4. Diagnostik und Therapie der biliären Karzinome – Hepatozelluläres Karzinom und biliäre Karzinome
4.1 Risikofaktoren, Prävention und Früherkennung
4.1.1 Risikofaktoren
Risikofaktoren für die Entwicklung eines intra- oder extrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinoms sind:
- Adipositas
- Alkoholabusus
- Choledochus-Zysten
- Cholelithiasis
- Chronisch bakterielle Cholangitis
- Chronisch entzündliche Darmerkrankungen
- Chronische Hepatitis B-Virusinfektion
- Chronische Hepatitis C-Virusinfektion
- Diabetes mellitus
- Leberegel
- Leberzirrhose
- Nichtalkolische Fettlebererkrankung
- Parasitäre Cholangitiden
- Primär sklerosierende Cholangitis
- Rauchen
- Rezidivierende pyogene Cholangitiden
- Evidenzlevel
- 2
- 3 (Oxford 2011)
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [487] [488] [489] [490] [491] [492] [493]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA RisikofaktorenRisikofaktoren für die Entwicklung eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms sind:
- Anatomische Anomalien der intra- und extrahepatischen Gallenwege
- Cholelithiasis
- Chronisch bakterielle und parasitäre Cholangitis
- Diabetes mellitus
- Gallenblasenpolypen
- Porzellangallenblase
- Primär sklerosierende Cholangitis
Evidenztabellen (1)
GB-Karzinom RisikofaktorenCholangiokarzinome (CCA, synonym: maligne biliäre Tumoren) sind eine heterogene Gruppe epithelialer Neoplasien, die meistens eine cholangiozytentypische Differenzierung aufweisen [498]. Je nach anatomischer Lokalisation des Primärtumors werden intrahepatische (iCCA) von extrahepatischen (eCCA) CCA und vom Gallenblasenkarzinom unterschieden. Extrahepatische Tumoren werden weiter in perihiläre (synonym Klatskin-Tumor, pCCA) und distale CCA (dCCA) aufgeteilt. Diese Unterscheidung ist aufgrund unterschiedlicher Risikofaktoren, Unterschiede in Bezug auf molekulare und klinische Charakteristika und unterschiedlicher Therapieansätze relevant [499], [500].
In Deutschland wurde im Jahr 2016 bei etwa 5290 Menschen mit einem eCCA (etwa 68 %; darunter etwa 11 % pCCA) oder einem Gallenblasenkarzinom (etwa 32 %) diagnostiziert. Hinzu kommen etwa 2000 Patienten mit einem iCCA, die aufgrund der ICD-Kodierung als primäre maligne Lebertumoren erfasst werden. Somit liegt die Gesamtinzidenz in Deutschland bei mehr als 7000 Neuerkrankungen/Jahr (http://krebsdaten.de). Die Inzidenz in Deutschland ist in den letzten 20 Jahren aufgrund der Zunahme des iCCA angestiegen. Mit zunehmendem Lebensalter steigt das Risiko kontinuierlich an. In den letzten 20 Jahren ist die Inzidenz des CCA bei Frauen, insbesondere durch die sinkende Gallenblasenkarzinom-Inzidenz, leicht rückläufig.
Die Inzidenz der verschiedenen anatomischen Tumorlokalisationen variiert weltweit erheblich, vermutlich aufgrund unterschiedlicher Prävalenzen von Risikofaktoren [501]. In Südostasien ist die CCA-Inzidenz höher als in anderen Ländern. Ein wichtiger Risikofaktor dort sind parasitäre Infektionen mit Leberegeln wie Opisthorchis viverrini oder Clonorchis sinensis, die zu chronischen Cholangitiden führen [502], [503]. Infektionen mit Opisthorchis viverrini oder Clonorchis sinensis sind endemisch in Südostasien und sind mutmaßlich jährlich für mehr als 7000 CCA-Neuerkrankungen in dieser Region verantwortlich [504]. In westlichen Ländern spielen Leberegel-Infektionen als CCA-Risikofaktor keine nennenswerte Rolle. Weitere etablierte Risikofaktoren mit deutlich höherer Inzidenz in Südostasien sind eine Cholelithiasis, Choledochus-Zysten, ein Caroli-Syndrom und rezidivierende pyogene Cholangitiden [501], [505]. Kongenitale Anomalien, wie z.B. Choledochuszysten oder ein Caroli-Syndrom, weisen ein hohes CCA-Risiko mit einer Prävalenz von bis zu 11 % auf [506], [507].
Die primär sklerosierende Cholangitis (PSC) ist in westlichen Ländern ein relevanter Risikofaktor sowohl für intra- und extrahepatische Cholangiokarzinome als auch für Gallenblasenkarzinome. Das kumulative 10-Jahresrisiko für ein Cholangiokarzinom bei PSC liegt bei 9 % und ist damit deutlich höher als in der Allgemeinbevölkerung [508]. Ob bei PSC-Patienten Alkoholkonsum und Nikotin weitere Ko-Risikofaktoren darstellen, ist weiter unklar. Ebenso bleibt unklar, ob eine chronisch entzündliche Darmerkrankung ohne Vorhandensein einer PSC einen relevanten Risikofaktor darstellt [509]. Eine Leberzirrhose, eine chronische Hepatitis-C-oder Hepatitis-B-Virusinfektion, Alkoholkonsum und Diabetes sind in westlichen Ländern wichtige Risikofaktoren für die Entwicklung eines iCCA [492], [501], [510]. Insbesondere ist das Risiko für das iCCA bei Diabetes und/oder Adipositas erhöht [102]. Bei metabolische Dysfunktion-assoziierter steatotischer Lebererkrankung (MASLD) ist das iCCA-Risiko leicht erhöht [493]. Ebenso weisen Raucher ein gering erhöhtes Risiko für die Entwicklung eines intra- und extrahepatischen CCAs, jedoch nicht für ein Gallenblasenkarzinom auf [510]. Weitere etablierte Risikofaktoren sind eine Cholelithiasis und biliäre Zysten. Das höchste Risiko sowohl für die Entwicklung eines iCCA als auch eines eCCA weisen Patienten mit Choledochuszysten auf (relatives Risiko 26,7 bzw. 34,9) [511].
Frauen erkranken häufiger als Männer an einem Gallenblasenkarzinom. Der wichtigste Risikofaktor für die Entwicklung eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms jedoch sind Gallensteine. Etwa 70-90 % aller Patienten mit einem Gallenblasenkarzinom weisen eine Cholelithiasis auf. Insbesondere findet sich eine hohe Gallblasenkarzinom-Inzidenz in der indigenen Bevölkerung Nord- und Lateinamerikas und Neuseelands. Weitere wichtige Risikofaktoren für die Entwicklung eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms sind ein höheres Alter, Adipositas, eine familiäre Häufung und Gallenblasenpolypen [512], [513]. Gallenblasenpolypen können eine Wachstumstendenz aufweisen und so schließlich entarten. Genaue Daten hierzu sind jedoch aufgrund des langsamen Wachstums – oftmals über Dekaden - schwer zu interpretieren [513]. In einer großen Kohortenstudie mit Langzeitverlauf zeigte sich eine Detektionsrate neoplastischer Polypen (Adenom oder Gallenblasenkarzinom) von 1,7 % nach einem Jahr, von 2,8 % nach 5 Jahren und von 4 % nach 8 Jahren nach erstmaliger Diagnosestellung eines Gallenblasenpolypen [494]. Die Prävalenz von Gallenblasenpolypen in Deutschland beträgt bis zu 6 %. Die Adenom-Prävalenz liegt unter 5 % [514]. Als Risikofaktoren für einen neoplastischen Polypen zeigten sich das gleichzeitige Vorhandensein einer Cholelithiasis und die Polypengröße. Polypen mit ≥ 10 mm weisen ein 24-fach erhöhtes Risiko für eine Malignität auf [494].
Ein weiterer Risikofaktor für ein Gallenblasenkarzinom ist eine chronische Entzündung, verursacht durch Salmonella typhi bzw. parathyphi oder Helicobacter bilis [495]. Eine Besiedelung der Gallenblase mit Salmonella typhi bei Dauerausscheidern ist mit einem 12-fach erhöhten Risiko für die Entwicklung eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms assoziiert [513].
Die als klassische Präkanzerose angesehene Kalzifizierung der Gallenblasenwand, die sogenannte Porzellangallenblase, wird in der jüngeren Literatur als Risikofaktor für ein Gallenblasenkarzinom differenzierter betrachtet [515], [516]. Das relative Risiko für ein Gallenblasenkarzinom liegt bei 4,6 [517] und ist niedriger als in älteren Arbeiten angegeben [518].
4.1.2 Prophylaktische und therapeutische Maßnahmen zur Risikoreduktion der Entstehung von biliären Karzinomen
Gallenblasenpolypen bei Patienten mit PSC sollten regelmäßig sonographisch überwacht werden. In allen Fällen sollte die Indikation zur Cholezystektomie diskutiert werden, bei Polypen über 8 mm oder Größenprogredienz sollte aufgrund des erhöhten Karzinomrisikos unter Berücksichtigung der Leberfunktion eine Cholezystektomie erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Für die asymptomatische Bevölkerung ist eine CCA-Früherkennung aufgrund der niedrigen Inzidenz nicht sinnvoll.
Gallenblasenpolypen treten bei bis zu 13,7 % der PSC-Patienten auf, das Risiko für ein Gallenblasenkarzinom ist hoch und steigt mit zunehmender Größe. Die Empfehlung zur Cholezystektomie ab einer Größe von 8 mm basiert auf einer retrospektiven Kohortenstudie mit 57 PSC-Patienten [519]. Eine frühzeitige Cholezystektomie kann auch bei kleineren Polypen diskutiert werden. Für detaillierte Empfehlungen zum Management von Patienten mit PSC wird auf die aktuelle S2-Leitlinie „Autoimmune Lebererkrankungen“ verwiesen [520].
Patienten mit Gallenblasenpolypen ≥ 10 mm sollte unabhängig von der Symptomatik eine Cholezystektomie angeboten werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Die Indikationsstellung zur Therapie bei Cholezystolithiasis und Gallenblasenpolypen erfolgt gemäß der aktuellen S3-Leitlinie zur Prävention, Diagnostik und Behandlung von Gallensteinen [518]. Aufgrund des deutlich erhöhten Malignitätsrisikos bei Polypen ≥ 1 cm Durchmesser bei gleichzeitig vorhandener Cholezystolithiasis als weiteren Risikofaktor wird eine Cholezystektomie unabhängig von der Symptomatik empfohlen. Bei fehlender Indikation für eine Cholezystektomie wird ein individuelles Vorgehen, basierend auf dem Vorhandensein von Risikofaktoren für neoplastische Gallenblasenpolypen (Alter > 50 Jahre, bekannte PSC, Zugehörigkeit zu einer indigenen Population oder Vorhandensein eines sessilen Polypen) in Analogie zu einem Delphi-Methode-basierten Expertenkonsens empfohlen [521].
Bei Patienten ohne Risikofaktoren* für ein Gallenblasenkarzinom mit Nachweis eines Gallenblasenpolypen von < 9 mm sollte eine sonographische Kontrolle in 6 Monaten (Polyp 6-9 mm) bzw. 12 Monaten (Polyp < 6 mm) erfolgen.
*Risikofaktoren für neoplastische Polypen: Alter > 50 Jahre, bekannte PSC, Zugehörigkeit zu einer indigenen Population oder Vorhandensein eines sessilen Polypen
- Konsens
- Konsens
- Literatur
- [521]
4.1.3 Früherkennung
Bei Patienten mit PSC sollte halbjährlich eine Bildgebung im Rahmen der Cholangiokarzinom-Früherkennung durchgeführt werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Im Gegensatz dazu besteht aufgrund des deutlich erhöhten CCA-Risikos bei Patienten mit einer PSC ein hoher Bedarf für eine effektive Früherkennung. Daten, die einen Überlebensvorteil einer CCA-Früherkennung bei Patienten mit PSC aufzeigen, fehlen jedoch [520]. In vielen Zentren erfolgt heute bei Patienten mit gesicherter PSC eine CCA-Früherkennung mittels Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) und Magnetresonanzcholangiopankreatikographie (MRCP) in 6- bis 12-monatlichem Abstand und zusätzlich die serielle Bestimmung des Tumormarkers CA19-9 [522]. Für eine MRT/MRCP-basierte Früherkennung spricht eine hohe Sensitivität von 89 % bei einer Spezifität von 75 %. Die Sensitivität des Ultraschalls ist niedriger, aufgrund der Verfügbarkeit, der niedrigeren Kosten und der hohen Akzeptanz findet die Sonographie jedoch breite Anwendung bei der Überwachung von PSC-Patienten [523].
Im Rahmen der Konsensuskonferenz wurde festgehalten, dass aufgrund der höheren Sensitivität eine Abdomensonographie im Wechsel mit einem nativen MRT inklusive MRCP erfolgen sollte. Hierbei sollen sowohl die Leber als auch die Gallenblase mitbeurteilt werden.
4.2 Histopathologische und molekulare Diagnostik
4.2.1 Typisierung und Staging von biliären Karzinomen
Vor oder im Rahmen einer Tumortherapie sollen Tumoren der Gallenwege und Gallenblase histologisch oder ggf. zytologisch gesichert werden
- Konsens
- Konsens
Aufgrund des Fehlens beweisender positiver bildgebender diagnostischer Kriterien ist die histologische Sicherung der intrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinome grundsätzlich erforderlich (s. Abbildung: Diagnosealgorithmus eines Patienten mit Verdacht auf ein Cholangiokarzinom). Intrahepatische Cholangiokarzinome treten - wenn auch in geringerem Maß als das HCC- auch bei den zum HCC prädisponierenden chronischen Lebererkrankungen und der Zirrhose vermehrt auf, sodass die Möglichkeit eines intrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinoms auch bei bildgebendem Verdacht auf ein HCC, differenzialdiagnostisch zu berücksichtigen ist. Grund hierfür sind v.a. Fälle intrahepatischer Cholangiokarzinome, welche die bildgebenden Kriterien eines HCC zeigen können. Umgekehrt können bei einzelnen HCCs, insbesondere vom sklerotischen Subtyp, die bildgebenden Kriterien eines HCC fehlen und zum Verdacht auf ein iCCA führen.
Bei Tumoren der extrahepatischen Gallenwege kann die Sicherung eines invasiven Karzinoms in Abgrenzung von entzündlich bedingten Veränderungen und nichtinvasiven prämalignen Veränderungen problematisch sein, dies gilt besonders auch für die Abklärung dominanter Stenosen bei der PSC. Die Sensitivität histologischer und zytologischer Verfahren in der Detektion invasiver Karzinome der distalen Gallenwege ist derzeit noch begrenzt und überschreitet auch im kombinierten Einsatz gemäß der meisten Untersuchungen nicht 60-70 % [524][525]. Zusätzliche Verfahren, wie FISH-Analysen und auch molekulare Analysen am Gallesekret mögen in Einzelfällen unterstützende Informationen liefern, können aber weder die histologische oder zytologische Diagnostik ersetzen, noch kann mangels entsprechender Validierung ihr diagnostischer Einsatz derzeit generell empfohlen werden.
In Fällen einer anstehenden Resektion bei hochgradigem Verdacht auf ein Karzinom der extrahepatischen Gallenwege kann angesichts der eingeschränkten Sensitivität zytologischer und bioptischer Nachweise auf eine präoperative bioptische Sicherung zugunsten einer umfassenden Aufarbeitung des Resektionspräparates verzichtet werden, wenn die Abwägung der möglichen Vor- und Nachteile keine Verbesserung für den Patienten erwarten lässt. Die Entscheidungsfindung sollte durch ein interdisziplinäres Tumorboard abgesichert sein.
Bei nichtoperablen intra- und extrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinomen und Karzinomen der Gallenblase soll vor Einleitung einer Therapie eine histologische Sicherung erfolgen, wobei das hierbei gewonnene Gewebe in der Regel zusätzlich auch für eventuelle weiterführende, z.B. molekularpathologische Untersuchungen ausreichen sollte und hierfür bei Bedarf einzusetzen ist.
Die Typisierung der Karzinome der Gallenwege und der Gallenblase soll nach der anatomischen Lokalisation (intrahepatisch, perihilär, distale Gallenwege, Gallenblase) und gemäß der histologischen Differenzierung nach der aktuellen WHO-Klassifikation erfolgen. Bei intrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinomen sollte eine Unterscheidung von ‚small duct‘ und ‚large duct‘ Typ erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Klinisch, bildgebend und beim Staging werden die Karzinome der Gallenwege und der Gallenblase gemäß der anatomischen Lokalisation des Ausgangstumors beschrieben [111], [526]. Karzinome des distalen extrahepatischen Gallengangs liegen distal der Mündung des D. cysticus in den D. choledochus. Karzinome der Gallenblase umfassen die Tumoren der Gallenblase und des D. cysticus. Karzinome der perihilären Gallenwege umfassen Tumoren des D. hepaticus dexter und sinister sowie des D. hepaticus communis. Intrahepatische Cholangiokarzinome (iCCA) haben ihren Ausgang von den intrahepatischen Gallenwegen proximal des D. hepaticus dexter bzw. sinister.
Gemäß der WHO-Klassifikation (5. Auflage) ist bei iCCA ein phänotypisch den kleinen Gallengängen ähnlicher ‚small duct‘ Typ von einem den Karzinomen der extrahepatischen Gallengänge vergleichbaren, ‚large duct‘ Typ zu unterscheiden [111]. Beide Tumortypen sind ätiologisch, molekular, histologisch, bildgebend und klinisch in ihrer typischen Ausprägung verschieden, sodass ihre Unterscheidung von prognostischer und zunehmend auch therapeutischer Bedeutung ist (Tabelle: Typische Merkmale der CCA-Subtypen [111], [523], [524], [525]). Diagnostisch können beide Tumortypen histologisch und ggf. immunhistologisch oder aufgrund ihrer molekularen Eigenschaften unterschieden werden.
