Lessons from the comparison of two randomized clinical trials using gemcitabine and cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancer

Bispecific T cell engager-armed T cells targeting integrin ανβ6 exhibit enhanced T cell redirection and antitumor activity in cholangiocarcinoma

Advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) presents a clinical challenge due to limited treatment options, necessitating exploration of innovative therapeutic approaches. Bispecific T cell engager (BTE)-armed T cell therapy shows promise in hematological and solid malignancies, offering potential advantages in safety over continuous BTE infusion. In this context, we developed a novel BTE, targeting CD3 on T cells and integrin αvβ6, an antigen elevated in various epithelial malignancies, on cancer cells. The novel BTE was generated by fusing an integrin αvβ6-binding peptide (A20) to an anti-CD3 (OKT3) single-chain variable fragment (scFv) through a G4S peptide linker (A20/αCD3 BTE). T cells were then armed with A20/αCD3 BTE (A20/αCD3-armed T cells) and assessed for antitumor activity. Our results highlight the specific binding of A20/αCD3 BTE to CD3 on T cells and integrin αvβ6 on target cells, effectively redirecting T cells towards these targets. After co-culture, A20/αCD3-armed T cells exhibited significantly heightened cytotoxicity against integrin αvβ6-expressing target cells compared to unarmed T cells in both KKU-213A cells and A375.β6 cells. Moreover, in a five-day co-culture, A20/αCD3-armed T cells demonstrated superior cytotoxicity against KKU-213A spheroids compared to unarmed T cells. Importantly, A20/αCD3-armed T cells exhibited an increased proportion of the effector memory T cell (Tem) subset, upregulation of T cell activation markers, enhanced T cell proliferation, and increased cytolytic molecule/cytokine production, when compared to unarmed T cells in an integrin αvβ6-dependent manner. These findings support the potential of A20/αCD3-armed T cells as a novel therapeutic approach for integrin αvβ6-expressing cancers.

New Era of Immune-Based Therapy in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CC) accounts for approximately 20% of all biliary tract cancer (BTC) cases and 10-15% of all primary liver cancer cases. Many patients are diagnosed with unresectable BTC, and, even among patients with resectable BTC, the 5-year survival rate is approximately 20%. The BTC incidence rate is high in Southeast and East Asia and has increased worldwide in recent years. Since 2010, cytotoxic chemotherapy, particularly combination gemcitabine + cisplatin (ABC-02 trial), has been the first-line therapy for patients with BTC. In 2022, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial (TOPAZ-1 trial) examined the addition of programmed death-ligand 1 immunotherapy (durvalumab) to combination gemcitabine + cisplatin for BTC treatment, resulting in significantly improved survival without notable additional toxicity. As a result of this trial, this three-drug combination has become the new standard first-line therapy, leading to notable advances in BTC management for the first time since 2010. The molecular profiling of BTC has continued to drive the development of new targeted therapies for use when first-line therapies fail. Typically, second-line therapy decisions are based on identified genomic alterations in tumor tissue. Mutations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 1/2/3, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2, and neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase A/B/C are relatively frequent in intrahepatic CC, and precision medicines are available that can target associated pathways. In this review, we suggest strategies for systemic pharmacotherapy with a focus on intrahepatic CC, in addition to presenting the results and safety outcomes of clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in BTC.

Paradigm shift of chemotherapy and systemic treatment for biliary tract cancer

Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are frequently identified at late stages and have a poor prognosis due to limited systemic treatment regimens. For more than a decade, the combination of gemcitabine and cis-platin has served as the first-line standard treatment. There are few choices for second-line chemo-therapy. Targeted treatment with fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 inhibitors, neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase inhibitors, and isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 inhibitors has had important results. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) such as pembrolizumab are only used in first-line treatment for microsatellite instability high patients. The TOPAZ-1 trial's outcome is encouraging, and there are several trials underway that might soon put targeted treatment and ICI combos into first-line options. Newer targets and agents for existing goals are being studied, which may represent a paradigm shift in BTC management. Due to a scarcity of targetable mutations and the higher toxicity profile of the current medications, the new category of drugs may occupy a significant role in BTC therapies.

