Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Purpose: There are clinical unmet needs in predicting therapeutic response and precise strategy for the patient with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). We aimed to identify genomic alterations predicting therapeutic response and resistance to gemcitabine and cisplatin (Gem/Cis)-based chemotherapy in advanced BTC. Materials and Methods: Genomic analysis of advanced BTC multi-institutional cohorts was performed using targeted panel sequencing. Genomic alterations were analyzed integrating patients’ clinicopathologic data, including clinical outcomes of Gem/Cis-based therapy. Significance of genetic alterations was validated using clinical next-generation sequencing (NGS) cohorts from public repositories and drug sensitivity data from cancer cell lines. Results: 193 BTC patients from three cancer centers were analyzed. Most frequent genomic alterations were TP53 (55.5%), KRAS (22.8%), ARID1A (10.4%) alterations, and ERBB2 amplification (9.8%). Among 177 patients with BTC receiving Gem/Cis-based chemotherapy, ARID1A alteration was the only independent predictive molecular marker of primary resistance showing disease progression for 1st-line chemotherapy in the multivariate regression model (odds ratio, 3.12; p=0.046). In addition, ARID1A alteration was significantly correlated with inferior progression-free survival on Gem/Cis-based chemotherapy in the overall patient population (p=0.033) and in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) (p=0.041). External validation using public repository NGS revealed that ARID1A mutation was a significant predictor for poor survival in BTC patients. Investigation of multi-OMICs drug sensitivity data from cancer cell lines revealed that cisplatin-resistance was exclusively observed in ARID1A mutant bile duct cancer cells. Conclusion Integrative analysis with genomic alterations and clinical outcomes of the first-line Gem/Cis-based chemotherapy in advanced BTC revealed that patients with ARID1Aalterations showed a significant worse clinical outcome, especially in extrahepatic CCA. Well-designed prospective studies are mandatory to validate the predictive role of ARID1Amutation.

Immunotherapy has become established as a new cancer treatment that enhances patients’ immune systems’ ability to fight cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have demonstrated remarkable benefits in the treatment of a range of cancer types. The increasing use of immune-based therapies has exposed a discrete group of immune-related adverse effects. Effective recognition and treatment of ICI-induced toxicities have emerged as essential goals of ICI management.Current Concepts: Gastrointestinal (GI) and hepatic adverse effects of ICI treatment are relatively common. Immune-related GI or hepatic toxicities occur in approximately 30% of patients. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse effects ranges from 0.5% to 2%. The management strategy for immune-related adverse effects depends on their severity. In general, ICI treatment can be continued with close monitoring for mild (grade 1) GI/hepatic toxicities. ICI treatment should be interrupted for most grade 2 to 4 toxicities, and systemic steroid administration is recommended. If steroids are ineffective, immunosuppressive agents such as infliximab may be used. When symptoms and laboratory values revert to grade 1 or less, ICI treatment may be resumed with caution. Grade 4 toxicities warrant permanent discontinuation of ICI treatment.Discussion and Conclusion: Most immune-related GI and hepatic adverse effects are mild to moderate in severity and can be managed with supportive care, steroid therapy, and other immunomodulatory agents. Management of ICI-related toxicities in the GI and hepatic systems requires close collaboration between the patient, the treating oncologist, and other specialists.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming essential in the fields of precision oncology. With implementation of NGS in daily clinic, the needs for continued education, facilitated interpretation of NGS results and optimal treatment delivery based on NGS results have been addressed. Molecular tumor board (MTB) is multidisciplinary approach to keep pace with the growing knowledge of complex molecular alterations in patients with advanced solid cancer. Although guidelines for NGS use and MTB have been developed in western countries, there is limitation for reflection of Korea’s public health environment and daily clinical practice. These recommendations provide a critical guidance from NGS panel testing to final treatment decision based on MTB discussion.

no abstract available.