Tabelle 7: Typische Merkmale der CCA-Subtypen
|
Kriterien |
Small-duct Type iCCA |
Large-duct Type iCCA, distales CCA |
|
Prädisponierende Erkrankungen |
Chronische Hepatitis B/C, MASH, andere chronische Lebererkrankungen, (Zirrhose) |
PSC, biliäre Helminthosen (C. sinensis, O. viverrini), Konkremente |
|
Prämaligne Läsionen |
unbekannt |
BilIN, IPNB, MCN |
|
Makroskopie |
Primärknotenbildend (‚mass forming’) |
Primärperiduktalinfiltrierend |
|
Histologie |
Zellreicher, weniger Stroma, kein Muzin, kohärenter wachsend |
Tumorzellärmer, stromareich, (extrazelluläre) Muzinbildung; verstreutes Wachstum |
|
Molekulare Veränderungen |
FGFR2-TL, IDH1/2, BAP1, p53, KRAS ARID1A |
KRAS, p53, ARID1B, SMAD4 |
|
Systemtherapeutische Zielstrukturen |
Ergiebig; v.a. IDH1/2-Mut; FGFR-2-TLs, andere TLs (inkl. NTRK), BRAF-Mut; MSIhigh |
Weniger; BRCA-1/2-Mut; Her-2-Amp; MSIhigh |
Differenzialdiagnostisch müssen iCCAs vor allem von Metastasen extrahepatischer Karzinome in der Leber unterschieden werden. Metastasen sind in der Summe erheblich häufiger als iCCAs, so dass die möglichst sichere Unterscheidung wichtig ist. Vor allem Metastasen eines Pankreaskarzinoms aber auch anderer Karzinome (besonders Lunge, Magen, Mamma) und seltener Metastasen neuroendokriner Neoplasien sind zu berücksichtigen. Eine definitive Unterscheidung einer Lebermetastase eines exokrinen Pankreaskarzinoms (oder eines Karzinoms der extrahepatischen Gallenwege oder Gallenblase) von einem iCCA (v.a. „large duct“-Typ) ist an der Biopsie in den meisten Fällen weder histologisch noch immunhistologisch sicher möglich, so dass die Diagnose im Kontext des klinisch-bildgebenden Befundes zu stellen ist.
Ferner sollten bei gesicherter intrahepatischer Tumorlokalisation seltenere gemischte Tumorformen (gemischt neuroendokrine/nichtneuroendokrine Neoplasien (MINEN) und kombinierte Hepato-Cholangiokarzinome (c(ombined) HCC/CCA)) vom iCCA unterschieden werden. Das früher dem cHCC/CCA zugeschlagene Cholangiolokarzinom wird aufgrund neuer molekularer Befunde [527] heute als Sonderform des iCCA klassifiziert. Solide wachsende iCCA sind insbesondere vom sklerosierten Subtyp des HCC zu unterscheiden; hierfür sind in der Regel zusätzliche immunhistologische Untersuchungen erforderlich (s. u.). Diese Unterscheidung ist auch deshalb wichtig, da HCCs vom sklerosierten Subtyp auch bildgebend meist nicht als HCCs erkannt werden. Seltener stellen die meist als Zufallsbefunde bei Laparotomien erfassten Gallengangsadenome eine Differenzialdiagnose zu kleinen hochdifferenzierten iCCA dar.
Karzinommetastasen in die distalen Gallenwege oder die Gallenblase sind extrem selten und treten nicht isoliert und nur im terminalen Krankheitsstadium auf, so dass sich diagnostisch bei gesicherter Lokalisation diese differenzialdiagnostische Frage nicht stellt. Hier müssen die Karzinome ggf. von seltenen neuroendokrinen Neoplasien, mesenchymalen und neuroektodermalen Tumoren unterschieden werden [528].
4.2.2 Zytologische und histopathologische Untersuchungen zur Diagnostik eines CCA, eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms
Die Bearbeitung und Befundung eines Resektats soll die Ausdehnung des Tumors (Staging) gemäß der aktuellen TNM-Klassifikation, seinen Typ (Typing) und Differenzierungsgrad (Grading) und den Status des Resektatrandes (R-Klassifikation) sowie bei intrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinomen den Status der nichttumorösen Leber ermitteln. Bei Präparaten mit prämalignen Läsionen soll durch genaue Aufarbeitung ein möglicher Übergang in ein invasives Karzinom abgeklärt werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Das pathohistologische Staging eines Karzinoms der Gallenwege hat unabhängige prognostische Bedeutung und erfolgt gemäß der geltenden TNM-Klassifikation (derzeit 8. Auflage), wobei für alle vier anatomischen Lokalisationen (intrahepatisch, perihilär, distal, Gallenblase) eigene TNM-Klassifikationen existieren [529]. Zusätzlich zu den Hauptkriterien, sollten auch die Nebenkriterien Lymphgefäßeinbruch (L), Veneneinbruch (V) und vor allem bei perihilären und distalen Cholangiokarzinomen auch die Nervenscheideninfiltration (Pn) beurteilt werden. Bezüglich des Typings sollte die aktuelle WHO-Klassifikation Berücksichtigung finden [111], [526]. Das Typing hat prognostische und in einem Teil der Fälle (siehe z.B. molekulare Diagnostik und gezielte Therapieansätze) prädiktive Bedeutung. Die prognostische Bedeutung des Gradings ist nach bisherigen Daten gering; es existiert kein uniform akzeptiertes, spezifisches Gradingschema für die einzelnen Cholangiokarzinomtypen und –lokalisationen, sodass das allgemeine UICC-Gradingschema [529], ggf. gemäß der Anweisungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tumorzentren [530], angewandt werden sollte. Insbesondere extrahepatische Cholangiokarzinome neigen, vergleichbar zu exokrinen Pankreaskarzinomen zu periduktaler, lymphangischer, perineuraler und vereinzelt auch diskontinuierlich erscheinender Ausbreitung, sodass an eine in-sano-Resektion und die entsprechende histologische Aufarbeitung der gesamten Resektionsränder eine hohe Anforderung besteht. Es wird daher wegen der Bedeutung für die Tumorrekurrenz empfohlen, den genauen Abstand zum Resektionsrand (in mm) anzugeben und hierbei die ‚R0 wide‘ Definition (1mm) zu beachten.
Biliäre intraepitheliale Neoplasien (BilIN), intraduktale papilläre Neoplasien der Gallenwege (IPNB), Muzinös-zystische Neoplasien (MCN) und Adenofibrome sind benigne Läsionen, die ein unterschiedlich hohes, jedoch signifikantes, malignes Entartungspotenzial in ein Cholangiokarzinom aufweisen. Bei Vorliegen einer derartigen prämalignen Läsion ist der Dysplasiegrad (niedrig, hoch) anzugeben und durch eine entsprechend ausreichende makroskopische und histologische Aufarbeitung der Übergang in ein invasives Karzinom auszuschließen.
Auch wenn sich bei der Mehrzahl der Cholangiokarzinome keine prädisponierende Grunderkrankung eruieren lässt, bedingen chronische Lebererkrankungen und die Zirrhose, vergleichbar dem HCC, ein erhöhtes Risiko auch an einem iCCA zu erkranken. Ferner kann der Status der nichttumorösen Leber ggf. Prognose und Therapie beeinflussen und sollte daher, wenn immer er ausreichend beurteilbar ist, diagnostisch festgehalten werden.
Die Diagnose eines Cholangiokarzinoms kann bei klarer Konstellation durch die konventionelle Histologie gestellt werden.
In unklaren Fällen, insbesondere bei intrahepatischen Tumoren, soll die Diagnose durch geeignete immunhistologische und oder molekularpathologische Untersuchungen abgesichert werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
In der Regel weisen Cholangiokarzinome ein duktales Wachstumsmuster und eine typischerweise ausgeprägte tumorassoziierte Stromareaktion auf, wobei letztere beim iCCA vom „small-duct“ Typ geringer ausgebildet ist. Sowohl beim intra- als auch beim extrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinom sind jedoch seltenere histologische Subtypen bekannt, die ein hiervon abweichendes histologisches oder zytologisches Erscheinungsbild aufweisen. Die sichere Einordnung dieser Sonderformen als Cholangiokarzinom und ggf. Unterscheidung von Tumoren anderer Primärlokalisation kann zusätzliche Untersuchungen einschließlich des klinisch-bildgebenden Ausschlusses eines extrabiliären Primärtumors erfordern.
Die Immunhistologie kann die Diagnose eines Cholangiokarzinoms unterstützen, wobei es keine beweisende (liniendefinierende) immunhistologische Markerkonstellation gibt. Die Positivität für K7, K19 und CA19-9 legt eine pankreato-biliäre (d.h. eine dem exokrinen Pankreas und den Gallenwegen entsprechende) Differenzierung in der Unterscheidung von Metastasen anderer extrahepatischer Primärtumoren nahe. Ansonsten sollten die entsprechenden immunhistologischen linientypischen Nachweise der in Frage kommenden Differentialdiagnosen (bei HCC z.B. HepPar1, Arginase 1; bei anderen Adenokarzinomen die für sie typischen immunhistologischen Marker) eingesetzt werden. Sollte bei einem iCCA die Unterscheidung eines „large duct“-Subtyps von einem „small duct“-Subtyp histologisch nicht mit der gebotenen Sicherheit möglich sein, können Spezialfärbungen (Muzin-Produktion), Immunhistologie und in Ausnahmefällen auch die Molekularpathologie eine definitive Zuordnung ermöglichen.
Eine relevante klinische Fragestellung ist das sog. Adenokarzinom-Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (Adeno-CUP) der Leber [528]; hierunter versteht man ein für eine Metastasenleber typisches Bild, ohne dass sich ein extrahepatischer Primärtumor definieren lässt. Tatsächlich kann sich neben verschiedenen, nichtdetektierten, extrahepatischen Primärtumoren (v.a. Pankreas, Gastrointestinaltrakt, Lunge, Mamma) hinter einem Adeno-CUP auch ein unerkanntes iCCA verbergen. Da CUPs, die sekundär einer definitiven Typisierung zugeführt werden können, wohl auch dank zunehmend erweiterter Therapieoptionen, gegenüber CUPs, die eine Standard-Chemotherapie erhalten, eine bessere Prognose aufweisen, sollte bei klinischer Relevanz die notwendige histologische, immunhistologische und ggf. molekularpathologische Differenzialdiagnostik durchgeführt werden.
4.2.3 Molekulare Diagnostik
Cholangiokarzinome weisen potenzielle Zielstrukturen für eine molekular gesteuerte Systemtherapie auf, die im geeigneten Kontext getestet werden sollten.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Karzinome der Gallenwege und der Gallenblase können molekulare Veränderungen aufweisen, die Angriffspunkte für neue, teils zugelassene, teils in Zulassungsstudien befindliche, gezielte Therapeutika darstellen. Art und Häufigkeit der Veränderungen unterscheiden sich erheblich zwischen den verschiedenen Typen, so dass der präzisen morphologischen Typisierung auch Bedeutung für die Ausrichtung einer evtl. molekularen Testung und ggf. daraus abgeleiteten, therapeutischen Zielstruktur zukommt. Insbesondere das iCCA vom „small duct“ Subtyp zeigt derartige molekulare Veränderungen in besonders hoher Frequenz. Vor allem an spezialisierten Zentren wird zunehmend eine umfassende Testung eingesetzt, um primär therapeutisch angehbare und studiengängige Zielstrukturen zu erfassen. Die untenstehende Tabelle fasst die wichtigsten Zielstrukturen zusammen.
An dieser Stelle sei auf die detaillierte Aufarbeitung in der S1-Leitlinie "Tumorgenetik – Diagnostik im Kontext maligner Erkrankungen" verwiesen.
Tabelle 8: Molekulare Alterationen beim small duct iCCA
|
Molekulare Alteration |
Häufigkeit (%) |
Zulassung |
|
RAS-Mutation |
10-20 |
|
|
TP53-Mutation |
20–30 |
|
|
FGFR2-Translokation |
15–30 |
Zulassung |
|
IDH1/2 |
10–20 |
Zulassung |
|
ARID1A |
5–15 |
|
|
BAP1 |
5–15 |
|
|
BRAF V600E |
3–6 |
Zulassung bei anderer Entität |
|
ERBB2 |
2–3 |
Zulassung bei anderer Entität |
|
MSI-H (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) |
1-2 |
Zulassung |
|
NTRK1-3 |
<1 |
Zulassung |
|
NRG1 |
<1 |
Zulassung bei anderer Entität |
4.3 Bildgebende und endoskopische Diagnostik
4.3.1 Bildgebende und/oder endoskopische Untersuchungen zum Staging und zur Diagnosestellung eines biliären Karzinoms
Die Sonographie wird häufig zur initialen Einschätzung bei V.a. auf ein biliäres Karzinom verwendet.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Die abdominelle Sonographie wird meist initial eingesetzt zur Abklärung erhöhter Leberwerte und ist in Endemiegebieten Südostasiens Methode der Wahl zum jährlichen Screening auf biliäre Karzinome [531]. Das intrahepatische CCA ist meist iso- bis hypoechogen, gelegentlich ist zusätzlich oder bei periduktal infiltrierendem Tumorwachstum als alleiniges Merkmal eine umschriebene Gangdilatation stromaufwärts des iCCA darstellbar. In der Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) ist das Hyperenhancement uneinheitlich und abhängig von Tumorzelldichte und Fibrose des Tumors sowie Entzündung und Fibrose in der umgebenden Leber [532], [533]. In einer DEGUM-Multizenterstudie zeigte sich eine in der Tumorperipherie betonte initiale Kontrastmittelanflutung bei 75 % der iCCA, mit früh-portalvenöser Auswaschung vor allem im Tumorzentrum bei 85,8 % und Auswaschung in der Spätphase bei 92,9 % [534]. Das iCCA zeigt im Unterschied zum HCC häufig ein früh (< 60 Sekunden) beginnendes, deutlich ausgeprägtes Auswaschen. In älteren Studien war die Pfortaderinfiltration mit hoher Genauigkeit darstellbar [535]. Die Darstellung von Gallenblasenpolypen gelingt mit dem Ultraschall mit relativ hoher Genauigkeit, die Differenzierung von malignen und nichtmalignen Polypen wird in einem 2018 publiziertem Cochrane-Review mit einer Sensitivität von 79 % und Spezifität von 89 % angegeben [536].
Neben der mittels Ultraschalles geäußerten Verdachtsdiagnose auf ein iCCA handelt es sich auch oft um einen Zufallsbefund in aus anderen Gründen durchgeführten bildgebenden Untersuchungen. Die bildgebenden Merkmale der iCCA sind oft suggestiv für die Diagnose, aber nicht definitiv genug, um eine Biopsie überflüssig zu machen (siehe Abbildung: Diagnosealgorithmus eines Patienten mit Verdacht auf ein cholangiozelluläres Karzinom).
Ein typisches kontrastverstärktes CT-Protokoll für die Diagnose und das initiale Staging eines Cholangiokarzinoms umfasst eine arterielle Phase (20-30 Sekunden nach der Injektion), eine portalvenöse Phase (60 Sekunden nach der Injektion) und eine Spätphase (mindestens 3 Minuten nach der Injektion) [537], [538], [539]. CT-morphologisch ist das typische Erscheinungsbild eine hypodense Leberraumforderung mit unregelmäßigen Rändern in der nativen Phase, einem hypervaskulären Saum in der arteriellen Phase und ein zunehmendes Enhancement in der venösen Phase und den Spätphasen [540]. Mittels CT kann auch der Grad der biliären Obstruktion, der Kapselretraktion oder der hepatischen Atrophie erkannt werden. Die dynamische CT-Untersuchung kann bei der Unterscheidung zwischen iCCA und HCC helfen. Bis zu 81 % der iCCA sind durch eine progressive Kontrastmittelaufnahme von der arteriellen zur venösen Phase und insbesondere in der Spätphase gekennzeichnet. Dieser Effekt kann auf eine Fibrose zurückzuführen sein, die das intravenöse Kontrastmittel zurückhält. Im Gegensatz dazu ist das HCC durch eine arterielle Hypervaskularisation während der arteriellen Phase und einem Auswaschen in der venösen Phase oder in der Spätphase charakterisiert. Einige kleine iCCA können aber auch eine arterielle Hypervaskularisation aufweisen und können hierdurch ein Hepatozelluläres Karzinom imitieren [541], [542]. Die arterielle Phase hilft nicht nur bei der diagnostischen Unterscheidung zwischen einem HCC und einem iCCA sondern auch bei der klareren Abgrenzung der vaskulären Anatomie vor der chirurgischen Resektion [537], [538], [539].
Im Vergleich zur MRT ist die kontrastverstärkte CT nur begrenzt in der Lage, die Ausbreitung des Tumors entlang der Gallengänge zu erkennen [543]. Die MRT zeichnet sich bei dieser Aufgabe durch ihren überlegenen Weichteilkontrast aus und gilt daher als das bildgebende Verfahren der Wahl für die Diagnose und das lokale Staging des Cholangiokarzinoms. Ihre Genauigkeit ist vergleichbar mit der Genauigkeit der kontrastverstärkten CT und der direkten Cholangiographie in Kombination [543]. Ein optimales Protokoll für die Beurteilung von Cholangiokarzinomen sollte MRCP, konventionelle T1- und T2-gewichtete abdominelle MRT-Sequenzen (einschließlich T1 „in- und out-of-phase“ Bildgebung), diffusionsgewichtete Bildgebung (DWI) und mehrphasige kontrastverstärkte Sequenzen in der arteriellen, portalen, venösen und verzögerten Phasen beinhalten [539], [543]. Die dynamischen Sequenzen können zu vorher festgelegten Zeitpunkten oder mittels Bolus-Tracking-Technik angefertigt werden [539]. In der MRT erscheinen iCCA in nativen T1-gewichteten Sequenzen hypointens und auf T2-gewichteten Sequenzen hyperintens [544], [545], [546]. In T2-gewichteten Bildern kann sich auch eine zentrale Hypointensität zeigen, die einem Fibrosegebiet entspricht. Dynamische kontrastverstärkte Sequenzen zeigen eine periphere Hyperintensität in der arteriellen Phase, gefolgt von einer progressiven und konzentrischen Auffüllung des Tumors mit Kontrastmittel. Das Kontrastmittelpooling in der Spätphase ist ein Hinweis auf eine Fibrose und deutet auf ein iCCA hin.