Systemic Treatment for Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer: State of the Art and a Glimpse to the Future

Recent years have seen some breakthroughs in the therapeutic landscape of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Firstly, a better understanding of the molecular background of BTC has led to important improvements in the management of these hepatobiliary malignancies, with the advent of targeted agents representing an unprecedented paradigm shift, as witnessed by the FDA approval of pemigatinib and infigratinib for FGFR2-rearranged and ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma. In addition, several novel treatments are under assessment, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination chemotherapies. In the current review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for metastatic BTC, summarizing recent clinical data on chemotherapy as well as the main results of targeted therapies and immunotherapy.

Actionable tests and treatments for patients with gastrointestinal cancers and historically short median survival times

BACKGROUND

Patients have difficult unmet needs when standard chemotherapy produces a median survival of less than 1 year or many patients will experience severe toxicities. Blood tests can predict their survival.

METHODS

Analyses evaluate predictive blood tests to identify patients who often survive 1 and 2 years. A four-test model includes: albumin, absolute neutrophil count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, and lymphocyte-monocyte ratio. Individual tests include: alkaline phosphatase, lymphocytes, white blood count, platelet count, and hemoglobin. Eligible patients have advanced: resistant 3rd line colorectal, and both resistant and new pancreatic and intrahepatic bile duct cancers. Eligibility characteristics include: biopsy-proven, measurable metastatic disease, NCI grade 0-2 blood tests, Karnofsky Score 100-50, and any adult age. Drugs are given at 1/4-1/3 of their standard dosages biweekly: gemcitabine, irinotecan, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and day 2 oxaliplatin every 2 weeks. In case of progression, Docetaxel is added (except colon cancer), with or without Mitomycin C, and next cetuximab (except pancreatic and KRAS BRAF mutation cancers). Bevacizumab is substituted for cetuximab in case of another progression or ineligibility. Consent was written and conforms with Helsinki, IRB, and FDA criteria (FDA #119005).

RESULTS

Median survival is 14.5 months. Of 205 patients, 60% survive 12, and 37% survive 24 months (95% CI ± 8%). Survival is > 24, 13, and 3.8 months for patients with 0, 1-2, and 3-4 unfavorable tests, respectively. Individual "favorable and unfavorable" tests predict long and short survival. Neither age nor prior therapy discernibly affects survival. Net rates of clinically significant toxicities are less than 5%.

CONCLUSION

Treatments reproduce predictable, greater than 12 and 24-month chances of survival for the aged and for patients with drug-resistant tumors. Evaluation of blood tests may change practice, expand eligibility, and personalize treatments. Findings support investigation of drug combinations and novel dosages to reverse resistance and improve safety.

Cholangiocarcinoma Therapeutics: An Update

BACKGROUND

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the second most common hepatobiliary cancer and associated with a poor prognosis. Only one-third of CCA cases are diagnosed at operable stages. However, a high rate of relapse has been observed postoperatively. Besides screening for operable individuals, efficacious therapeutic for recurrent and advanced CCA is urgently needed. The treatment outcome of available therapeutics is important to clarify clinical indication and facilitate the development of treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to compare the treatment outcome of different therapeutics based on both overall survival and progression-free survival.

METHODS

Over one hundred peer-reviewed articles were examined. We compared the treatment outcome between different treatment methods, including tumor resection with or without postoperative systematic therapy, chemotherapies including FOFLOX, and targeted therapies, such as IDH1, K-RAS, and FGFR inhibitors. Notably, the scientific basis and outcome of available treatment methods were compared with the standard first-line therapy.

RESULTS

CCAs at early stages should firstly undergo tumor resection surgery, followed by postoperative treatment with Capecitabine. Chemotherapy can be considered as a preoperative option for unresectable CCAs. Inoperable CCAs with genetic aberrances like FGFR alterations, IDH1, and KRAS mutations should be considered with targeted therapies. Fluoropyrimidine prodrug (S-1)/Gemcitabine/Cisplatin and nab-Paclitaxel/Gemcitabine/Cisplatin show favorable outcome which hints at the triplet regimen to be superior to Gemcitabine/Cisplatin on CCA. The triplet chemotherapeutic should be tested further compared to Gemcitabine/Cisplatin among CCAs without genetic alterations. Gemcitabine plus S-1 was recently suggested as the convenient and equivalent standard first-line for advanced/recurrent biliary tract cancer.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a comparative outcome between novel targeted therapies and currently available therapeutics.

