizrahi, J.D., Shroff, R.T. New Treatment Options for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 21, 63 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-020-00767-3
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-020-00767-3