Die Magnetresonanztomographie mit Cholangio-Pankreatikographie (MRT/MRCP) ist hilfreich, um das Gallengangssystem und die Gefäßstrukturen zu visualisieren und dadurch die anatomische Ausdehnung des Tumors genauer zu bestimmen. Die MRCP ist eine kontrastfreie MR-Technik. Hierbei wird der T2-gewichtete Kontrast zwischen Galle (langes T2) und angrenzendem Gewebe (kurzes T2) durch die Verwendung stark T2-gewichteter Sequenzen akzentuiert. Die dünne Multi-Slice-MRCP ermöglicht eine hochauflösende Visualisierung über dreidimensionale Bilddatensätze [543]. Im Gegensatz zur endoskopischen retrograden Cholangiopankreatikographie ist die MRCP nichtinvasiv und erlaubt die Visualisierung der Gallenwege proximal einer Obstruktion [539]. In Vorbereitung auf die MRCP sollen die Patienten mindestens 4 Stunden lang fasten, um die Darmperistaltik und Magensekretion zu minimieren und die Gallenblasenauftreibung zu maximieren. Negative Kontrastmittel können hinzugefügt werden, um das Flüssigkeitssignal im Magen und Zwölffingerdarm zu reduzieren. Die DWI kann die MRCP bei der Erkennung von Tumoren in erweiterten oder verschlossenen Gallengängen unterstützen, wenn eine Kontrastmittelinjektion nicht möglich ist [543]. Es ist gut dokumentiert, dass die DWI die diagnostische Sensitivität der MRT für das Cholangiokarzinom erhöht. Frühere Studien haben eine Überlappung der dynamischen Kontrastverstärkungsmuster von kleinen raumfordernden intrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinomen (< 3 cm) und Hepatozellulären Karzinomen dokumentiert [525], [531], [547], [548]. In solchen Fällen kann eine diffusionsgewichtete Bildgebung, die bei einer Anzahl verschiedener b-Werte im Bereich von 0- 800 s/mm² durchgeführt wird, helfen, das iCCA von HCC zu unterscheiden [549], [550], [551], [552]. In ähnlicher Weise kann die DW-MRT helfen, benigne von malignen Strikturen zu unterscheiden, was für die Diagnose periduktal infiltrierender Subtypen des iCCAs von entscheidender Bedeutung ist [539], [553]. Im Allgemeinen tendieren die ADC-Werte von iCCAs dazu, signifikant niedriger zu sein als die des benachbarten normalen Leberparenchyms, wie es bei den meisten bösartigen Lebertumoren der Fall ist. Die Dokumentation einer Reihe von ADC-Werten, die spezifisch für iCCAs sind, wurde durch die große Variabilität der berichteten ADC-Werte eingeschränkt. Diese Variabilität, die weitgehend auf technische Unterschiede der Bild-Akquirierung zurückzuführen ist, hat Forscher veranlasst, sich für die Verwendung normalisierter ADC-Werte zur optimalen quantitativen Charakterisierung von Leberläsionen, einschließlich des iCCA, einzusetzen. Studien haben dennoch gezeigt, dass die DW-MRI im Vergleich zu anderen MRT-Sequenzen trotz der hohen Varianz der b-Werte eine hohe diagnostische Genauigkeit für iCCAs aufweist. In einer Studie waren alle Cholangiokarzinome bei b=0 s/mm² sichtbar, und die Mehrheit blieb bei der DW-MRT bei steigenden b-Werten hyperintens, was darauf hindeutet, dass die Verwendung des früheren b-Wertes in MR-Protokollen zur Erkennung von Cholangiokarzinomen in Betracht gezogen werden sollte. Dieselbe Studie legte nahe, dass die Normalisierung auf das Leber-Hintergrundparenchym zu einer minimalen Variabilität der ADC-Werte im Vergleich zu anderen Indexorganen wie der Milz führte [550], [551]. Der Grad der Diffusionsbeschränkung im DW-MRI kann als somit unabhängiger präoperativer prognostischer Marker bei Patienten mit iCCA dienen. In einer anderen Studie zeigten Patienten, bei denen weniger als ein Drittel des Tumors eine Diffusionsrestriktion aufwies, im Vergleich zu Patienten, bei denen mehr als ein Drittel des Tumors eine Diffusionsrestriktion aufwies, ein fortgeschritteneres baseline TNM-Stadium, eine häufigere lymphatische Invasion und Lymphknotenmetastasen sowie eine häufigere stromale Metaplasie. Sowohl das krankheitsfreie als auch das Gesamtüberleben waren in der ersten Patientengruppe im Vergleich zur zweiten Gruppe signifikant niedriger [539], [554], [555].
Zur initialen Diagnostik und zum Staging bei kurativer Intention eines Cholangiokarzinoms sollen eine dynamische hepatische MRT-Untersuchung sowie ein mehrphasisches kontrastverstärktes CT des Thorax und des Abdomens* vorliegen.
*Wenn komplettes MRT-Abdomen vorliegt, muss kein CT des Abdomens ergänzt werden. CT der Leber in spätaterieller Phase und zusätzlich Abdomen in portalvenöser Phase.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- 1
- Konsens
- Konsens
- Literatur
- [556]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA - maximale Ausbreitung des TumorsDie Rolle der 18F-FDG-PET bei der Diagnose und dem Staging von Patienten von ICCAs wurde bis dato kontrovers diskutiert. In einer neuen Metaanalyse wurde die Rolle der 18F-FDG-PET für Staging und Re-Staging bei insgesamt 2125 Patienten aus 47 Studien untersucht [557]. Die Sensitivität und Spezifität der 18F-FDG-PET in der Initialdiagnose betrug je 91,7 % (95% CI: 89,8; 93,2) bzw. 51,3 % (95% CI: 46,4; 56,2); für einen Lymphknotenbefall lag die Sensitivität bei 88,4 % (95% CI: 82,6; 92,8) und die Spezifität bei 69,1 % (95% CI: 63,8; 74,1); für das Vorliegen von Fernmetastasen lag die Sensitivität bei 85,4 % (95% CI: 79,5; 90,2) und die Spezifität bei 89,7 % (95% CI: 86,0; 92,7). Bei einem Verdacht auf ein Rezidiv betrug die Sensitivität 90,1 % (95% CI: 84,4; 94,3) und die Spezifität 83,5 % (95% CI: 74,4; 90,4). Somit weisen diese aktualisierten Daten darauf hin, dass der Einsatz von 18F-FDG-PET für das Staging (Lymphknoten und Fernmetastasen) und die Identifizierung von Rezidiven bei selektierten Patienten mit CCA für die Therapiestratifizierung sinnvoll sein kann, insbesondere wenn die Identifizierung okkulter Krankheitsherde das therapeutische Vorgehen verändern würde oder wenn die Diagnose eines Rezidivs nach der Standard-Bildgebung weiterhin unklar bleibt. Insofern kann der Einsatz der 18F-FDG-PET bei CCA nach interdisziplinären Tumorboardempfehlung für Staging und Re-Staging indiziert sein.
4.3.2 Untersuchungsmethoden zur Darstellung der maximalen Ausbreitung des Tumors
Für die Erfassung der maximalen Ausbreitung des Tumors inklusive Gefäßinvasion soll, wenn eine kurative Behandlungsoption besteht, mindestens ein dynamisches kontrastverstärktes MRT eingesetzt werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Insbesondere vor kurativen Resektionen oder minimalinvasiven interventionellen Therapien sind eine exakte Erfassung der maximalen Ausbreitung des Tumors sowie der Bezug zu allen anatomisch wichtigen Strukturen unabdingbar.
Die MRT zeichnet sich bei dieser Aufgabe durch ihren überlegenen Weichteilkontrast aus und gilt daher als das bildgebende Verfahren der Wahl für die Diagnose der maximalen Ausdehnung des Cholangiokarzinoms [543]. Ein optimales Protokoll für die Beurteilung der maximalen Ausdehnung des Cholangiokarzinomen sollte MRCP, konventionelle T1- und T2-gewichtete abdominelle MRT-Sequenzen (einschließlich T1 „in- und out-of-phase“ Bildgebung), diffusionsgewichtete Bildgebung (DWI) und mehrphasige kontrastverstärkte Sequenzen in der arteriellen, portalen, venösen und verzögerten Phase beinhalten [539], [543]. Für die weiteren Details siehe bitte auch das Kapitel „Welche bildgebenden und/oder endoskopischen Untersuchungen müssen zum Staging und zur Diagnose eines biliären Karzinoms durchgeführt werden?“. Neben dem Einsatz der MRCP und diffusionsgewichteter MRT-Sequenzen kann die Nachkontrastdarstellung mit traditionellen, extrazellulären Kontrastmitteln auf Gadoliniumbasis (Gd-DTPA) oder Derivaten wie Gadoliniummethoxybenzyldiethylentriamin-Penta-Essigsäure (Gd-EOB-DTPA) genauere Informationen bezüglich der Tumorausdehnung liefern.
Gd-EOB-DTPA kombiniert die Eigenschaften eines herkömmlichen extrazellulären Kontrastmittels auf Gadoliniumbasis mit denen von hepatozytenspezifischen Kontrastmitteln. Frühere Studien haben die Überlegenheit von Gd-EOB-DTPA beim Nachweis und bei der Charakterisierung von Leberläsionen bei Patienten mit diffusen Lebererkrankungen dokumentiert. Da die Nachkontrastsignalintensität der Leber bei Verwendung hepatozytenspezifischer Kontrastmittel wie Gd-EOB-DTPA im Vergleich zu herkömmlichen extrazellulären Kontrastmitteln auf Gadoliniumbasis höher ist, werden Cholangiokarzinome sowohl bei frühen als auch bei verzögerten Phasensequenzen als hypointens sichtbar [558]. Dadurch entsteht ein scharfer Kontrast zwischen der Läsion und dem Leberhintergrund, was eine genauere Beurteilung der Tumorausdehnung sowie das Vorhandensein assoziierter Satellitenläsionen ermöglicht, die in 10-20n% der Fälle von metastasiertem CCA gesehen werden [558]. Die erhöhte Sichtbarkeit von Cholangiokarzinomen in dieser Umgebung ist besonders hilfreich für Patienten mit einem Hintergrund diffuser Lebererkrankungen, bei denen metastasierte CCA nach Verabreichung traditioneller extrazellulärer Kontrastmittel auf Gadoliniumbasis atypische Enhancement-Muster aufweisen können [539], [559]. Bei der Gd-EOB-DTPA können auch die relative Signalintensität der Leber und die Sichtbarkeit der Gallenwege auf der hepatobiliären Phase als quantifizierbare Surrogatmarker der Gallenfunktion dienen. Gd-EOB-DTPA wird von Hepatozyten aufgenommen und in das Gallensystem ausgeschieden. Eine verminderte Signalintensität der Hintergrundleber und eine verringerte Sichtbarkeit der Gallenwege in der hepatobiliären Phase weisen auf eine gestörte Gallenfunktion hin und korrelieren quantitativ mit dem Gesamtbilirubinspiegel und könnten somit ein ergänzender Leberfunktionsparameter vor ausgedehnten Resektionen sein [558].
4.3.3 Diagnostikalgorithmus
Bei Verdachtsdiagnose auf ein Cholangiokarzinom soll eine Schnittbildgebung zur Beurteilung der Tumorausdehnung verwendet werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- 1
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [556]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA - maximale Ausbreitung des TumorsDie Diagnose eines Cholangiokarzinoms basiert auf kontrastverstärkten bildgebenden Untersuchungen und histologischen Analysen. Der Diagnosealgorithmus eines Patienten mit Verdacht auf ein Cholangiokarzinom ist in der Abbildung 5 dargestellt. Aufgrund der erhöhten Ansprüche bezüglich der lokalen Tumorausdehnung wird nach dem Staging des Thorax sowie Abdomens mittels CT ein je nach Subtyp spezifiziertes MRT präoperativ empfohlen.
Bei unklaren Befunden in der Schnittbildgebung hinsichtlich der Tumorausbreitung präoperativ oder Rezidivverdacht kann ein FDG-PET/CT nach Empfehlung durch das interdisziplinäre Tumorboard durchgeführt werden.
- Konsens
- Konsens
In ihrer 2019 publizierten Metaanalyse [557] hat Lamarca et al. den zusätzlichen Nutzen der Positronenemissionstomographie (PET) mit dem Glukoseanalogon [18F]FDG (FDG) bei Patienten mit Cholangiokarzinom untersucht. Insgesamt fasst diese Übersichtsarbeit 47 Studien mit 2125 Patienten zusammen. Hierbei betrug die Sensitivität / Spezifizität der FDG-PET für die richtige Diagnose des Primarius 91,7 % / 51,3 %, für die Detektion einer Lymphknotenmetastasierung 88,4 % / 69,1 % bzw. einer Fernmetastasierung 85,4 % / 89,7 %. Im Falle eines Rezidivs lag die Sensitivität bei 90,1 % und die Spezifizität bei 83,5 %. Die Autoren berichteten, dass die Ergebnisse der zusätzlichen FDG-PET bei 15 % der Patienten zu einer Änderung der Behandlung führten, was vorwiegend auf ein Upstaging bei 78 % der Patienten zurückzuführen war. In einer kürzlich publizierten retrospektiven Analyse konnte Kiefer et al. [560] nachweisen, dass die FDG-PET/CT bei Patienten mit CCA in 35 von 43 (81,4 %) der Fälle zu einer Veränderung der geplanten Behandlung, in 27 von 43 (62,8 %) zu einer wesentliche Veränderung im therapeutischen Konzept (Nicht-Behandlung vs. Behandlung bzw. kurativer vs. palliativer Ansatz) führte. Insofern kann der Einsatz der FDG-PET als Entscheidungshilfe bei der weiteren Therapiestratifizierung (OP vs. palliative Behandlung) bzw. zur Bestätigung eines Krankheitsrückfalls dienen, wenn die Diagnose nach der Standardbildgebung mit Ultraschall, CT oder MRT unklar bleibt, so dass der Einsatz der FDG-PET nach entsprechender Beratung im interdisziplinären Tumorboard in ausgewählten Fällen empfohlen werden kann.
4.3.4 Endoskopische Diagnostik
Der endoskopische Ultraschall kann zur Diagnose, lokalem Staging und Gewebegewinnung beim biliären Karzinom verwendet werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- 0: offene Empfehlung (Option) bzgl. einer Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = kann
- Evidenzlevel
- 1
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [561]
Evidenztabellen (2)
CCA - maximale Ausbreitung des Tumors; CCA - Verfahren zur histologischen SicherungDie endosonographiegestützte Feinnadelaspirationszytologie (EUS-FNA) hatte in einer Metaanalyse von 6 Studien, die z.T. auch PSC-Patienten einschlossen, eine Sensitivität von 66 % und eine Spezifität von 100 % für die Diagnose eines CCA [551]. Auch bei Fehlen einer Läsion in der Schnittbildgebung konnte noch eine Sensitivität von 45 % erreicht werden. Bei Patienten mit negativer Bürstenzytologie konnte aus drei Studien eine Sensitivität von 59 % (Spezifität 100 %) errechnet werden. Damit ist die EUS-FNA eine valide Methode auch und insbesondere dann, wenn eine histologische Bestätigung erforderlich ist. Einschränkend sei eine Studie erwähnt, bei der von 191 Patienten i.R. eines neoadjuvanten Therapieprotokolls vor Lebertransplantation bei 16 eine perkutane (n = 13) oder EUS-gesteuerte (n = 3) Gewebegewinnung erfolgte [562]. Bei fünf von sechs Patienten mit definitiv maligner Histologie traten peritoneale (Stichkanal-)Metastasen auf (die Verteilung perkutan vs. EUS-FNA ist nicht aufgeführt, vs. 14/175 ohne Biopsie). Dies konnte in einer jüngeren Studie an 150 Patienten, von denen 61 präoperativ EUS-gesteuert biopsiert worden waren, nicht nachvollzogen werden [563].
Wenn im Rahmen einer ERCP der V.a. ein extrahepatisches Cholangiokarzinom gestellt wird, sollte im Rahmen einer ERCP eine Zangenbiospie oder eine Bürstenzytologie entnommen werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA - Verfahren zur histologischen SicherungDie endoskopische Bürstenzytologie während der ERC hat in verschiedenen Studien eine Sensitivität von 30-78 % [564], [565], [566] (Anm: Review, höchste und niedrigste Sensitivität, bei gleichen Werten jeweils neueste) und eine Spezifität von 90-100 % [567], [568]. Der positive Prädiktivwert lag bei 94-100 %, der negative Prädiktivwert jedoch nur bei 8-62 % [568], [569]. In einer Metaanalyse zu Studien, die die Bürstenzytologie und die transpapilläre Biopsie verglichen, betrug die kombinierte Sensitivität und Spezifität der Bürstenzytologie zur Diagnose einer malignen Gallengangsstenose 45 % (95% CI: 40-50%) und 99 % (98-100 %) [525]. Bei Patienten mit PSC war in einer Metaanalyse zu 11 retrospektiven und prospektiven Studien mit insgesamt 747 Patienten die Sensitivität der Bürstenzytologie für ein CCA 43 % (35-52 %), die Spezifität 97 % (95-98 %) [570]. Damit sichert die Bürstenzytologie im Falle eines Nachweises die Diagnose eines biliären Karzinoms, ist jedoch bei negativer Histologie nicht zum Ausschluss eines biliären Karzinoms geeignet.
Die endobiliäre, transpapilläre Zangenbiopsie während der ERC hat in verschiedenen Studien eine Sensitivität von 29-81 % [564], [571], [572] und eine Spezifität von 90-100 % [573], [574]. Der positive Prädiktivwert lag bei 94-100 % [573], [574], der negative Prädiktivwert jedoch nur bei 31-81 % [573], [574].
In der bereits oben aufgeführten Metaanalyse [525] war die kombinierte Sensitivität und Spezifität der transpapillären Biopsie zur Diagnose einer malignen Gallengangsstenose 48,1% (95% CI: 42,8-53,4 %) und 99,2 % (97,6-99,8 %), lag somit geringgradig höher als die der Bürstenzytologie. Die diagnostische Genauigkeit ist für CCAs etwas höher als für das Pankreaskarzinom, am ehesten aufgrund des oberflächlicheren, somit besser zugänglichen Tumorwachstums des CCA. Ähnlich wie für die Bürstenzytologie gilt für die Zangenbiopsie, dass bei positiver Histologie die Diagnose eines biliären Karzinoms zwar gesichert ist, bei negativer Histologie jedoch nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann. Gallengangsperforationen durch die Zangenbiopsien wurden beschrieben [575], [576], jedoch insgesamt nur selten berichtet.
Die Kombination von Bürstenzytologie und transpapillärer endobiliärer Zangenbiopsie wurde in 6 Studien untersucht [525]. Sie kann die Sensitivität der Diagnose einer malignen Striktur mit einer kombinierten Sensitivität von 59,4 % (53,7-64,8 %) erreichen, die Spezifität bleibt hoch (100 % (98,8-100,0 %)). Somit wird die diagnostische Genauigkeit durch die Kombination beider Verfahren zur Histologiegewinnung gesteigert, jedoch nicht in dem Maße, dass ein Ausschluss eines Karzinoms durch die Histologie in sicherer Weise möglich ist.
Bei V.a. ein extrahepatisches Cholangiokarzinom kann durch Einsatz der Cholangioskopie in Kombination mit visuell gezielter Biopsie die Sensitivität der Diagnose gesteigert werden.
- Evidenzlevel
- 1
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [577]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA - Verfahren zur histologischen SicherungDie meisten Studien zum Einsatz der Cholangioskopie verwendeten die Single-Operator-Cholangioskopie (mit SpyGlass®). In einer systematischen Übersicht [577] wurden insgesamt 10 Studien identifiziert, die die Cholangioskopie mit visuell-endoskopisch gezielter Biopsieentnahme bei Gallengangsstrikturen evaluierten. Die kombinierte Sensitivität der so gewonnenen Histologie zur Diagnose maligner Strikturen war 60,1 % (95% CI: 54,9-65,2 %) bei einer Spezifität von 98,0 % (96,0-99,0%). Etwas bessere Werte ergaben sich, wenn nur die Biopsien bei CCA ausgewertet wurden (Sensitivität 66,2 % (59,7-72,3 %), Spezifität 97,0 % (94,0-99,0 %)).