Treatment of Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer with Either Oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine, and Capecitabine or Cisplatin and Gemcitabine-A Randomized Phase II Trial

This study is an investigator-initiated randomized phase II trial focusing on the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer with either oxaliplatin 50 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on day 1 in a two-week cycle with capecitabine 650 mg/m² twice-daily continuously or cisplatin 25 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on day 1 and day 8 in a three-week cycle. One-hundred patients were included. Forty-seven patients received oxaliplatin, gemcitabine, and capecitabine with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.7 months (95% CI 3.0-7.8) and a median overall survival (mOS) of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.5-11.2). Forty-nine patients received cisplatin and gemcitabine with a mPFS of 7.3 months (95% CI 6.0-8.7) and a mOS of 12.0 months (95% CI 8.3-16.7). This trial confirms a mOS of 12 months with cisplatin and gemcitabine, as found in earlier trials. With a superior tumor control rate of 79% vs. 60% (p = 0.045), a difference in the mPFS of 1.6 months (HR = 0.721, p = 0.1), and a difference in the mOS of 3.3 months (HR = 0.731, p = 0.1), cisplatin and gemcitabine should still be considered the standard first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer.

Gemcitabine inhibits cisplatin resistance in cisplatin-resistant A549 cells by upregulating trx-interacting protein and inducing cell cycle arrest

Cisplatin is a main chemotherapeutic drug used to treat non-small-cell lung cancer patients. However, these patients commonly face cisplatin resistance. The roles and underlying mechanisms of gemcitabine, irinotecan, pemetrexed and docetaxel used as single agents or combined with cisplatin for overcoming cisplatin-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer were explored in this study. MTT assays showed that gemcitabine alone exhibited stronger cytotoxicity on cisplatin-resistant A549 cells than irinotecan, pemetrexed and docetaxel. Meanwhile, gemcitabine combined with cisplatin showed a synergistic inhibitory effect on cisplatin-resistant cells. RNA sequencing and Gene Ontology/Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis showed that cell cycle signaling pathways and trx-interacting protein were factors in the efficacy of the cotreatment. Flow cytometry and Western blot results showed that when cisplatin-resistant A549 cells were cotreated with gemcitabine and cisplatin, G0/G1 phase arrest occurred, and trx-interacting protein was upregulated. Silencing trx-interacting protein attenuated the response of the resistant cells to the drug combination. A trx-interacting protein agonist together with cisplatin showed an additive cytotoxic effect on the resistant cells compared with cisplatin alone. The gemcitabine and cisplatin combination, compared to gemcitabine or PBS alone, markedly suppressed the growth of cisplatin-resistant A549 tumors in vivo, accompanied by an increase in trx-interacting protein and a decrease in Ki67 expression. Therefore, we concluded that gemcitabine and cisplatin, as an FDA-approved combination, is a viable therapy for cisplatin-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer ex vivo and in vivo.

Cholangiocarcinoma: a guide for the nonspecialist

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a tumor with increasing prevalence around the world. The prevalence of CCA is highest in East Asia and most significantly in the countries through which the Mekong River flows, owing to the presence of liver flukes, which are consumed in raw fish dishes. Outside Asia, the causes of bile duct cancers for the most part are unknown. In this review, we assess the current state of knowledge in both fluke-associated and sporadic CCA, from etiological, diagnostic, and treatment perspectives.

Enhanced cytotoxic activity of effector T-cells against cholangiocarcinoma by dendritic cells pulsed with pooled mRNA

Cholangiocarcinoma is a malignancy of bile duct epithelia with an increasing in incidence rate worldwide. Surgery is the only curative treatment, while adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy render poor responses. Cell-based immunotherapy is a potential strategy for cholangiocarcinoma treatment. However, variation of tumor antigens in cholangiocarcinoma leads to the ineffectiveness of cell-based immunotherapy. In this study, we examined the activation of effector T-cells by dendritic cells pulsed with protein lysate or total RNA from cholangiocarcinoma cell lines for their cytolytic activity against cholangiocarcinoma. Broad-spectrum antigen types with respect to RNA antigen sources were obtained from combination of three cholangiocarcinoma cell lines (KKU-213, KKU-100, and KKU-055). Compared with protein lysate-pulsed dendritic cells, total RNA-pulsed dendritic cells induced anti-tumor effector T-cell response with higher killing ability to KKU-100 and KKU-213 cells compared with protein lysate-pulsed dendritic cells. Moreover, pooled messenger RNA from three cholangiocarcinoma cell lines significantly increased the specific killing capacity of activated lymphocytes against KKU-213 cells. These results suggest that activation of anti-tumor effector T-cells against cholangiocarcinoma by RNA-pulsed dendritic cells is more effective than that by protein lysate-pulsed dendritic cells. In addition, pulsing dendritic cells with pooled messenger RNA from multiple cell lines enhanced the efficacy of a cellular immune response against cholangiocarcinoma.

Systemic therapy in younger and elderly patients with advanced biliary cancer: sub-analysis of ABC-02 and twelve other prospective trials

Background

Outcomes in younger (<40 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients with advanced biliary cancer (ABC) receiving palliative chemotherapy are unclear. This study assessed outcomes in those receiving monotherapy or combination therapy in thirteen prospective systemic-therapy trials.

Methods

Multivariable analysis explored the impact of therapy on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in two separate age cohort groups: <70 years and ≥70 years, and <40 years and ≥40 years.

Results

Overall, 1163 patients were recruited (Jan 1997-Dec 2013). Median age of entire cohort: 63 years (range 23–85); 36 (3%) were <40, 260 (22%); ≥70. Combination therapy was platinum-based in nine studies. Among patients <40 and ≥70 years, 23 (64%) and 182 (70%) received combination therapy, respectively. Median follow-up was 42 months (95%-CI 37–51). Median PFS for patients <40 and ≥40 years was 3.5 and 5.9 months (P = 0.12), and OS was 10.8 and 9.7 months, respectively (P = 0.55). Median PFS for those <70 and ≥70 years was 6.0 and 5.0 months (P = 0.53), and OS was 10.2 and 8.8 months, respectively (P = 0.08). For the entire cohort, PFS and OS were significantly better in those receiving combination therapy: Hazard Ratio [HR]-0.66, 95%-CI 0.58–0.76, P < 0.0001 and HR-0.72, 95%-CI 0.63–0.82, P < 0.0001, respectively; and in patients ≥70 years: HR-0.54 (95%-CI 0.38–0.77, P = 0.001) and HR-0.60 (95%-CI 0.43–0.85, P = 0.004), respectively. There was no evidence of interaction between age and treatment for PFS (P = 0.58, P = 0.66) or OS (P = 0.18, P = 0.75).

Conclusions

In ABC, younger patients are rare, and survival in elderly patients in receipt of systemic therapy for advanced disease, whether monotherapy or combination therapy, is similar to that of non-elderly patients, therefore age alone should not influence decisions regarding treatment.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Patterns of care and treatment outcomes in older patients with biliary tract cancer

Background

Although biliary tract cancers (BTC) are common in older age-groups, treatment approaches and outcomes are understudied in this population.

Patients and Methods

Data from 913 patients diagnosed with BTC from January 1987 to July 2013 and treated at Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto were analyzed. The differences in treatment patterns between older and younger patients were explored and the impact of age, patient and disease characteristics on survival outcomes was assessed.

Results

Three hundred and twenty one patients ≥70 years were identified. Older patients were more likely to receive best supportive care, 40% (n = 130), compared to younger patients 26% (n = 154); p < 0.0001. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with receipt of surgery included stage I/II disease (p < 0.0001) and ECOG PS < 2 (p < 0.0001). Older age was not associated with lack of surgical intervention. In comparison, older age was associated with non-receipt of palliative chemotherapy (p = 0.0007). Similar survival benefit from treatment was seen in older and younger patients. Of 626 patients that underwent either surgery or palliative chemotherapy (n = 188), the median survival was 21.1 months (95% CI 19.0–27.9) in patients >70 years of age, and 21.1 months in younger patients (n = 438) (95% CI 19.5–24.5).

Conclusion

In this large retrospective analysis, older patients with BTC are less likely to undergo an intervention. However, active therapy when given is associated with similar survival benefits, irrespective of age.

Treatment outcomes of chemotherapy between unresectable and recurrent biliary tract cancer

AIM: To evaluate the differences in the treatment outcomes between the unresectable and recurrent biliary tract cancer patients who received chemotherapy.