Die Hinzunahme des visuell-endoskopischen Eindrucks konnte die Sensitivität erheblich steigern (84,5 % (79,2-88,9 %)), allerdings zulasten der Spezifität (82,6 % (77,1-87,3 %)). Letztlich sind die endoskopischen Kriterien für Malignität nicht abschließend evaluiert, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund entzündlicher Veränderungen (z.B. bei PSC). Interessant ist der Einsatz der Cholangioskopie bei Strikturen mit zuvor nicht eindeutiger Histologie durch Bürste u./o. Biopsie: Hier konnte dennoch mit einer Sensitivität von 67,3 % (52,5-80,1 %) und Spezifität von 93,3 % (83,1-98,7 %) ein CCA diagnostiziert werden. Bei direktem Vergleich zwischen Bürstenzytologie, Zangenbiopsie und Cholangioskopie mit Biopsieentnahme war die Cholangioskopie den beiden anderen Verfahren in Sensitivität, Genauigkeit und negativem Prädiktivwert signifikant überlegen [571].
Der Einsatz der nächsten Gerätegeneration oder die Verwendung der direkten peroralen Cholangioskopie könnte theoretisch sowohl die endoskopische Visualisierung als auch die Größe und Anzahl der Biopsien verbessern. Hierzu liegen noch keine vergleichenden Studien mit älteren Cholangioskopen vor. Eine 2019 publizierte Studie hat randomisiert die konventionelle Bürstenzytologie-Entnahme mit der digitalen Cholangioskopie mit visuell gestützter Biopsie verglichen. Hier war die Sensitivität der Cholangioskopie-gesteuerten Biopsie signifikant höher als die der Bürstenzytologie (68,2 % vs. 21,4 %), ebenfalls die Sensitivität der visuellen Einschätzung (95,5 % vs. 66,7 %) und die Genauigkeit insgesamt (87,1 % vs. 65,5 %) bei allerdings nicht gesteigertem PPV (positiv predictive value) und NPV (negativ predictive value) [578]. Zusätzliche Methoden zur Verbesserung der Visualisierung biliärer Veränderungen, wie die Chromoendoskopie, virtuelle Chromoendoskopie oder die Verwendung sondenbasierter Endomikroskopiesysteme, sind in Einzelstudien gut evaluiert, jedoch nicht in der Routinediagnostik verfügbar. Grundsätzlich sind all die genannten Verfahren der Bürstenzytologie, Biopsie und Cholangioskopie auch perkutan, z.B. über einen PTCD-Zugang, einsetzbar.
Patienten mit primär sklerosierender Cholangitis und Erstmanifestation einer dominanten Stenose sollen mittels MRT/MRCP und ERCP/Histologie weiter abgeklärt werden.
Bei weiterbestehendem Verdacht auf ein CCA trotz negativer Diagnostik sollte eine kurzfristige erneute Reevaluation, ggf. mit Wiederholung der Untersuchungen, oder bei therapeutischer Relevanz eine Klärung im Rahmen einer explorativen Laparotomie erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Konsens
Zur Überwachung von Patienten mit PSC darf auf die „S2k-LL Autoimmune Lebererkrankungen“ [520] der DGVS verwiesen werden, die schreibt: „Die Unterscheidung der benignen von der malignen Stenose ist eines der klinisch relevantesten Probleme bei Patienten mit PSC. Es sollten möglichst verschiedene Verfahren angewendet werden, um den Verdacht eines CCA weitestgehend zu bestätigen oder auszuschließen. Eine Cholangioskopie wird von einigen Zentren insbesondere zur gezielten Gewebeentnahme favorisiert. Auch eine Wiederholung bereits erfolgter Untersuchungen erzielt in manchen Fällen eine Diagnosesicherung.“ Eine ausführliche Aufstellung zur Genauigkeit der Bürstenzytologie zur Diagnose des CCA bei Patienten mit PSC in Einzelstudien und in Reviews findet sich außerdem in der ESGE-Leitlinie „Role of Endoscopy in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis“ [579] (Tabellen 6+7), zusammenfassend s.unter Kapitel Bürstenzytologie. Interessant ist, dass in einer deutschen Studie bei Patienten mit PSC diejenigen Patienten, die eine regelmäßige Dilatation dominanter Stenosen erhielten, mit 5,3 % (n = 7) zwar nicht signifikant (p = 0,1), aber möglicherweise doch relevant seltener ein CCA entwickelten als die Patienten, die nur bei Beschwerden dilatiert wurden, mit 9,8 % (n = 15) [555]. Ob dies ein Effekt der verminderten Anzahl von Cholangitis-Episoden ist (im Sinne einer Unterbrechung der Inflammations-Karzinom-Sequenz), muss abgewartet werden.
Bei hochgradigem Verdacht auf ein biliäres Karzinom (iCCA, pCCA, dCCA) und als resektabel eingeschätztem Befund muss eine histologische Sicherung nicht regelhaft präoperativ erfolgen, da ein fehlender Tumornachweis in der Histologie/Zytologie aufgrund der niedrigen Sensitivität das therapeutische Vorgehen nicht verändert. Häufig wird die Erstdiagnose eines pCCA oder dCCA bei der ERC zur Ableitung bei Cholestase gestellt, dann kann ggf. eine Bürstenzytologie u./o. Zangenbiopsie zur Histologiegewinnung eingesetzt werden. Sensitivität und Spezifität der Verfahren zur histologischen Sicherung in Studien war in hohem Maße abhängig von der Prätestwahrscheinlichkeit der Studienpopulation (z.B. PSC- vs. non-PSC-Patienten, Patienten mit unklarer Striktur vs. Patienten mit jeglicher Striktur, symptomatische vs. asymptomatische Striktur, nur dCCA vs. dCCA und Papillen- und Pankreaskarzinom). Bei unklaren Befunden kann die Cholangioskopie mit endoskopisch-visuell gezielter Biopsieentnahme eingesetzt werden, die die diagnostische Ausbeute erhöht (s.u.).
Bei Verdacht auf IgG4-assoziierte Cholangitis kann die bioptische Sicherung die probatorische Einleitung einer spezifischen Therapie begründen. Bei Patienten mit PSC empfiehlt die DGVS-Leitlinie „Autoimmune Lebererkrankungen“ bei dominanter Stenose eine histologische Sicherung, bei weiterhin bestehendem Verdacht auf ein CCA trotz negativer Histologie eine kurzfristige Reevaluation [520]. Vor Einleitung einer palliativen Chemotherapie ist die histologische Sicherung der Tumorentität erforderlich, die im Rahmen einer ERC oder durch perkutane oder endosonographische Punktion erfolgen kann (s.u.). Ob in Zukunft der Einsatz neoadjuvanter (Chemo-)Therapieansätze häufiger eine histologische Sicherung auch bei resektablem Befund erforderlich machen wird, bleibt aktuell ebenso spekulativ wie das Potenzial repetitiver Biopsien zur Identifikation eines molekular gestützten Therapieansatzes in der palliativen Situation.
Hinsichtlich der histopathologischen Sicherung s. auch das Kapitel „Histopathologische und molekulare Diagnostik“.
4.4 Operative und interventionelle Therapieverfahren
4.4.1 Resektion
Eine Resektion eines pCCA, dCCA oder iCCA soll erfolgen, wenn eine komplette Resektion (R0-Resektion) möglich erscheint.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Die radikale chirurgische Entfernung allen Tumorgewebes stellt gegenwärtig die einzige kurative Behandlung des nicht fernmetastasierten iCCA und pCCA dar. Multifokalität (bei iCCA), Lymphknotenmetastasen (N1) und eine Gefäßinvasion sind die wichtigsten prognoserelevante Faktoren, stellen jedoch keine Kontraindikation dar, sofern eine R0-Resektion erreichbar scheint [580], [581], [582], [583], [584], [585], [586]. Häufig erfordert die chirurgische Behandlung von iCCA und pCCA ausgedehnte Leberresektionen [587], [588], [589]. Postoperativ sollte eine adjuvante Therapie erfolgen (siehe BILCAP-Studie (Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer)) [590]. Bei initial irresektablem oder sogenanntem borderline-resektablem iCCA kann nach einer Downsizing Therapie eine Resektion erwogen werden [591].
Eine Resektion eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms soll erfolgen, wenn klinisch keine Fernmetastasen vorliegen (cM0) und eine komplette Resektion (R0-Resektion) möglich erscheint.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Die langfristige Prognose des Galleblasenkarzinoms ist insgesamt sehr schlecht, mit einer 5-Jahre-Überlebensrate zwischen 5-15 %. Wenn der Krebs jedoch in einem frühen Stadium erkannt und angemessen behandelt wird, können 5-Jahres-Überlebensraten von 75 % erreicht werden [592], [593]. Es besteht ein internationaler Konsens darüber, dass die R0-Resektion der stärkste prognostische Faktor für das Langzeitergebnis und die Heilungschancen bei Patienten mit Gallenblasenkarzinom ist [593]. In diesem Zusammenhang bestimmt die Tiefe der Invasion durch die Gallenblasenwand die chirurgische Standardbehandlung des Gallenblasenkarzinoms [592], [593], [594].
Bei Tis- und T1a-Tumoren ist eine Cholezystektomie ohne weitere Resektion erforderlich [593]. Beim Gallenblasenkarzinom der Kategorie ab T1b ist eine zusätzliche Leberresektion mit systematischer Lymphadenektomie indiziert, sofern der Patient für die Operation geeignet ist. Sowohl die Gallenblasenbettresektion, als auch die Segmentresektion IVb und V sind ein onkologisch akzeptables Verfahren, vorausgesetzt, es wird eine R0-Resektion durchgeführt. Eine erweiterte Hepatektomie ist in der Regel bei Patienten mit lokal fortgeschrittenem Tumor mit biliärer und vaskulärer Beteiligung erforderlich, um eine R0-Resektion zu erreichen [592], [593].
Eine routinemäßige Resektion der Hauptgallengänge ist weder indiziert noch empfohlen, da sie die postoperative Morbidität erhöht, die Anzahl der entfernten Lymphknoten nicht erhöht und nicht mit einer Verbesserung des Gesamtüberlebens assoziiert ist. Eine Gallengangsresektion ist nur in Fällen indiziert, in denen ein positiver zystischer Ductusrand zum Zeitpunkt der ursprünglichen Resektion beseitigt werden muss, bei Gallenblasenkrebs mit direkter Infiltration des hepatoduodenalen Ligaments und in Fällen mit intensiver postoperativer Fibrose mit signifikanter Lymphadenopathie des hepatoduodenalen Ligaments, um eine adäquate Lymphadenektomie zu ermöglichen [593].
Beim Gallenblasenkarzinom der Kategorie ≥1b erfordert die "Standard"-Lymphknotendissektion die Entnahme von mindestens 6 Lymphknoten und umfasst N1 (zystische 12c, pericholedochale 12b, Hilusknoten 12h, Knoten der eigentlichen Leberarterie 12a) und N2 (peripankreatische 13a, periportale 12p, periduktale und gemeinsame Leberarterie). Eine Skelettierung der Leberarterie, der Pfortader und des Gallenganges wird empfohlen. Das Befallen von Lymphknoten aus Truncus coeliacus und para-aortal, sollte als M1-Krankheit betrachtet werden, und die Entnahme dieser Lymphknoten ist nicht mit einem verbesserten Überleben assoziiert [593].
Wird bei einer Cholezystektomie intra- oder postoperativ ein Carcinoma in situ (Tis) oder ein Mukosakarzinom (T1a) festgestellt, sollte bei Vorliegen einer R0-Situation (D. cysticus) keine Nachresektion erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Das inzidentelle Gallenblasenkarzinom ist definiert als ein Karzinom, das bei der histologischen Untersuchung der Probe nach Standard-Cholezystektomie entdeckt wird, da frühe Gallenblasenkarzinome keine spezifischen Symptome aufweisen. Das inzidentelle Gallenblasenkarzinom repräsentiert etwa 70 % der Gallenblasenkarzinome in nichtendemischen Gebieten und tritt zwischen 0,2 % und 3 % der Patienten auf, die sich einer Cholezystektomie unterziehen.
Ein Gallenblasenkarzinom der Kategorie T1a ist definiert als Karzinom, das auf die Schleimhaut beschränkt ist, und T1b als Karzinom, das auf die Muscularis-Schleimhaut beschränkt ist. Patienten mit einem auf die Schleimhaut beschränkten Karzinom (T1a oder weniger) zeigten 5-Jahres-Überlebensraten von bis zu 100 % nach alleiniger Cholezystektomie. Deshalb wird bei Patienten mit inzidentellem Gallenblasenkarzinom der Kategorie Tis und T1a eine einfache Cholezystektomie empfohlen. Eine erweiterte Resektion ist nicht erforderlich. [592], [593], [595]
Bei intra- oder postoperativem Nachweis eines Gallenblasenkarzinoms der Kategorie ≥ T1b, soll bei kurativem Ansatz eine onkologische Resektion oder Nachresektion erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Aktuelle Leitlinien für die Behandlung von inzidentellen Gallenblasenkarzinomen empfehlen eine Nachresektion bei T1b-, T2- und T3-Läsionen, es sei denn, dies ist durch eine fortgeschrittene Erkrankung oder einem schlechten Allgemeinzustandes des Patienten kontraindiziert [593], [596].
Es besteht Konsens, dass die R0-Resektion der stärkste prognostische Faktor für das Langzeitergebnis und die Heilungschancen bei Patienten mit Gallenblasenkarzinom ist [593], [597]. Diesbezüglich zeigten Lee et al. in einer multivariaten Analyse bei Patienten mit einem T1b-Tumor, dass die R1/R2-Resektion und die Lymphknotenmetastasierung eine schlechte Prognose signifikant vorhersagten, wobei die 1-Jahres-Überlebensrate bei T1b-Tumoren, die sich keiner radikalen Exzision unterziehen, auf 50 % sank [598].
Die Reoperation sollte so früh wie möglich durchgeführt werden, sobald das endgültige histopathologische Staging vorliegt, die Metastasenaufarbeitung abgeschlossen ist und der Patient für die Reoperation geeignet ist, die je nach Überweisungszeitpunkt und Krankheitsstadium 2-4 Wochen nach der Cholezystektomie erfolgen kann. Eine radikale Reoperation wird für Patienten mit der Krankheit ≥ pT1b empfohlen. [593]
Eine radikale Cholezystektomie mit Lymphadenektomie sollte bei Patienten mit T1b-GBCA empfohlen werden, bei denen kein erhöhtes Risiko für postoperative Komplikationen besteht. [595], [597]
Die Resektion der extrahepatischen Gallenwege ist die Standardoperation bei Gallenblasenkarzinomen, die (makroskopisch oder mikroskopisch) den Hals der Gallenblase und/ oder den D. Cysticus betreffen [593].
Bei einem isolierten intrahepatischen Rezidiv eines CCA kann eine erneute Resektion durchgeführt werden, wenn eine komplette Resektion (R0-Resektion) möglich erscheint.
- Konsens
- Konsens
Nach Resektion eines iCCA kann bei einem auf die Leber beschränkten Tumorrezidiv ein erneuter Resektionsversuch unternommen werden. Die Überlebensraten sind denen nach Primäroperation vergleichbar [599], [600]. Isolierte Rezidive eines perihilären Cholangiokarzinoms sind nur selten einer chirurgischen Therapie zugänglich.
Wenn Rezidive nach einer vorangegangenen Operation nicht erneut operativ versorgt werden können, können diese mit thermischer Ablation behandelt werden, wenn hierdurch eine komplette Ablation möglich erscheint.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Für die thermische Ablation bei iCCA Rezidiven nach Resektion konnten in mehreren Studien gute Ergebnisse gezeigt werden [601], [602], [603], [604], [605], [606], [607], [608], [609]. Hier konnte in 2 kontrollierten Studien bei insgesamt 230 Patienten [602], [603] bei vergleichbaren Patientencharakteristiken ein vergleichbares progressionsfreies Gesamtüberleben von 31,3 Monaten für die Resektion versus 29,4 Monaten für die Ablation [602] bei deutlich höherer Komplikationsrate für die Resektion im Vergleich zur Ablation (13,8 %, vs. 5, 3% in [602] und 46,9 % vs. 3,9 % in [603] erreicht werden. In einer weiteren Studie von Kim JH et al. [610] wurden insgesamt 20 Patienten mit 29 rezidivierenden iCCAs einer perkutanen RFA unterzogen. Alle Patienten hatten sich einer kurativen Resektion des primären iCCA unterzogen. Die Tumorgröße lag zwischen 0,7 cm und 4,4 cm in der maximalen Größe (Mittelwert 1,9 cm; Median 1,5 cm). Die technische Effektivität von der Ablation betrug 97 % (28/29) der rezidivierenden iCCAs. Das mittlere progressionsfreie Überleben des lokalen Tumors betrug 39,8 Monate, und die kumulative progressionsfreie 6-Monate- und 1-, 2- und 4-Jahres-Überlebensrate betrug 93 %, 74 %, 74 % und 74 %. Das mediane Gesamtüberleben nach Ablation betrug 27,4 Monate und die kumulative Gesamtüberlebensrate von 6 Monaten und 1, 2 und 4 Jahren betrug 95 %, 70 %, 60 % und 21 %. Es gab in dieser Fallserie zwei Komplikationen (einen Leberabszess und eine biliäre Striktur, somit 7 % pro Behandlung) während des Follow-ups, aber keine Todesfälle.
4.4.2 Lebertransplantation
Eine Lebertransplantation für das iCCA soll außerhalb von Studien nicht erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Derzeitig stellt das iCCA eine Kontraindikation für eine Lebertransplantation in den meisten Ländern weltweit aufgrund früher Tumorrezidive und schlechten Überlebensraten (5-Jahres-Gesamtüberleben zwischen 35 % und 47 %) dar [498], [542], [611].
Zu beachten ist, dass dies nicht immer Intention-to-Treat Analysen sind, sondern die Diagnose eines iCCA vielfach erst nach der Lebertransplantation im finalen histologischen Befund der Explantatleber gestellt wird, die Lebertransplantation jedoch ursprünglich mit der Indikation eines HCCs durchgeführt wurde [612], [613].
Im Fall eines iCCA < 2 cm (d.h. „sehr frühes“ iCCA) scheint die Lebertransplantation jedoch mit ähnlichen Ergebnissen wie bei einem HCC innerhalb der Mailand-Kriterien einherzugehen [614]. Dieses Konzept wurde durch eine weitere Studie validiert [615].