METHODS: Patients who were treated with gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy in the previous prospective studies were divided into groups of unresectable and recurrent cases. The tumor response, time-to-progression, overall survival, toxicity, and dose intensity were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS: Response rate of the recurrent group was higher than that of the unresectable group (40.0% vs 25.5%; P = 0.34). Median time-to-progression of the recurrent and unresectable groups were 8.7 mo (95%CI), 1.2 mo, not reached) and 5.7 mo (95%CI: 4.0-7.0 mo), respectively (P = 0.14). Median overall survival of the recurrent and the unresectable groups were 16.1 mo (95%CI: 2.0 mo-not reached) and 9.6 mo (95%CI: 7.1-11.7 mo), respectively (P = 0.10). Dose intensities were significantly lower in the recurrent groups (gemcitabine: recurrent group 83.5% vs unresectable group 96.8%; P < 0.01, S-1: Recurrent group 75.9% vs unresectable group 91.8%; P < 0.01). Neutropenia occurred more frequently in recurrent group (recurrent group 90% vs unresectable group 55%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION: Not only the efficacy but also the toxicity and dose intensity were significantly different between unresectable and recurrent biliary tract cancer.

The treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: a hepatologist's perspective

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare but lethal adenocarcinoma with cholangiocyte differentiation that arises within the biliary tree at variable locations. Curative options are available in the form of surgical resection and/or liver transplantation (LT) in early stage CCA; however, these are offered to a small fraction of patients as they are usually asymptomatic and remain undiagnosed. Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a well-known risk factor of CCA, and cirrhosis, viral hepatitis, and metabolic syndrome are recently identified as risk factors of CCA. This emerging evidence places hepatologists in a vital position to diagnose, prognosticate, and manage CCA by planning treatment of each individual patient based on the stage and extent of malignancy. With appropriate selection of patients and the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, surgical resection of localized CCA, LT coupled with neoadjuvant chemoradiation for perihilar CCA, or locoregional or systemic chemotherapy and/or endoscopic interventions for advanced CCA can be offered.

Gemcitabine alone or in combination with Cisplatin for advanced biliary tract carcinomas: an overview of clinical evidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been no universally agreed standard chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced biliary tract carcinomas (BTC). We aimed to fully display and evaluate the clinical evidence for gemcitabine or gemcitabine-cisplatin combination for advanced BTC.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and uncontrolled trials. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORR), tumor control rates (TCR), and toxicity were evaluated. Evidence levels of the results were evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Results of the eleven gemcitabine-cisplatin trials and ten gemcitabine trials showed both chemotherapy regimens had benefits with reference to mean OS (8.63 vs. 8.79 months), mean PFS (4.86 vs. 4.72 months), pooled ORR (25.3% vs. 19.6%) and TCR (55.2% vs. 53.1%). Two RCTs showed the gemcitabine-cisplatin combination to prolong the mean PFS (mean difference [MD] 2.57, 95%CI 1.69 3.45), substantially increasing the mean OS (MD 3.59, 95% CI 3.48 3.71), and producing a similar effect in ORR (risk ratio [RR] 1.59, 95%CI 1.04 2.43), increasing TCR (RR 1.15, 95%CI 1.02 1.31) compared with gemcitabine alone, with generally manageable grade 3 or 4 adverse events. The evidence level of OS was moderate, and other outcomes (ORR, PFS, TCR, anaemia, neutropenia) were at low evidence levels.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence was limited with low quality, which showed that both gemcitabine-cisplatin and gemcitabine alone had clinical activity with acceptable safety profiles, and gemcitabine-cisplatin appeared to be more useful for advanced BTC patients than gemcitabine alone.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Two recent studies (ABC-02 [UK] and BT22 [Japan]) have demonstrated the superiority of cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) chemotherapy over gemcitabine (Gem) alone for patients with pathologically proven advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC: cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder and ampullary cancers). This pre-planned analysis evaluates the efficacy of CisGem with increased statistical power.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data of these studies to establish the effect of CisGem versus Gem on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and carried out exploratory subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

CisGem demonstrates a significant improvement in PFS [hazard ratio (HR)=0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.76, P<0.001] and OS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.78, P<0.001) over Gem. This effect is most marked among patients with good performance status (PS 0-1): HR for PFS is 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.74), P<0.001 and OS HR=0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.77), P<0.001. CisGem resulted in improved PFS and OS for intra- and extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinomas and gallbladder cancer. The treatment effect between UK and Japanese patients was consistent with respect to OS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.03, respectively); with similar OS in the combination arms (median 11.7 and 11.1 months, respectively). Subgroups least likely to benefit included patients with ampullary tumours and poor performance status (PS2).