Lunsford et al. haben vor kurzem ein Protokoll für die Lebertransplantation bei Patienten mit lokal fortgeschrittenem, inoperablem iCCA nach neoadjuvanter Chemotherapie erstellt. Voraussetzung war eine dauerhafte Regression oder zumindest kein Tumorprogress unter Chemotherapie. 6 von 21 rekrutierten Patienten wurden transplantiert und hatten eine Gesamtüberlebensrate nach 5 Jahren von 83 % (5 der 6 Patienten), 3 davon ohne Rezidiv. [616]
Bei irresektablem, nichtmetastasiertem pCCA, welches die Mayo-Kriterien erfüllt, kann eine Lebertransplantation unter Studienbedingungen erwogen werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- 0: offene Empfehlung (Option) bzgl. einer Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = kann
- Evidenzlevel
- 3
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [617] [618]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA Op, Transplantation|
Mayo-Kriterien |
|
Irresektables pCCA oder pCCA in PSC-Zirrhose |
|
Tumor-Durchmesser < 3 cm |
|
keine LK-Metastasen (obligate chirurgische Exploration) |
|
keine extrahepatische Tumormanifestation |
|
histologisch/zytologisch bestätigtes pCCA oder CA19-9 > 1000 kU/L mit Vorliegen radiologischer Zeichen einer malignen Stenose |
Die Lebertransplantation scheint bei irresektablen, nichtmetastasierten pCCA eine valide Option mit vielversprechenden Ergebnissen (Gesamtüberlebensrate > 50 % nach 5 Jahren). Die Rolle der neoadjuvanten Therapie ist bislang nicht geklärt.
Die meisten Daten zur Lebertransplantation stammen aus den USA, u.a. aus dem Zentrum mit der größten Erfahrung, der Mayo Klinik in Rochester [619]. In diesem Zentrum wurde ein neoadjuvantes Protokoll etabliert, das auf einer Kombination aus Strahlentherapie (45 Gy external beam radiation mit ggf. intraluminaler Brachytherapie) und Chemotherapie (5-FU über 3 Wochen gefolgt von Capecitabin) basiert. Lymphknotenmetastasen stellen eine absolute Kontraindikation dar. Sie sollen im Rahmen einer explorativen Laparotomie vor Lebertransplantation ausgeschlossen werden. Bis dato wurden mehr als 160 Patienten gemäß diesem Protokoll transplantiert mit einem 5-Jahres-Gesamtüberleben zwischen 50 % bis 80 %, abhängig von verschiedenen Unter- und Risikogruppen [617], [618], [620], [621]. Eine prospektiv-randomisierte Studie zum Vergleich Lebertransplantation versus palliative Therapie existiert bislang nicht.
In einer Analyse von Mantel et al. von ELTR-Daten (105 Patienten mit pCCA) konnte kein Nutzen durch eine neoadjuvante Therapie gefunden werden [622]. In einer Subgruppe von allerdings nur 28 Patienten, welche die Mayo-Auswahlkriterien erfüllten (d.h. Tumor-Durchmesser < 3 cm, keine LK-Metastasen, keine extrahepatische Erkrankung, histologisch bestätigtes pCCA oder CA19-9 > 100 kU/L mit Vorliegen radiologischer Zeichen einer malignen Stenose), wurde keine neoadjuvante Therapie durchgeführt. Dennoch wies diese Subgruppe eine 5-Jahres-Überlebensrate von 59 % auf. Die übrigen 77 Patienten, die die Mayo-Kriterien nicht erfüllten, zeigten schlechte Ergebnisse mit einem 5-Jahres-Gesamtüberleben < 20 % [622].
4.4.3 Interventionelle Therapieverfahren
4.4.3.1 Perkutane Ablation
Lokale Verfahren (RFA/MWA) können nach Beschluss des Tumorboards durchgeführt werden, falls keine Resektion möglich ist.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Grundsätzlich ist die thermische Ablation beim iCCA bis 3 cm Durchmesser möglich und klinisch effektiv [623], [624], [625], [626], [627], [628], [629], [630], [631], [632]. Mit modernen, effektiveren Ablationstechniken und in Kombination mit selektiver Embolisation ist eine Ablation beim iCCA auch bis 5 cm Durchmesser in Analogie zum Vorgehen beim HCC möglich [633]. Die thermische Ablation wird in den EASL guidelines mit einer Empfehlung C2 als „kann Option“ für „kleine Läsionen, die nicht chirurgisch zugänglich sind“ aufgeführt [634]. Es wird empfohlen, weitere klinische Studien durchzuführen“. Auch in den NCCN guidelines V3-2019 ist die thermische Ablation als Therapie des irresektablen iCCA explizit genannt [635].
Mehrere retrospektive Studien liegen vor, die den Wert der thermischen Ablation im historischen Vergleich mit akzeptablen Überlebensraten zeigen. In der bisher größten single center Studie mit 107 Patienten und 171 Tumoren [632] zeigte die Ablation bei primärem iCCA ein PFS nach 6, 12, 18 und 24 Monaten von 67,4 %; 41,5 %; 18,2 % und 8,7 % und ein OS nach 1, 3 und 5 Jahren von 93,5 %, 39,6 % und 7,9 %. In einer Metaanalyse [625] betrugen die gepoolten 1-Jahres-, 3-Jahres- und 5-Jahres-Überlebensraten 82 % (95% CI: 72 %; 90 %), 47 % (95% CI: 28 %; 65 %) und 24 % (95% CI: 11 %; 40 %).
4.4.3.2 Intraaterielle Therapieverfahren
Beim fortgeschrittenen iCCA ohne extrahepatischen Befall, können intraarterielle Verfahren ab der Zweitlinie oder additiv zur Chemotherapie, nach Vorstellung im Tumorboard, erfolgen.
Die arteriellen Verfahren sind in zahlreichen Studien evaluiert. Aufgrund der geringen Patientenzahl des seltenen Tumors gibt es bisher weder für eine primäre noch für eine sekundäre lokale Therapie randomisierte Studien, allerdings zahlreiche Kohortenstudien, Metaanalysen und systematische Reviews. Auch in einer systematischen Recherche 2021 ergaben sich hier keine prospektiven Daten [636][637]. Die aktuellen Studien schließen hauptsächlich Patienten mit einem Befund der auf die Leber begrenzt ist ein. Einzelne Subgruppen zeigen jedoch auch ein Ansprechen, wenn ein extrahepatischer Befall vorliegt, der jedoch nicht Prognose bestimmend ist. Im Tumorboard kann daher in Einzelfällen beim inoperablem iCCA auch bei extrahepatischem Befall, der nicht Prognose bestimmend ist, eine intraarterielle Therapie in Erwägung gezogen werden.
Als primäre Therapie werden selektive transarterielle Verfahren erwogen, falls bei Patienten eine Kontraindikation für eine systemische Chemotherapie vorliegt, bzw. eine systemische Chemotherapie abgelehnt wird. Als sekundäre Therapie werden TACE, TARE/SIRT und HAI allein bei Nichtansprechen oder kombiniert mit systemischer Therapie in Einzelfällen diskutiert. In den von Bridgewater publizierten “Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma" der International Liver Cancer Association (ILCA) aus dem Jahr 2014 [542] wurde folgende Einschätzung getroffen: TACE und TARE zeigen in Einzelfällen ein gutes Ansprechen mit vertretbarer Toxizität bei Patienten mit iCCA. Allerdings schließen die Autoren zum damaligen Zeitpunkt, dass aufgrund einer unzureichenden Studienlage noch keine allgemeine Empfehlung für diese Therapien ausgesprochen werden kann. Eine Phase-III-Studie zu dieser Fragestellung ist nach wie vor nicht berichtet worden, somit bleiben TACE und TARE/SIRT derzeit Einzelfällen vorbehalten nach Besprechung im interdisziplinären Tumorbord.
Die lokoregionäre Therapie wird in mehreren Metaanalysen als wirksam hervorgehoben. Die TACE erreicht beim irresektablen iCCA allein ein medianes Gesamtüberleben von 12-17 Monaten und in Kombination mit systemischer Therapie einen zusätzlichen Überlebensvorteil von 2-12 Monaten [588, 590-593, 599]. Cuchetti et al. [631] konnten in einer Metaanalyse bei Patienten mit „mass-forming“ iCCA (OS: 19,9 Monate), bei TARE-naiven Patienten (OS: 24 Monate) und in Kombination mit systemischer Chemotherapie (OS: 19,5 Monate) die besten Überlebensraten erreichen. Solitäre Tumoren haben nach TARE ein höheres OS als multifokale Tumoren [632] (25 vs. 6,1 Monate [633]). Ähnliche Unterschiede zeigen sich zwischen gut und gering differenzierter Histologie [633] (18,6 vs. 9,7 Monate [597]).
Yang et al. fassen in einem systematischen Review 20 Arbeiten zusammen, allerdings konnte aufgrund der Datenheterogenität keine Metaanalyse durchgeführt werden. Dennoch zeigt diese Arbeit, dass transarterielle Verfahren sicher und effektiv sein können mit einem medianen Überleben von 12,4 Monaten nach TARE, interessanterweise trotz 33 % der Patienten mit extrahepatischen Manifestationen [635]. Aufgrund der Daten einer gepoolten Analyse von 12 Studien mit einem medianen Überleben von 15,5 Monaten und einer Ansprechrate von 28 % erwähnt die 2016 erschienene ESMO-Leitlinie [500] explizit auch die Möglichkeit einer TARE nach Versagen der Systemtherapie. In einer multizentrischen Auswertung [638] in 5 Krankenhäusern zeigte sich kein OS Unterschied zwischen cTACE (13,4 Monate), DEB TACE (10,5 Monate), alleiniger Embolisation (TAE; 14,3 Monate) oder TARE (11,3 Monate) (p = 0,46). Vergleichbare Daten zum OS bei TACE und TARE hat auch Boehm et al. [628] in einer Metaanalyse berichtet, wobei hier die HAI zwar eine höhere Toxizität aber auch ein signifikant längeres OS aufwies.
Ein interessantes neues interventionell-radiologisches Konzept stellt die Chemosaturation mit einer Erhöhung der lokalen Dosis und Reduktion der Toxizität dar. Dieser Ansatz wird derzeit in Studien evaluiert und könnte in Zukunft einen Fortschritt für Patienten mit iCCA zeigen [639].
Sowohl mit TARE als auch mit HAI wurde in Studien [633], [640], [641] über Downstaging berichtet, das bei einigen Patienten eine R0-Resektion ermöglichte. [642]. Dies bestätigt die Notwendigkeit der erneuten Beurteilung der Patienten nach intraarteriellen Therapien in einem multidisziplinären Team bei gutem Ansprechen.
4.4.4 Endoskopische Therapieverfahren
4.4.4.1 Präoperative biliäre Drainagen
Die Indikation für eine präoperative biliäre Drainage sollte interdisziplinär getroffen werden.
Bei Vorliegen einer Cholangitis sollte eine präoperative biliäre Drainage umgehend erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Die Indikation zur biliären Drainage stellt sich entsprechend dem Behandlungsziel. Hierbei kann eine präoperative biliäre Drainage (PBD) bei kurativ intendierter Resektion oder eine palliative Drainage in Frage kommen. Darüber hinaus hängt die Behandlungsstrategie von der Lokalisation des Gallenwegverschlusses (intrahepatisch, hilär, extrahepatisch) ab. Ein weiterer Aspekt ist der Zugangsweg: Die biliäre Drainage kann grundsätzlich perkutan-transhepatisch, transpapillär oder transgastrisch/transduodenal erfolgen.
Wenn eine kurativ intendierte Resektion möglich ist, ist diese die bevorzugte Behandlung für Patienten mit hilärem oder extrahepatischem Cholangiokarzinom. Etwa 25 % bis 35 % dieser Patienten sind Kandidaten für eine PBD beim hilären CCA. Die Frage der Indikationsstellung zu einer PBD ist allerdings nicht abschließend beantwortet. Die Evidenz ist beschränkt und fußt überwiegend auf retrospektiven Analysen und nur vereinzelt auf prospektiven randomisierten Studien. Die Hyperbilirubinämie wurde in einer kürzlich veröffentlichte single center Studie als wichtigster modifizierbarer Risikofaktor für das negative, frühe postoperative Outcome des Patienten beobachtet [643]. Es werden hierbei unterschiedliche cut-off levels (orientierend an unterschiedlichen Resektionsausmaßen) angegeben, eine ausreichende Evidenz für einen entsprechenden Wert gibt es nicht. Andererseits kann eine PBD selbst das frühe postoperative Outcome des Patienten negativ beeinflussen, bspw. durch Komplikationen der interventionellen Therapie. Es wird zudem eine erhöhte Morbidität auch bei erfolgreicher Drainage gefunden und bspw. eine Ursache im möglichen Einschleppen von Keimen in das Gallenwegsystem durch die interventionelle Therapie vermutet. Unstrittig ist aber die Notwendigkeit einer PBD wenn eine Cholangitis primär vorliegt.
Die PBD muss für das intrahepatische Gallengangskarzinom und das perihiläre Gallengangskarzinom getrennt betrachtet werden. Intrahepatische Gallengangskarzinome gehen nur selten mit einer Kompression der zentralen Gallenwegsstrukturen und einem Ikterus einher. Eine präoperative Gallengangsdekompression ist in diesen Fällen daher nur vor ausgedehnten Resektionen und Beteiligung der Gallenwege des „Future Liver Remnant“ erforderlich. Auch die Frage nach dem technischen Vorgehen bei der präoperativen Drainage ist nicht abschließend geklärt. Abgesehen von der lokalen Expertise im endoskopischen oder perkutanen Vorgehen, liegen auch im Studiensetting widersprüchliche Ergebnisse vor. Dies betrifft sowohl das Auftreten von Komplikationen durch die jeweilige Prozedur als auch die Erfolgsraten, wobei diese bei der PTCD etwas höher zu sein scheint.
Es liegen zwei Metaanalysen mit bis zu vier retrospektiven nicht-randomisierten Studien vor [644], [645]. In diesen wird eine vergleichbare bzw. etwas höhere Morbidität nach ERCP im Vergleich zur PTCD gefunden. Eine randomisierte Studie (Einschlusskriterien: Bilirubin >2,9 mg/dl, geplante erweiterte Leberresektion) wurde vorzeitig beendet, da in der PTCD-Gruppe eine signifikant höhere (Gesamt)-Mortalität (41 % von 27 Patienten) als in der endoskopisch gelegten Drainage-Gruppe (11 % von 27 Patienten) (p = 0,03) vorlag. Allerdings war bei 56 % der Patienten zusätzlich zur endoskopisch gelegten Drainage eine perkutan gelegte Drainage erforderlich. Zudem entwickelten 16 (59 %) Patienten nach PTCD eine Cholangitis vs. 10 (37 %) nach ERCP [646].
Wahrscheinlich hat auch die jeweilige Expertise im Zentrum einen Einfluss auf das Outcome bei PBD. In einer multizentrischen, retrospektiven Analyse aus China zeigte sich im Vergleich einer ERCP vs. PTCD eine höhere periinterventionelle Morbidität in der ERCP Gruppe [647]: Nach ERCP hatten 37 % der Patienten eine Cholangitis und 17 % eine Pankreatitis gegenüber von 22 % mit Cholangitis und 2 % mit Pankreatitis nach PTCD-Anlage.
Die in Japan bevorzugt gelegte nasobiliäre Drainage erscheint in westlichen Ländern wenig praktikabel [648], zudem scheint sie keinen Vorteil gegenüber einer Plastikstentanlage zu bieten [649].
Das Risiko einer Tumorzellverschleppung durch den Zugangsweg der Drainage ist zwar selten, wird nach PTCD aber beobachtet – nicht aber nach endoskopischer Therapie [650], [651].
Vor Augmentationsverfahren der Leber (z.B. Pfortaderembolisation) sollte zumindest eine biliäre Drainage des zukünftigen Restlebergewebes (Future Liver Remnant) erfolgen [652]. Die Drainage des zu entfernenden Lebergewebes hat nur einen geringen Einfluss auf die Hypertrophieinduktion [653].
Zusammenfassend sollte die Indikation zu einer PBD in einem hepatobiliären Zentrum erfolgen; hier ist eine interdisziplinäre Planung der Behandlung unter Einschluss des chirurgischen, des interventionellen/endoskopischen und radiologischen Behandlers möglich. Die interventionelle Therapie muss hierbei auch durch alternative Drainagewege möglich sein, da eine primär insuffiziente Drainage nicht selten ist und dann eine alternative Therapiestrategie ergriffen werden muss.
Ergänzende Literaturübersicht s. Anhang (Tabelle: Übersicht über Literatur zur präoperativen biliären Drainage (PBD))
4.4.4.2 Palliative biliäre Drainage
Eine palliative biliäre Drainage soll Patienten mit symptomatischem Gallenwegsverschluss angeboten werden.
Eine palliative Drainage sollte in einem erfahrenen Zentrum durchgeführt werden, da hier auch alternative Drainageverfahren zur Verfügung stehen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Die interventionelle Drainage des Gallenwegsystems bei malignem Gallenwegsverschluss ermöglicht eine Symptomverbesserung, eine Verbesserung der Leberfunktion und die Behandlung einer Cholangitis. Mit einem dieser Therapieziele ist eine palliative biliäre Drainage bei biliären Karzinomen angezeigt. Die interventionelle Vorgehensweise ist hierbei abhängig von der Lokalisation des Verschlusses bzw. dem vorliegenden biliären Tumor (intrahepatisches vs. perihiläres vs. distales Cholangiokarzinom). Das Vorgehen wird darüber hinaus von der verfügbaren Technik mitbeeinflusst (ERCP, PTCD, EUS-gesteuertes biliäres Drainageverfahren). Eine detaillierte präinterventionelle Behandlungsplanung auf der Basis aussagekräftiger Bildbefunde (in der Regel MRCP) ist dabei unabdingbar [654]. Die Behandlungsintention sollte vor der Intervention definiert und dokumentiert werden und muss das Ziel einer kompletten vs. inkompletten Drainage einschließen.
Grundsätzlich kann die Lebensqualität bei Hyperbilirubinämie durch eine erfolgreiche Drainage verbessert werden [655]. Für ein verlängertes Überleben durch eine erfolgreiche Drainage in der Palliation gibt es zahlreiche Hinweise [656]. Es wird eine 30-Tages-Mortalität bei der distalen biliären Stenose von 2 bis 20 % und von 9 bis 20 % in der perihilären Stenose berichtet [657], [658], [659].
Randomisierte Studien fokussieren überwiegend auf den distalen, periampullären malignen Gallenwegsverschluss [660], [661]. Hier kann eine primär retrograde endoskopische Drainage in der Regel empfohlen werden. Ein selbstexpandierender Metallstent (SEMS) sollte als primäre Drainageoption gewählt werden und scheint einer Plastikendoprothese überlegen [662]. Bei palliativer Indikation kann ein ummantelter, entfernbarer oder nicht-ummantelter SEMS eingesetzt werden. Die Durchführung einer EUS-gesteuerten Drainage kann dann einer PTCD nach frustranem ERCP-Versuch überlegen sein [663], [664]. Erste randomisierte Studien sehen bereits im primären Drainageversuch die EUS-gesteuerte Technik der ERCP ebenbürtig [665], [666].
Beim perihilärem, symptomatischen Gallenwegsverschluss werden PTCD oder ERCP mit unilateraler oder bi-/trilateraler Drainage eingesetzt. Eine EUS-gesteuerte Drainage kommt nur in Ausnahmefällen (z.B. transgastrische Drainage der linken Leber) in Frage. Eine Drainage von mindestens 50 % des (mutmaßlich funktionalen) Leberanteils wird empfohlen, wobei eine Kontrastierung von nicht drainierten Gangsegmenten vermieden werden sollte [667].
Randomisierte Studien berichten von höherem Erfolg und niedrigeren Komplikationen der PTCD vs. ERCP beim perihilären Gallenwegsverschluss [656], [657], [668], [669], aber die Lebensqualität könnte bei dem inneren Drainageverfahren höher sein [670].
Einige frühere randomisierte Daten sprechen für eine unilaterale Drainage, indem auch nur dieser Gangabschnitt dargestellt und intubiert wird [654], [671]. Um eine Cholangitis durch abgehängte Gangareale zu vermeiden, ist allerdings eine effektive Drainage aller dargestellten Gänge hilfreich [672], [673]. Das weist auch auf die für die klinische Situation unzureichende Vereinfachung bei Studien und der einzelnen Patientenbehandlung hin, die im uni- vs. bilateralen Drainageansatz zu sehen ist. Da das Gallenwegsystem zumindest drei Doppelsegmente umfasst, kann eine komplette Drainage in fortgeschrittenen perihilären Obstruktionen erst mit einem Dreifach-Stenting erreicht werden. Ein uni- vs. bilateraler Ansatz in Studien sollte daher zukünftig für die Zielbestimmung einer kompletten vs. inkompletten Drainage verlassen werden. Dies wird in der Studienkonzeption wie auch in der Behandlungsplanung in der Klinik nicht immer berücksichtigt. Randomisierte Studien konnten die effektive Drainage mittels – in der Regel bilateralen – SEMS zeigen [656], [663], [674]. Dabei scheint eine ‚SEMS-neben-SEMS‘ einer ‚SEMS-in-SEMS‘ Technik gleichgestellt zu sein [663]. Es kommen nur nicht-ummantelte, damit nicht entfernbare SEMS in Frage, damit Seitenäste durch die Maschen des Stents drainiert werden können. Eine komplette Drainage muss als Ziel erreichbar sein. Das Outcome im weiteren Verlauf nach SEMS Einlage im Vergleich zu Plastikstents ist nicht belegt. Eine Reintervention bei Komplikationen oder erneuter Symptomatik scheint nach Implantation von permanenten SEMS erschwert. Eine primäre Therapie mit multisegmentaler Plastikstenteinlage kann beim perihilären biliären Verschluss damit auch weiterhin als vorrangiger Therapieansatz gesehen werden.
Die Drainage eines Gangabschnitts, bei dem bereits eine Atrophie der abhängigen Lebersegmente eingetreten ist, sollte nicht erfolgen, da erhöhte Komplikationsraten und keine wesentliche Verbesserung des Patienten-Outcomes zu erwarten sind [675].
Da ein Drainageversuch mit einer Technik – bspw. der ERCP – frustran verlaufen kann, sollte zumindest eine alternative Technik – bspw. PTCD und/oder EUS-gesteuerte biliäre Drainage – verfügbar sein. Die Häufigkeit, mit der eine biliäre Drainage im Zentrum vorgenommen wird, scheint einen wesentlichen Einfluss auf den Erfolg des Eingriffs und das Outcome beim Patienten zu haben [676], [677]. Beides spricht für eine Behandlung dieser Patienten im erfahrenen Zentrum.
Literaturübersicht s. Anhang (Tabelle: Übersicht über Literatur zur biliären Drainage (BD) bei Cholangiokarzinom)
4.4.4.3 Intraduktale lokoregionäre Therapieverfahren
Intraduktale, lokalablative Verfahren (Photodynamische Therapie und intraduktale RFA) können nach Beschluss des Tumorboards durchgeführt werden, um eine effektive Palliation zu ermöglichen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Intraduktale, lokalablative Verfahren können bei einem lokal begrenzten Tumor in Betracht gezogen werden. Es handelt sich hierbei um eine palliative Behandlungsform. Für eine Outcome-Verbesserung mit einer lokalablativen Therapie bei einem metastasierten Tumor finden sich keine Belege. Es stehen die Photodynamische Therapie (PDT) und die intraduktale Radiofrequenzablation (iRFA) zur Verfügung, wobei letztere sich von der perkutanen RFA wesentlich unterscheidet. Die lokalablativen Therapien werden in aller Regel mit einer endoskopischen Stenttherapie kombiniert und sind nur in dieser Kombination durch Studien geprüft. Hierdurch ist eine lokale Tumordestruktion über wenige Millimeter zu erreichen. Die iRFA wird nach Heranführen einer bipolaren Sonde mittels ERCP in den tumorös stenosierten Gallenwegsabschnitt durch Anwendung von hochfrequentem Wechselstrom durchgeführt [678]. Mit der PDT wird ebenfalls eine lokale Tumordestruktion über wenige Millimeter Eindringtiefe erreicht. Hierfür muss allerdings einige Zeit vor einer lokalen Lichtbestrahlung des Tumorareals in einer ERCP ein Photosensitizer intravenös appliziert werden, der die Tumorzellen besonders lichtempfindlich werden lässt und diese sowie Zellen der Neovaskularisation zerstört [679]. Bei der PDT werden unterschiedliche Photosensitizer eingesetzt. Porfimer-Natrium (Photofrin) ist der am häufigsten genutzte Sensitizer, Temoporfin (Foscan) und Dihematoporphin Ether (Photosan-3) sind weitere Produkte. Photofrin ist zugelassen für die Behandlung von Patienten mit nicht resezierbarem perihilären Cholangiokarzinom. 5-Aminolävulinsäure scheint beim Gallenwegskarzinom nicht wirksam [680]. Vergleiche einer Effektivität der Sensitizer liegen nicht vor.
Eine randomisierte Studie zeigte ein verbessertes Überleben im Vergleich zu einer alleinigen Stenttherapie für die iRFA [317] und zwei randomisierte Studien einen Überlebensvorteil für die PDT [681], [682]. Eine randomisierte Studie zeigte ein schlechteres Outcome für die PDT im Vergleich zum Stent bei Patienten mit lokal fortgeschrittenen und metastasierten perihilären Tumoren [683]. In einer gepoolten Analyse wird ein Überleben von 413 Tage vs. 183 Tage für die PDT gegenüber der alleinigen Stenttherapie gefunden [679]. In der Kombination mit einer systemischen Chemotherapie zeigte sich die PDT der PDT + Stent-Gruppe und der „Stent-allein“ Gruppe in retrospektiver Analyse überlegen [684], [685].
Die Auswahl einer PDT gegenüber einer IRFA ist durch direkte Vergleichsstudien nicht abgesichert [686], [687]. Die IRFA scheint technisch einfacher und mit hoher primärer Erfolgsrate verbunden; ob die Komplikationsrate der iRFA gegenüber der PDT vergleichbar ist, ist nicht klar [678]. Für die PDT sprechen die breitere Erfahrung und die größere Anzahl an in Studien eingeschlossenen Patienten [688], sowie retrospektive Daten für die Kombination mit der systemischen Chemotherapie.
Literaturübersicht s. Anhang (Tabelle: Übersicht über Literatur zu intraduktalen, lokalablativen Verfahren (PBD))
4.4.5 Stereotaxie
Eine Hochpräzisionsradiotherapie (Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy; SBRT) kann nach Beschluss in einer Tumorkonferenz bei fehlenden alternativen Therapieoptionen angeboten werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Eine Reihe von Autoren hat in den vergangenen Jahren berichtet, dass nach einer definitiven Radiotherapie die Höhe der Dosis mit einer hohen Lokalkontrollrate und auch mit dem Überleben der Patienten korreliert [689], [690], [691]. Obwohl das zunächst mit einer konventionell fraktionierten Radio(chemo)therapie beobachtet wurde [689], [691], hat die Mehrzahl der Studien der letzten Jahre eine SBRT dafür eingesetzt, welche typischerweise eine Dosiseskalation im Zentrum der Bestrahlungsvolumina verwendet [690], [692], [693]. Die Dosisabhängigkeit gilt sowohl für intrahepatische wie auch für perihiläre CCA. Darüber hinaus ist eine sequentielle Chemotherapie vor und/oder nach der Radiotherapie ein weiterer Faktor für die Verlängerung des Überlebens, und einige Studien haben eine Kombination der Radiotherapie mit einer sequentiellen Chemotherapie durchgeführt [691], [692].
Die Erfahrungen mit SBRT zur Behandlung von Cholangiokarzinomen sind begrenzt. Eine Metaanalyse fasst 226 Patienten in 4 prospektiven [694], [695], [696], [697] und 7 retrospektiven Studien zusammen [692]. Die gepoolte 1-Jahres-Lokalkontrollrate war 81,8% (95% CI: 69,4; 89,9%) wenn die 2 Gy-Äquivalenzdosis (EQD2) ≥ 71.3 Gy war und darunter bei 74,7 % (95% CI: 57,1 %; 86,7 %). Das mediane Überleben lag bei 13,6 Monaten (10 – 35,5 Monate). Die berichteten Toxizitäten waren moderat mit < 10 % Akuttoxizität ≥ 3 und 10-20 % Spättoxizität, v.a. als duodenale und gastrale Ulzera.
Die Protonenstrahlbestrahlung ist eine weitere Methode zur Anwendung einer hochdosierten Radiotherapie. Die meisten Daten beschränken sich auf retrospektive Studien mit nur einer Institution. Eine prospektive, multi-institutionelle Phase-II-Studie untersuchte die Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit einer hochdosierten hypofraktionierten Protonentherapie bei intrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinomen (n = 37; daneben auch bei 44 Patienten mit HCC). Eine Dosis von 67,5 Gray-Äquivalenten wurde in 15 Fraktionen angewendet. Die 2-Jahres-Lokalkontroll- und Gesamtüberlebensrate betrug in der Cholangiokarzinom-Kohorte 94,1 % bzw. 46,5 % [355].
Zur interstitiellen Brachytherapie von Cholangiokarzinomen ist die Evidenzlage niedrig. In einer monozentrischen, retrospektiven Serie wurden 15 Patienten mit histologisch gesicherten Tumoren an insgesamt 27 Läsionen mit einer interstitiellen Brachytherapie behandelt. Die mediane Dauer der lokalen Tumorkontrolle betrug 10 Monate und die mediane Überlebenszeit 14 Monate nach der Behandlung [698].
4.4.6 Nachsorge
Nach Resektion/Ablation eines CCA sollte nach 4-12 Wochen erstmals, im ersten Jahr alle 3 Monate und im zweiten Jahr alle 3-6 Monate ein biphasisches CT oder ein dynamisches MRT durchgeführt werden.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Es liegt keine Evidenz hinsichtlich des genauen Vorgehens bei der Nachsorge vor. Beim praktischen Vorgehen wird nach einer Resektion und Ablation eines Cholangiokarzinoms nach 4-12 Wochen ein biphasisches CT oder dynamisches MRT empfohlen. Im weiteren ersten Jahr alle 3 Monate, im zweiten Jahr alle 3-6 Monate. Die Nachsorge sollte für insgesamt 5 Jahre durchgeführt werden und ab dem dritten Jahr eine jährliche Schnittbildgebung beinhalten. Dieses Vorgehen erfolgt analog der NCCN guideline 2019 [624].
4.5 Systemtherapie
4.5.1 Adjuvante Therapie
Aufgrund des hohen Rezidivrisikos sollten Patienten nach chirurgischer Tumorentfernung (R0, R1) eine adjuvante Systemtherapie mit Capecitabin angeboten werden.
Aufgrund des subendothelialen Wachstums entlang der Perineuralscheiden beträgt das Rezidivrisiko nach radikaler chirurgischer Tumorentfernung für ein perihiläres Cholangiokarzinom (CCA) 40-80 % (Auflistung der Studienergebnisse siehe [700]). Auch für andere Lokalisationen des CCA und für Gallenblasenkarzinome (GB-CA) ist das Rezidivrisiko ähnlich hoch. Risikofaktoren für ein frühes Rezidiv sind vor allem Lymphknotenmetastasen (N1), R1-Status und ein niedriger Differenzierungsgrad (G3). Eine Metaanalyse retrospektiver und einarmiger Studien mit mehr als 6000 Patienten mit CCA oder GB-CA ergab für Patienten mit einem dieser Risikofaktoren einen Vorteil für eine adjuvante Therapie [701]. Zusätzlich liegen mit den Ergebnissen der BILCAP-Studie die Daten einer randomisierten Phase-III-Studie vor, die den Nutzen einer adjuvanten Chemotherapie zeigen [590]. In dieser Studie wurde bei 447 Patienten mit CCA oder muskelinvasivem GB-CA sowie vollständiger makroskopischer Tumorentfernung (R0 oder R1) die Gabe von Capecitabin (1250 mg/m² zweimal täglich an Tag 1 bis 14 bei einer Zyklusdauer von 21 Tagen, insgesamt 8 Zyklen) mit der alleinigen Nachsorge verglichen. Der Therapiebeginn sollte innerhalb von 12 Wochen postoperativ bei Patienten mit ECOG 0 – 1 erfolgen, erlaubt war eine Ausdehnung des Zeitraumes bis auf 16 Wochen.
In der Per-Protokoll-Analyse ergab sich ein signifikanter Unterschied im medianen Gesamtüberleben von 52 versus 36 Monate (HR: 0,79; 95% CI: 0,63; 1,00, p = 0,028). In der Intention-to-Treat-Analyse war der Unterschied zwischen beiden Gruppen vergleichbar mit 50 versus 36 Monate (HR: 0,84; 95% CI: 0,67; 1,06), allerdings nicht signifikant [702]. Die mediane Zeit von der OP bis zum Therapiebeginn lag bei 10,3 Wochen. Die Langzeitergebnisse der Studie zeigen, dass der Effekt von Capecitabine eher moderat ist und dass der Haupteffekt nicht in der Vermeidung des Rezidivs zu liegen scheint, sondern im Zeitpunkt mit einem medianen Rezidiv-freien Intervall in der ITT Analyse mit Capecitabine von 24,3 Monaten und für die Beobachtungsgruppe mit 17,4 Monaten (HR: 0,81 (95% CI: 0,65 bis 1,01) [702].
Die randomisierte Phase II Studie STAMP untersuchte für R0 oder R1 resezierte extra-hepatische CCA und positivem regionalem Lymphknotenbefall eine intensivierte The-rapie mit Gemcitabin und Cisplatin im Vergleich mit der Standardtherapie Capecitabin [699]. In dieser Studie von drei Zentren aus Südkorea zeigte sich kein siginifkanter Unterschied für das mediane krankheitsfreie Überleben (14,3 Monate für Gem/Cis vs. 11,1 Monate für Capecitabin) oder Gesamtüberleben (in beiden Studienarmen 35,7 Monate).
Die französische PRODIGE 12-Studie konnte ebenfalls durch Gemcitabin und Oxaliplatin im Vergleich zur alleinigen Nachsorge keine signifikante Verbesserung des Gesamtüberlebens erzielen [703]. Eine Metaanalyse, welche diese Studie ebenfalls integriert hat, bestätigte keinen Vorteil einer Gemcitabin-basierten adjuvanten Therapie beim CCA [704]. Eine Cochrane-Analyse sieht den Effekt einer adjuvanten Therapie beim CCA trotz der positiven BILCAP-Studie als unsicher an und empfiehlt dringend weitere Studien [705]. Aufgrund fehlender Evidenz besteht außerhalb von klinischen Studien zurzeit keine Indikation für eine adjuvante Strahlentherapie.
4.5.2 Neoadjuvante Therapie primär resektabler Tumoren
Eine neoadjuvante Chemotherapie soll bei primär resektablen Tumoren nicht außerhalb von klinischen Studien erfolgen.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- 5
Es erfolgte eine ausführliche Recherche 2023, ohne Nachweis positiver Studien.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
4.5.3 Systemtherapie lokal fortgeschrittener Tumoren
Bei primär irresektablen Tumoren sollte unter einer Tumortherapie eine erneute Vorstellung im Tumorboard mit der Frage einer sekundären Resektabilität erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Bei Patienten mit grenzwertig resektablen Tumoren, kann als individuelles Konzept eine Chemotherapie mit kurzfristiger erneuter Evaluation der Operabilität durchgeführt werden. Hierbei liegen weder Daten zu einer standardisierten Definition der Resektabilität noch zur systemischen palliativen Therapie vor. Die Chemotherapie sollte in Analogie zur palliativen Chemotherapie erfolgen. Die Ansprechraten zwischen der Dreifachtherapie mit Gemcitabin, Cisplatin + Durvalumab und der Zweifachtherapie mit Gemcitabin und Cisplatin unterscheiden sich mit 26,7 % [706] bzw. 26,1 % [707] nicht. Interessant ist, dass in der Studie von Gemcitabin und Cisplatin die objektiven Ansprechraten für Gallenwegskarzinome bei lediglich 19 % und bei Gallenblasenkarzinome bei 38 % lagen [707].
Prinzipiell gilt für alle eingesetzten Systemtherapien, auch in klinischen Studien, dass bei gutem Ansprechen die Resektabilität nach 2-3 Monaten erneut evaluiert werden sollte.
4.5.4 Palliative Systemtherapie
Allen Patienten mit Cholangio- oder Gallenblasenkarzinom soll bei adäquatem Allgemeinzustand in der inoperablen lokal fortgeschrittenen oder metastasierten Situation eine palliative Systemtherapie angeboten werden.
Bei der Indikationsstellung zur Chemotherapie sind der Allgemeinzustand des Patienten, die Komorbiditäten, die Patientenpräferenzen sowie die Toxizität der geplanten Schemata zu berücksichtigen [542], [712]. In der ABC-02-Studie [707] und der japanischen BT22-Studie [708] zeigte sich in einer gemeinsamen Auswertung ein Überlebensvorteil für alle Tumorlokalisationen. Der Vorteil war am deutlichsten für Patienten mit einem ECOG Performance Status (PS) 0 oder 1. Die Lebenserwartung bei symptomorientierter Therapie beträgt nach historischen Daten dagegen nur ca. 2,5 bis 4,5 Monate [709]. In der Studie von Markussen wurden die Therapieschemata Gemcitabin/Cisplatin mit Gemcitabin/Oxalipaltin verglichen. In den Therapiegruppen konnten mittlere OS von 8,7 Monaten (Gem/Ox) und 12,0 Monate (Gem/Cis) erreicht werden [711]. In der systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten von Park [710] zeigte sich ebenfalls ein Überlebensvorteil für Patienten, die eine Systemtherapie erhalten.