CONCLUSIONS

CisGem is the standard of care for the first-line treatment of good-PS patients with advanced BTC regardless of ethnicity. Future studies should aim to enhance the effectiveness of this regimen in the first-line setting, establish the role of subsequent (second-line) therapy and assess the role of rationally developed molecular-targeted therapies.

A perspective on molecular therapy in cholangiocarcinoma: present status and future directions

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is an orphan cancer with limited understanding of its genetic and genomic pathogenesis. Typically, it is highly treatment-refractory and patient outcome is dismal. Currently, there are no approved therapeutics for CCA and surgical resection remains the only option with curative intent. Clinical trials are currently being performed in a mixed cohort of biliary tract cancers that includes intrahepatic CCA, extrahepatic/perihilar CCA, distal extrahepatic CCA, gallbladder carcinoma and, in rare cases, even pancreatic cancers. Today, clinical trials fail primarily because they are underpowered mixed cohorts and designed without intent to enrich for markers to optimize success for targeted therapy. This review aims to emphasize current clinical attempts for targeted therapy of CCA, as well as highlight promising new candidate pathways revealed by translational genomics.

Reappraisal of the therapeutic role of celecoxib in cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a lethal disease, affects many thousands worldwide yearly. Surgical resection provides the best chance for a cure; however, only one-third of CCA patients present with a resectable tumour at the time of diagnosis. Currently, no effective chemotherapy is available for advanced CCA. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is a potential oncogene expressing in human CCA tissues and represents a candidate target for treatment; however, COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of negative cardiovascular events as application for chemoprevention aim. Here, we re-evaluated the effectiveness and safety of celecoxib, one widely used COX-2 inhibitor, in treating CCA. We demonstrated that celecoxib exhibited an anti-proliferative effect on CGCCA cells via cell cycle arrest at G2 phase and apoptosis induction. Treatment for 5 weeks high dose celecoxib (160 mg/kg) significantly repressed thioacetamide-induced CCA tumour growth in rats as monitored by animal positron emission tomography through apoptosis induction. No obviously observable side effects were noted during the therapeutic period. As retrospectively reviewing 78 intrahepatic mass-forming CCA patients, their survival was strongly and negatively associated with a positive resection margin and high COX-2 expression. Based on our result, we concluded that short-term high dose celecoxib may be a promising therapeutic regimen for CCA. Yet its clinical application still needs more studies to prove its safety.

A multicenter phase II study of S-1 for gemcitabine-refractory biliary tract cancer

Purpose

Gemcitabine (GEM)-based chemotherapy has been used worldwide as the first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, no standard regimens have been established yet for patients with GEM-refractory BTC. A previous phase II trial of S-1 as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced BTC revealed promising activity of this drug. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 in patients with GEM-refractory BTC.

Methods

The subjects were patients with pathologically proven BTC who had shown disease progression while receiving GEM-based chemotherapy. Each treatment cycle consisted of administration of S-1 orally at the dose of 40 mg/m² twice daily for 28 days, followed by a rest period of 14 days. The primary endpoint of this study was objective response, and the secondary endpoints were the toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

Forty patients were assessed for efficacy and safety from 8 hospitals in Japan between June 2007 and September 2008. There were 3 cases of confirmed partial response (7.5 %) and 22 patients (55 %) of stable disease. The median PFS and OS were 2.5 and 6.8 months, respectively. Toxicity was generally mild, and the most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were anorexia (10.0 %), anemia (7.5 %), mucositis (7.5 %), hypoalbuminemia (5.0 %), and pneumonia (5.0 %). There were no treatment-related deaths.

Conclusions

Monotherapy with S-1 was well tolerated, but showed modest efficacy in patients with GEM-refractory BTC.