4.5.4.1 Erstlinientherapie
Als Systemtherapie soll in der Erstlinie die Kombination Gemcitabin und Cisplatin mit einem der beiden zugelassenen Antikörper Durvalumab oder Pembrolizumab angeboten werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- 2
Recherche 2024, Kelley 2023
⊕⊕⊕⊝Recherche 2022, Oh 2022
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [707] [708] [709] [710] [711] [706] [713]
Änderungshinweis
Als Systemtherapie soll in der Erstlinie die Kombination Durvalumab, Gemcitabin und Cisplatin angeboten werden.Die Placebo-kontrollierte Topaz-01 Studie zeigt eine Überlegenheit im primären Endpunkt Gesamtüberleben von Durvalumab (anti PD-L1 Antikörper) + Gemcitabine + Cisplatin (D + Gem/Cis) im Vergleich zur bisherigen Standardtherapie mit Gemcitabin + Cisplatin (Gem/Cis) [706]. Wichtigste Einschlusskriterien waren intra- und extrahepatische CCAs einschließlich Gallenblasenkarzinome und ECOG 0-1. Papillenkarzinome waren nicht eingeschlossen. Das mediane Gesamtüberleben war mit 12,8 vs. 11,5 Monate nur moderat besser, allerdings separieren sich die Überlebenskurven in der Kaplan-Meier Analyse zunehmend, so dass die Überlebensraten nach 12 Monaten sich mit 54 % vs. 48 % und nach 24 Monaten mit 25 % vs. 10 % zugunsten der Kombination mit Durvalumab unterschieden. Die Ansprechrate lag im D + Gem/Cis Arm bei 27 % und bei 19 % mit Gem/Cis.
Die bessere Wirksamkeit einer kombinierten Therapie von Gemcitabin + Cisplatin bestätigte sich auch mit dem anti PD-1 Antikörper Pembrolizumab (Gem/Cis + P) gegenüber der alleinigen Chemotherapie in der Keynote-Studie 966 [713]. Diese Studie erreichte ihren primären Endpunkt mit einer Verbesserung des medianen Gesamtüberlebens von 12,7 Monaten mit Gem/Cis + P gegenüber 10,9 Monaten mit Gem/Cis. Das geschätze Überleben für die Gruppe mit Pembrolizumab betrug nach 12 Monaten 52 % und nach 24 Monaten 25 % im Vergleich zur Patientengruppe mit Gem/Cis von 44 % nach 12 und 18 % nach 24 Monaten.
Bei Kontraindikationen für eine Therapie mit Durvalumab oder Pembrolizumab soll weiterhin auch die Therapie mit Gem/Cis eingesetzt werden. Zwei Studien, die britische ABC-02-Studie [707] und die japanische BT22-Studie [708], haben in einer gemeinsamen Auswertung bei insgesamt fast 500 Patienten die Überlegenheit einer Kombinationstherapie bestehend aus Gemcitabin und Cisplatin gegenüber einer Monotherapie mit Gemcitabin gezeigt. Hierbei ist besonders zu berücksichtigen, dass mit der Applikation von Gemcitabin 1000 mg/m² und Cisplatin 25 mg/m² an den Tagen 1 und 8 bei einer Zyklusdauer von 21 Tagen ein gut verträgliches Therapieschema implementiert wurde. So zeigten sich keine Unterschiede in beiden Therapiegruppen in Bezug auf das Auftreten von schwergradigen (CTCAE Grad 3 und 4) Nierenfunktionsstörungen (Gemcitabin und Cisplatin versus Gemcitabin: 1,5 % vs. 1 %, p = 0,83) sowie von Übelkeit (4,0 % versus 3,5 %, p = 0,78) und Erbrechen (5,1 vs. 5,5 %, p = 0,65).
Bei Patienten mit ECOG 2 kann alternativ eine Monotherapie mit Gemcitabin erfolgen und bei eingeschränkter Nierenfunktion kann Oxaliplatin statt Cisplatin eingesetzt werden [712]. Die Lebenserwartung bei symptomorientierter Therapie beträgt nach historischen Daten dagegen nur ca. 2,5 bis 4,5 Monate [709].
Alternativ zu dieser Erstlinientherapie wird die Teilnahme an klinischen Studien empfohlen.
4.5.5 Therapie nach Versagen der Erstlinientherapie
Nach Versagen oder Unverträglichkeit der Erstlinientherapie soll Patienten mit adäquatem Allgemeinzustand eine weitere Therapie angeboten werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- 2
FOLFOX
3Pemigatinib, Futibatinib
⊕⊕⊕⊝Ivosidenib
- Konsens
- Konsens
- Literatur
- [714] [715] [1] [716]
Änderungshinweis
gleicher Text, aktuell nur Überführung in evidenzbasierte EmpfehlungEvidenztabellen (4)
CCA Lamarca 2021 FOLFOX; CCA Abou-Alfa 2020 Pemigatinib; CCA Zhu 2021 ClarlDHy; CCA Goyal 2023 FutibatinibIn einer fortgeschrittenen Situation bei Indikation für eine Systemtherapie bei Patienten mit ECOG 0 – 1 sollte eine molekulare Charakterisierung des Tumors und Vorstellung in einem Interdisziplinären/Molekularen Tumorboard spätestens bis zur Therapieentscheidung über die Zweitlinie erfolgen.
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
Änderungshinweis
In einer palliativen Situation bei Patienten mit ECOG 0 – 1 sollte eine molekulare Charakterisierung des Tumors und Vorstellung in einem Interdisziplinären/Molekularen Tumorboard erfolgen.Die Daten zu Tumoren mit FGFR2-Fusionsgenen, MSI-H/d-MMR oder IDH1-Mutationen zeigen, dass molekulargenetische Marker eine zunehmend größere Rolle für die Therapieauswahl auch bei zugelassenen Therapien spielen. Die molekulare Charakterisierung von Cholangiokarzinomen deutet darauf hin, dass diese Tumorentität sich in besonderem Maße für eine molekular gerichtete Therapie eignet [717] und dass diese Patienten bei gutem Allgemeinzustand (ECOG 0 – 1) nach einem Versagen der Erstlinientherapie in einem molekularen Tumorboard vorgestellt werden sollten. Weitere Beispiele für molekulare Veränderungen neben den zugelassenen Therapieoptionen, die therapeutisch genutzt werden können, sind NTRK-Fusionsgene, Amplifikationen von HER2 oder die BRAF V600E Mutation.
- Fusionsgene mit dem Neurotrophin-Rezeptoren TRKA, TRKB und TRKC, sog. NTRK-Genfusionen [718] sind seltene Veränderungen bei CCA, die in Einzelfällen beschrieben worden sind [719][720]. Die hohe Relevanz dieser Veränderungen liegt allerdings in der hohen Ansprechrate solche Tumoren [721], die zur Tumor-unabhängigen Zulassung von Larotrectinib und Entrectinib geführt hat.
- Amplifikationen von HER2 (ERBB2) finden sich bei 5 – 15 % aller Gallenwegstumoren, am häufigsten bei Karzinomen der Gallenblase [722].In der Phase 2-Studie "MyPathway" wurden Patienten mit einem metastasierten biliären Karzinom und einer Her2-Amplifikation und/oder Her2-Überexpression im ECOG Performance Status 0-2 mit Pertuzumab in Kombination mit Trastuzumab behandelt. Es konnte bei 9 von 39 Patienten ein partial response (23 % [95% CI: 11-39 %] festgestellt werden, das mOS in dieser Studie lag bei 10,9 Monaten [723]. Eine weitere Studie mit Tucatinib und Trastuzumab mit 30 Patienten zeigte eine Ansprechrate von 47% und ein OS von 15,5 Monaten [Nakamura, Y et al. 2023]. In der DESTINY-PanTumor02 Studie konnte in der Gruppe mit biliären Tumoren bei 16 Patienten mit einem IHC 3+ Wert ein Ansprechen auf Trastuzumab-Deruxtecan bei 56% erreicht werden [725]. Interessanterweise konnte in einer weiteren Studie auch gezeigt werden, dass eine Therapie mit Neratinib bei einzelnen aktivierenden Mutationen ohne ERBB2-Amplifikation wirksam eingesetzt werden kann [726].
- Für Patienten mit der BRAF-Mutation V600E wurde ein Ansprechen auf den BRAF-Inhibitor Vemurafenib zunächst in Einzelfällen beschrieben [727]. Inzwischen gibt es weitere Daten für ein gutes Ansprechen mit einer Kombination aus dem BRAF-Inhibitor Dabrafenib und dem MEK-Inhibitor Trametinib in einem frühen Bericht aus der „NCI-MATCH“ Studie [728], weiteren Fallberichten [729][730][731] und der Phase II Studie ROAR. In dieser Studie wurden 43 Patienten mit einer BRAF-V600E Mutation behandelt. Insgesamt wurde bei 20 Patienten (47 %) ein Therapieansprechen beobachtet, 15 Patienten zeigten einen stabilen Krankheitsverlauf (35 %) und bei 6 Patienten wurde ein Progress (14 %) als "best response" dokumentiert. Das Gesamtüberleben nach 12 Monaten betrug 56 %, nach 24 Monaten 36 % und das mediane Gesamtüberleben in dieser Kohorte war 14 Monate [732].
Patienten, deren Tumoren eine Fibroblasten-Wachstumsfaktor-Rezeptor-2 (FGFR2)-Fusion oder ein FGFR2-Rearrangement aufweisen und die nach mindestens einer Systemtherapie progredient sind, soll eine Therapie mit einem der FGFR-Inhibitoren Futibatinib oder Pemigatinib angeboten werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- 3
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens (97%, mit Enthaltungen aufgrund von Interessenkonflikten 97)
- Literatur
- [733] [716]
Änderungshinweis
Patienten deren Tumoren eine Fibroblasten-Wachstumsfaktor-Rezeptor-2 (FGFR2) Fusion oder ein FGFR2-Rearrangement aufweisen und die nach mindestens einer Systemtherapie progredient sind, soll eine Therapie mit dem FGFR-Inhibitor Pemigatinib angeboten werden.Die Zulassung von Pemigatinib beruht auf der einarmigen Phase II Studie FIGHT-202 [715]. Als primärer Endpunkt zeigten 40 von 108 Patienten (37 %) ein Ansprechen auf die Tumortherapie, davon 36 Patienten mit einer partiellen und 4 Patienten mit einer kompletten Remission [715]. Die mediane Dauer des Therapieansprechens war 8,1 Monate (95% CI: 5,7; 13,1).
Die Zulassung von Futibatinib basiert auf die ebenfalls einarmige Phase II Studie FOE-NIXX-CCA2 [716]. 43 von 103 Patienten (42%) zeigten ein Ansprechen, davon 1 Patient mit einer kompletten Remission. 31 Patienten wiesen ein Ansprechen von mehr als sechs und 6 Patieten von mehr als zwölf Monaten auf. Das mediane Gesamtüberleben als sekundärer Endpunkt betrug 21,7 Monate [716].
Beide FGFR-Inhibitoren sind für das Cholangiokarzinom nach mindestens einer Vor-therapie zugelassen, eine Entscheidungsgrundlage welcher Inhibitor bevorzugt ein-gesetzt werden soll kann derzeit nicht gegeben werden. Präklinische Arbeiten legen nahe, dass Futibatinib noch bei einzelnen Resistenzmutationen die sich unter Pemi-gatinib entwickeln können, wirksam sein kann [734]. Einzelne Patienten die ein Therapieansprechen auf Futibatinib nach Pemigatinib errei-chen konnten sind beschrieben worden [735][736]. Als Option nach Progress unter einer Therapie mit einem FGFR-Inhibitor wird die Prüfung von Studienmöglichkeiten empfohlen.
Neben den oben genannten Substanzen wurden weitere vielversprechende erste klinische Daten z.B. auch für Derazantinib [737], Erdafitinib [738] oder RLY-4008 [Subbiah, V et al. 2023] vorgestellt. Medikamente aus dieser Substanzgruppe werden derzeit in zahlreichen Studien und unterschiedlichen Situationen, z.T. auch in der Erstlinie oder nach vorangegangener FGFR-Inhibition, untersucht. Neben Fusionsgenen sich auch aktivierende Mutationen oder Inframe-Deletionen als relevant für Therapieansätze beschrieben worden [740][741].
Immuntherapie-naiven Patienten mit nicht resezierbarem oder metastasiertem biliärem Karzinom, welches eine hochfrequente Mikrosatelliten-Instabilität (MSI-H) oder eine Mismatch-Reparatur-Defizienz (dMMR) aufweist und Fortschreiten der Erkrankung während oder nach mindestens einer vorherigen Therapie, soll eine Therapie mit dem anti-PD-1 Antikörper Pembrolizumab angeboten werden.
Die Bestimmung auf Mikrosatelliteninstabilität soll Tumoren mit funktionsgestörten DNA-Reparatursystemen (sog. MSI high Tumoren) identifizieren, die von einer Immuntherapie mit PD-1 Checkpoint-Inhibitoren profitieren [744][745][746]. Diese machen in frühen Krankheitsstadien bis zu 1 % und bei fortgeschrittenen Tumoren bis zu 2 % aller biliärer Karzinome aus [746][747]. In seltenen Fällen kann auch im Rahmen eines Lynch Syndroms ein Cholangiokarzinom entstehen [748][496]Sollten Patienten in der Erstlinie kein Durvalumab erhalten haben, ist für diese Patienten Pembrolizumab eine Therapiemöglichkeit. Die Zulassung von Pembrolizumab in dieser Indikation beruht auf der Keynote 158 Studie, in der 351 Patienten mit 28 unterschiedlichen Tumorentitäten eingeschlossen worden sind [742]. Bei insgesamt 22 Patienten mit CCA zeigte sich ein Ansprechen bei 9 Patienten (41 %; 3 x CR, 6 x PR), welches im Median 31 Monate andauerte.
Patienten mit lokal fortgeschrittenem oder metastasiertem Cholangiokarzinom mit einer IDH1 R132-Mutation, die zuvor mit mindestens einer Linie Systemtherapie behandelt worden sind, soll eine Therapie mit dem IDH1-Inhibitor Ivosidenib angeboten werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- A: Starke Empfehlung für oder gegen ein Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = soll/soll nicht
- Evidenzlevel
- ⊕⊕⊕⊝
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens
- Literatur
- [749]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA Zhu 2021 ClarlDHyAls medikamentöse Zweitlinientherapie kann bei Patienten mit ECOG 0-1 eine Therapie mit FOLFOX angeboten werden.
- Empfehlungsgrad
- 0: offene Empfehlung (Option) bzgl. einer Maßnahme - verwendete Ausdrucksweise = kann
- Evidenzlevel
- 2
- Konsens
- Starker Konsens (96%, mit Enthaltungen aufgrund von Interessenkonflikten 97%)
- Literatur
- [743]
Evidenztabellen (1)
CCA Lamarca 2021 FOLFOXNach Versagen mindestens einer vorherigen Therapielinie kann eine Irinotecan-haltige Therapie angeboten werden.
Für den Nutzen einer Zweitlinientherapie bei radiologisch progredienter Tumorerkrankung unter der Erstlinientherapie ohne weitere molekulare Charakterisierung liegen Daten aus der ABC-06-Studie vor [743].
In der randomisierten Phase-III-Studie ABC-06 wurde ein modifiziertes FOLFOX-Regime gegen eine alleinige symptomorientierte Therapie verglichen und eine moderate Verbesserung des medianen Gesamtüberlebens von 5,3 Monate auf 6,2 Monate mit Chemotherapie erreicht (HR: 0,69 (95% CI: 0,50; 0,97; p = 0,032) [743]. Die 1-Jahres-Überlebensrate für FOLFOX war mit 25,9 % etwas mehr als doppelt so hoch wie in der Kontrollgruppe mit 11,4 %.
Ein direkter Vergleich von mFOLFIRI mit mFOLFOX wurde in einer Phase II Studie aus Südkorea mit jeweils 59 Patienten in jedem Arm untersucht. Der primäre Endpunkt der Überlebensrate nach 6 Monate war 54% für mFOLFOX und 44% für mFOLFIRI, der Unterschied war statistisch nicht signifikant [750].
Die Kombination von Irinotecan und Capecitabin führte im Vergleich zu einer Irinotecan Monotherapie in einer randomisierten Phase II Studie aus China mit 60 Patienten nach Progress unter Gemcitabin und Cisplatin zu einer Verlängerung des mOS (10,1 vs 7,3 Monate) bei einer 9-Monate Überlebensrate von 60,9 % vs. 32 % [752]. Diese Ergebnisse wurden durch die NIFTY Studie aus Süd-Korea bei 178 Patienten bestätigt. In dieser Phase-IIb Studie wurde die Kombination von 5-FU/Leukovorin und liposomalem Irinotecan gegenüber 5-FU/Leukovorin alleine untersucht. Das mPFS bei Patienten, die mit der Kombination behandelt wurden, betrug 7,1 Monate im Vergleich zu 1,4 Monaten für Patienten, die nur mit 5-FU/Leukovorin behandelt wurden. Das mediane OS lag bei 8,6 Monate im experimentellen Arm und 5,5 Monate im Kontrollarm [751]. Diese Ergebnisse konnten allerdings in der in Deutschland durchgeführten NALIRICC Studie nicht bestätigt werden. Insgesamt zeigte sich bei deutlich höherer Toxizität keine Verbesserung des PFS und des OS, so dass ein Einsatz von liposomalem Irinotecan anstelle von Irinotecan derzeit nicht empfohlen werden [753].4.5.6 Verlaufskontrollen unter Systemtherapie
Bei biliären Karzinomen unter Systemtherapie sollte alle 6–12 Wochen die diagnostisch am besten geeignete Schnittbildgebung durchgeführt werden. Die Interpretation im klinischen Alltag sollte sich an den Auswerteprinzipien von RECIST 1.1 orientieren.
- Konsens
- Konsens
Evidenztabellen
CCA Risikofaktoren
Schlüsselfrage:
Welche Vorerkrankungen erhöhen das Risiko für die Entstehung von biliären Karzinomen (Gallenblasenkarzinom oder CCA)?