Role of chemotherapy in treatments for biliary tract cancer

The purpose of chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid cancers, including biliary tract cancer, is generally to improve the survival and quality of life of the patients. Also, adjuvant chemotherapy is expected to increase the curability of surgery in patients scheduled to undergo surgery. Most patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer develop obstructive jaundice, and biliary drainage is needed before any of the aforementioned treatments. Once jaundice is resolved by stenting of the bile duct or bilio-intestinal bypass, cholangitis often develops, leading to rapid deterioration of the patient's general condition. Therefore, the beneficial effect of chemotherapy in such patients remains controversial. A few randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the survival benefit of chemotherapy as compared with supportive care. In one of these trials, improvement of the quality of life was also confirmed. Recently, since the survival benefit of combined gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy over gemcitabine alone has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials, this combined regimen has been recognized as a standard therapy for unresectable biliary tract cancer. A second-line regimen is now expected to be established for patients with gemcitabine-refractory biliary tract cancer, although the significance of second-line therapy remains unclear. One of the next issues in relation to chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer is the development of molecular-targeted agents; however, few large clinical trials of such agents have been conducted for biliary tract cancer. Various issues in chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer remain to be investigated, and global cooperation is necessary to conduct large clinical trials.

Biliary tract carcinomas: from chemotherapy to targeted therapy

Biliary tract carcinomas (BTC) are a group of tumours arising from the epithelial cells of intra- and extra-hepatic biliaryducts and the gallbladder, characterised by a poor prognosis. Surgery is the only curative procedure, but the risk of recurrence is high and furthermore, the majority of patients present with unresectable disease at the time of diagnosis. Systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients who present recurrent or metastatic disease. Progress has been made in the last decade to identify the most effective chemotherapy regimens, with the recent recommendation of the combination of gemcitabine-cisplatin as the standard schedule. Comprehension of the molecular basis of cholangiocarcinogenesis and tumour progression has recently led to the experimentation of targeted therapies in patients with BTC, demonstrating promising results. In this review we will discuss the clinical experience with systemic treatment for BTC, focusing on future directions with targeted therapies.

Preclinical models in electrochemotherapy: the role of veterinary patients

Electrochemotherapy is a tumor treatment that adapts the systemic or local delivery of anticancer drugs by the application of permeabilizing electric pulses with appropriate amplitude and waveforms. This allows the use of lipophobic drugs, which frequently have a narrow therapeutic index, with a decreased morbidity for the patient, while maintaining appropriate anticancer efficacy. Electrochemotherapy is used in humans for the treatment of cutaneous neoplasms or the palliation of skin tumor metastases, and a standard operating procedure has been devised. In veterinary oncology, the electrochemotherapy approach is gaining popularity, becoming a first-line treatment in consideration of its high efficacy and low toxicity. This review summarizes the state of the art in veterinary oncology as a preclinical model.

Methodological reporting of randomized controlled trials in major hepato-gastroenterology journals in 2008 and 1998: a comparative study

Background

It was still unclear whether the methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in major hepato-gastroenterology journals improved after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was revised in 2001.

Methods

RCTs in five major hepato-gastroenterology journals published in 1998 or 2008 were retrieved from MEDLINE using a high sensitivity search method and their reporting quality of methodological details were evaluated based on the CONSORT Statement and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of interventions. Changes of the methodological reporting quality between 2008 and 1998 were calculated by risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 107 RCTs published in 2008 and 99 RCTs published in 1998 were found. Compared to those in 1998, the proportion of RCTs that reported sequence generation (RR, 5.70; 95%CI 3.11-10.42), allocation concealment (RR, 4.08; 95%CI 2.25-7.39), sample size calculation (RR, 3.83; 95%CI 2.10-6.98), incomplete outecome data addressed (RR, 1.81; 95%CI, 1.03-3.17), intention-to-treat analyses (RR, 3.04; 95%CI 1.72-5.39) increased in 2008. Blinding and intent-to-treat analysis were reported better in multi-center trials than in single-center trials. The reporting of allocation concealment and blinding were better in industry-sponsored trials than in public-funded trials. Compared with historical studies, the methodological reporting quality improved with time.

Conclusion

Although the reporting of several important methodological aspects improved in 2008 compared with those published in 1998, which may indicate the researchers had increased awareness of and compliance with the revised CONSORT statement, some items were still reported badly. There is much room for future improvement.