Inhalt: 6 Literaturstellen
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| Atchison, E. A. 2011 | 3 | retrospective cohort study |
| de Valle, M. B. 2012 | 4 | retrospective prognostic study |
| Huang, Y. 2017 | 1 | Systematic Review and Meta Analysis |
| Jing, W. 2012 | 2 | systematic review and meta analysis |
| Palmer, W. C. 2012 | 1 | systematic review and meta analysis |
| Wongjarupong, N. 2017 | 1 | systematic review and meta analysis |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 4 Bewertung(en)
| Huang, Y. et al. Smoking and risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 8. 100570-100581. 2017 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis Databases: Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search period: inception to April 11, 2017 Inclusion Criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies; (2) full-text articles and abstracts that included smoking as an exposure of interest; (3) the outcome of interest was CCA, intrahepatic CCA, extrahepatic CCA, perihilar CCA, or distal CCA; and (4) ORs or relative risk (RRs) with 95% CIs were reported or can be calculated. Exclusion Criteria: (1) reviews, letters, editorials and case reports; (2) without data specific for CCA; (3) without appropriate data that could be extracted or calculated. In the case of multiple publications from the same population, only the most comprehensive one was included. |
Population: individuals who smoke Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: pooled OR with 95% CI for developing CCA in people who smoke Secondary: none Results: Smoking and risk of CCA - A total of 22 case-control studies involving 7,216 CCA cases and 317,117 control cases were analyzed -Significant heterogeneity existed among the studies (P=0.001; I2=52.6%). - The summary odds ratio (OR) of CCA was 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15 to 1.51] in the random-effects model for smokers versus nonsmokers Smoking and risk of intrahepatic CCA - Twelve studies involving 3,759 patients with intrahepatic CCA and 308,278 healthy controls investigated the association between smoking and risk of intrahepatic CCA - significant heterogeneity existed among the studies (P=0.000; I2=66.2%). - pooled data using the random effects model showed an increased OR of developing intrahepatic CCA in smokers (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.63) Smoking and risk of extrahepatic CCA - Twelve studies involving 3029 patients with extrahepatic CCA and 110,608 healthy controls explored the association between smoking and risk of extrahepatic CCA - A significant heterogeneity existed among the studies (P=0.034; I2=45.1%). The pooled data using the random-effects model showed that smoking was associated with improved risk of extrahepatic CCA (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.59) Author's Conclusion: In conclusion, the results of our meta-analysis support the hypothesis that there is a moderate association between cigarette smoking and risk of CCA. Further large-scale and well-conducted studies that investigate potential effect modification with confounders and the dose-response relationship between cigarette smoking and risk of CCA are needed. This conclusion delivers an important public health message to areas of both high CCA incidence and high smoking prevalence such as in China. |
22 articles included see article for references |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Study Quality: - methodological quality was assessed independently by three reviewers using the NOS - Studies with 7 (out of 9) or more stars were considered to be of high quality. - 1 study was awarded 4 stars, 2x 5 stars, 6x 6 stars, 4x 7 stars, and 8x 8 stars. 1 study was not assessed. Heterogeneity: - Statistical heterogeneity between studies was measured by using the Chi-square (χ2, or Chi2) test and quantified via I2 statistic; P value < 0.10 or I2 > 50% was considered statistically significant. - overall, Significant heterogeneity existed among the studies (P = 0.001; I2 = 52.6%). - see results, for further I2 values Publication Bias: - No evidence of significant publication bias was noted from visual inspection of the funnel plots, Begg’s test or Egger’s test for risk of CCA (Begg’s P = 0.626, Egger’s P = 0.954), risk of intrahepatic CCA (Begg’s P = 0.463, Egger’s P = 0.887), or extrahepatic CCA (Begg’s P = 0.584, Egger’s P = 0.564). Notes: - evidence level 1: SR and MA - significant heterogeneity among studies |
||||
| Jing, W. et al. Diabetes mellitus and increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev. 21. 24-31. 2012 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: Medline and Embase Search period: Medline (from 1 January 1966) and Embase (from 1 January 1974), through 30 November 2010 Inclusion Criteria: (i) case–control or cohort design; (ii) diabetes as one of the exposure of interests; (iii) ICC,ECC, or CC as one of the outcome of interests; and (iv) reported relative risk (RR) in cohort studies (rate ratio) or in case–control studies [odds ratio, (OR)] with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or sufficient information provided to calculate them Exclusion Criteria: We did not consider studies in which the exposure of interest was type 1 diabetes, which was defined as early-onset (age≤30 years) of diabetes. If data were duplicated in more than one study, the estimate effects controlled for the most appropriate confounders were included. This resulted in the exclusion of three articles from our study (Adami et al., 1991; Hou et al., 2006; Hsing et al., 2008). Articles or reports from non peer-reviewed sources were also not considered for this analysis. |
Population: individuals with or without diabetes Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: risk ratios for cholangiocarcinoma (including ICC and ECC) Secondary: none Results: Diabetes mellitus and risk of cholangiocarcinoma - 4 case–control studies and 1 cohort study reported results on DM and risk of CC -summary RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were 1.60 (1.38–1.87) in a random-effects model for those with diabetes compared with those without diabetes. Diabetes mellitus and risk of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma - 9 studies (4 case–control and 5 cohort studies) presented results on diabetes and risk of ECC - summary RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were 1.63 (1.29–2.05) in a random-effects model for those with diabetes compared with those without diabetes - A positive association between DM and ECC risk was found in studies conducted in non-Asian regions (the USA and Europe) (summary RRs, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.31–2.06) and a positive, but non-significant association was found in Asia (summary RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.58–2.99). Diabetes mellitus and risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma - 9 studies (4 case–control and 5 cohort studies)with results on diabetes and risk of ECC - summary RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were 1.97 (1.57–2.46) Author's Conclusion: In total, the results from this meta-analysis suggest an association between diabetes and increased risks of CC (including ICC and ECC). Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that the positive association may be due to bias or confounding among these studies. More studies, both epidemiological and mechanistic, are needed to further clarify this association in the future. |
case-control studies Yamamoto, 2004, Cancer Sci Shaib, 2007, Am J Gastroenterol Shaib, 2005, Gastroenterology Lee, 2008, Am J Gastroenterol Zhou, 2008, World J Gastroenterol: WJG Welzel, 2007, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Tao, 2010, Liver Int Welzel, 2007, Int J Cancer J Int du Cancer, Welzel, 2006, J Natl Cancer Inst Shebl, 2010, Br J Cancer Grainge, 2009, Br J Cancer cohort studies Adami, 1996, J Natl Cancer Inst Khan, 2006, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev El-Serag, 2009, Hepatology Jamal, 2009, World J Gastroenterol Hemminki, 2010, Oncologist |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: There are no conflicts of interest. Study Quality: no quality assessment Heterogeneity: - no significant heterogeneity among studies (P= 0.992;I2= 0%) included in CC-analysis - significant heterogeneity among studies (P= 0.005,I2= 63.8%) included in ECC-analysis - significant heterogeneity among studies (P=0.025,I2= 54.3%) included in ICC-analysis Publication Bias: The funnel plot revealed no evidence for publication bias concerning diabetes and the risk of ICC and ECC. P values for Begg’s adjusted rank correlation test and Egger’s regression asymmetry test were 0.529 and 0376, respectively, both suggesting that publication bias probably has little effect on summary estimates. Notes: - evidence level 2: systematic review and meta analysis, downgraded due to missing quality assessment - uncertainty if data from all listed studies are included in meta analysis (Welzel, 2006, J Natl Cancer Inst might not be included) |
||||
| Palmer, W. C. et al. Are common factors involved in the pathogenesis of primary liver cancers? A meta-analysis of risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 57. 69-76. 2012 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: PubMed and Google Scholar Search period: - restricted to studies performed after 1990 - The most recent search was performed on August 12, 2011 Inclusion Criteria: a) case–control study design; (b) reported outcomes specifically for cases of IH-CCA; (c) examined individual risk factors using defined criteria; (d) provided enough information to calculate the odds ratio. Exclusion Criteria: Studies where the Materials and methods were inadequately described, raw data was unavailable, or where cases did not specifically include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IH-CCA) were excluded |
Population: individuals with IH-CCA (cases) or without IH-CCA (controls) Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: odds ratio for risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma Secondary: none Results: a total of 334 citations were identified, of which 11 studies qualified for inclusion. Cirrhosis - 7 case-control studies with a total study population of 399,608 patients with or without IH-CCA - Cirrhosis was associated with an overall OR of 22.92 (95%CI=18.24–28.79) for IH-CCA Hepatitis B - 8 case-control studies with a total study population of 294,828 patients with or without IH-CCA - presence of hepatitis B virus was associated with a combined OR of 5.54, with 95% confidence intervals of 3.19–9.63 for IH-CCA. - A separate analysis did not reveal any significant difference between regions of high prevalence (Eastern nations such as Japan, Korea, and China) and low-to-intermediate prevalence (Western nations such as USA and Italy) Hepatitis C - 8 case-control studies with a total study population of 396,754 patients with or without IH-CCA - presence of hepatitis C virus was associated with an overallOR of 4.84, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.41–9.71 - - A separate analysis revealed a higher OR for regions with low-to-intermediate prevalence (Western nations), but nor for regions of high prevalence (Eastern nations) obesity - 3 case-control studies with a total study population of 304,134 patients with or without IH-CCA - obesity was associated with an overall OR of 1.56 (95%CI =1.26-1.94) for IH-CCA Diabetes mellitus type II - 9 case-control studies with a total study population of 400,167 patients with or without IH-CCA - diabetes was associated with an overall OR of 1.89 with 95% confidence intervals of 1.74–2.07 for IH-CCA. smoking - 8 case-control studies with a total study population of 396,347 patients with or without IH-CCA - An overall OR of 1.31 with 95% confidence intervals of 0.95–1.82 was estimated. alcohol - 10 case-control studies with a total study population of 398,048 patients with or without IH-CCA - alcohol use was associated with an overall OR of 2.81 (95% CI = 1.52–5.21) for IH-CCA Author's Conclusion: Cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis B and C, alcohol use, diabetes, and obesity are major risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. These data suggest a common pathogenesis of primary intrahepatic epithelial cancers. |
Yamamoto, 2004, Cancer Sci Shaib, 2007, Am J Gastroenterol Shaib, 2005, Gastroenterology Welzel, 2007, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Donato, 2001, Cancer Causes & Control: CCC Lee, 2008, Am J Gastroenterol Zhou, 2008, World J Gastroenterol: WJG Welzel, 2011, Hepatology Zhou, 2010, Eur J Cancer Tao, 2010, Liver Int Welzel, 2007, Int J Cancer J Int du Cancer |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: Supported in part by NIH grant DK 069370 (TP). COI: The authors who have taken part in this study declared that they do not have anything to disclose regarding funding or conflict of interest with respect to this manuscript. Study Quality: The quality of individual studies was evaluated based on reported study methodology, analyses, and identification of cases and controls. The criteria reviewed included (a) description of the subject selection for both cases and controls, to ensure that there were no obvious biases; (b) methods used to determine presence or absence of risk factor, and (c) approach for analysis of results and their interpretation. Studies were selected for inclusion in our meta-analysis in an unblinded standardized manner by one of the authors. None of the identified studies were excluded from the analysis. Heterogeneity: A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model using the Der Simo-nian and Laird method where there was significant heterogeneity (Q: p<0.01 or="" i="" sup="">2>60%), or using a fixed effect model and the Mantel–Haenszel weighting algorithm where there was no significant heterogeneity. cirrhosis - moderate degree of heterogeneity (I2= 62.4%) HBV - high degree of heterogeneity (I2= 86.3%; Q: 51.2, p<0.0001) HCV - high degree of heterogeneity (I2= 83.6%; Q: 42.7, p<0.0001) smoking - high degree of heterogeneity (I2= 83.1%, Q: 41.4, p<0.0001) alcohol - high degree of heterogeneity (I2= 90%; Q: 90.3, p<0.0001) diabetes - moderate degree of heterogeneity (I2= 57.8%; Q: 18.9, p=0.015) obesity - no degree of heterogeneity (I2= 0.0%; Q: 0.6, p=0.754) Publication Bias: - Funnel plots did not identify any possible bias in the studies - sensitivity analysis revealed no significant difference observed in the overall OR for cirrhosis, chronic HBV, HCV, alcohol use, tobacco use or diabetes - A sensitivity analysis was not performed for studies evaluating obesity because of the small number of studies. Notes: - evidence level 1: SR and MA - heterogeneity high for most risk factors |
||||
| Wongjarupong, N. et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 17. 149. 2017 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MED-LINE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid EMBASE and Scopus Search period: inception of the databases through April 5, 2017 Inclusion Criteria: (i) case-control, cohort or trial study, (ii) NAFLD or NASH, defined by either histopathological examination, imaging study or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or ICD-10 codes, as one of the exposure of interests, (iii) CCA either iCCA, eCCA, or both as outcome of interest, (iv) study that provided adequate information for calculation of odds ratio (OR) or relative risk for case-control study and cohort study, respectively. Exclusion Criteria: Studies of patient cohorts with recurrent CCA or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma were excluded. |
Population: patients with NASH or NAFLD Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: Pooled OR along with 95% confidence interval (CI) for CCA, iCCA, and eCCA Secondary: none Results: - 8 studies met the criteria: 7 case-control studies and 1 cohort study. 7 case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. The single cohort study was analyzed separately because this study provided limited information - There was a total of 9102 CCA patients (5067 iCCA and 4035 eCCA) and 129,111 controls in 7 case-control studies NAFLD and risk of CCA - pooled OR of NAFLD was 1.95 (95% CI: 1.36–2.79; I2=76%, P<0.01) for CCA risk - The pooled ORs for CCA were 1.83 (95% CI: 1.05–3.18,I2=65%;P= 0.06), and 2.13 (95%CI: 1.47–3.10,I2=37%;P= 0.19) for studies conducted in Western and Asian countries, respectively - good quality studies had pooled OR of 1.33 (95% CI: 1.07–1.65,I2=0%;P= 0.39) and the fair quality studies had pooled OR of 2.48 (95% CI: 2.13–2.90,I2=0%;P= 0.79) - The pooled adjusted OR for CCA was 1.97 (95% CI: 1.41–2.75,I2= 71%;P< 0.001) NAFLD and risk of iCCA and eCCA subtype - 6 studies presenting results of NAFLD and iCCA risk - pooled OR of NAFLD were 2.22 (95%CI: 1.52–3.24,I2=67%;P= 0.01) for iCCA risk - 4 studies presenting results of NAFLD and risk of eCCA - significant association between NAFLD and eCCA was detected, with pooled OR of 1.55 (95% CI: 1.03–2.33,I2= 69%;P= 0.02) based on only one study were NAFLD was significantly associated with eCCA - The pooled adjusted ORs for iCCA and eCCA were 1.98 (95%CI: 1.26–2.69,I2= 47%;P= 0.11) and 2.05 (95%CI: 1.59–2.64,I2= 0%;P= 0.90) Author's Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that NAFLD may potentially increase the risk of CCA development. The magnitude of NAFLD on CCA risk is greater for iCCA than eCCA sub-type, suggestive of a common pathogenesis of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma. Further studies to elucidate both the strength of the association between NAFLD and CCA, as well as the mechanisms that underlie this relationship are warranted. |
Welzel et al, 2007, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Zhou et al. 2009, Zhonghua Gan ZangBing Za Zhi Chang et al. 2013, PloS one Lee et al. 2015, Liver Int Kinoshita et al. 2016, J Surg Oncol Choi et al. 2016, Hepatology Stepien et al. 2016, Cancer Epidemiol |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This meta-analysis received funding from the Grant for International Research Integration: Chula Research Scholar, Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund. The funder has no role in the project design, data analysis, or paper publication. COI: The authors declare that they have no competing interests Study Quality: - The quality of studies was evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), with a maximum of 9 points. The study quality was classified as poor (score 0–3), fair (score 4–6) or good (score 7–9) - of the 7 studies included in MA, 4 exhibited "good" quality, 3 "fair" quality Heterogeneity: - Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using both the I2 statistics and P value. An I2 value of >50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. - see results section for I2 values Publication Bias: No publication bias was detected by the Egger’s regression asymmetry test, with P= 0.82 and 0.86 for unadjusted and adjusted OR of NAFLD, respectively. Notes: - evidence level 1: SR and MA - significant heterogeneity among studies |
||||
| Atchison, E. A. et al. Risk of cancer in a large cohort of U.S. veterans with diabetes. Int J Cancer. 128. 635-43. 2011 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | Methodical Notes | Patient characteristics | Interventions |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: retrospective cohort study |
Funding sources: This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of theNational Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS. Conflict of Interests: no statement Randomization: none Blinding: none Dropout rates: none |
Total no. patients: overall 4,501,578 black and white male U.S. veterans Recruiting Phase: July 1, 1969 and September 30, 1996 Inclusion criteria: black and white male veterans between the ages of 18 and 100 years, hospitalized at least once during the study period. Exclusion criteria: Other ethnic/racial groups and females were not included in the study due to small numbers. |
Interventions: men with diabetes Comparison: men without diabetes |
| Notes: | evidence level 3: cohort study Author's conclusion: In summary, this study suggests that differences in cancerrisks exist among diabetic and nondiabetic men. In particu-lar, diabetic men may be at significantly increased risk of cancers of the liver, pancreas, biliary tract, and colorectum. |
||
| Outcome Measures/results | Primary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for cancer (Adjusted for age, time, latency, race, number of visits, alcohol–related conditions, obesity and COPD) Secondary |
Results: basics - Of the 4,501,578 men in the study cohort, 3,669,244 (81.5%) were white and 832,334 (18.5%) were black - diabetes was recorded for 594,815 (13.2%)of the total cohort and was more common among black (14.8%) than among white (12.9%) men. - The median follow-up time was 10.5 years for men with diabetes and 11.9 years for men without diabetes risk of cancer - Risk of biliary tract (RRadj=1.41, 95%CI=1.22–1.62) was significantly elevated among men with diabetes. - Only white men had significantly increased risk of biliary tract carcinoma (RRadj=1.39, 95%CI=1.18–1.63) risk of other cancer - Overall, men with diabetes had a significantly lower risk of developing total cancer than did men without diabetes (RRadj=0.93, 95%CI=0.93–0.94) - Cancers that were significantly less likely to occur among men with diabetes were cancers of the buccal cavity, esophagus, larynx, lung, prostate and brain. - Cancers that were significantly more likely to occur among men with diabetes were cancers of the colon, rectum, liver, leukemia, melanoma, pancreas and kidney. |
|
| de Valle, M. B. et al. Mortality and cancer risk related to primary sclerosing cholangitis in a Swedish population-based cohort. Liver Int. 32. 441-8. 2012 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | Methodical Notes | Patient characteristics | Interventions |
| Evidence level: 4 Study type: retrospective prognostic study |
Funding sources: This study was supported by grants from the Swedish federal government under the agreement concerning research and education of doctors in Västra Götaland, Sweden. Conflict of Interests: no statement Randomization: none Blinding: none Dropout rates: At follow up in 2008, information was available for 194 patients; five had moved outside the region and were lost to follow up |
Total no. patients: 199 patients with PSC Recruiting Phase: 1992 to 2005 Inclusion criteria: - patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis - aged ≥18 years - from inpatient and outpatient registers at all hospitals in the region Västra Götaland, Sweden Exclusion criteria: - No patients are referred out of the region - no diagnostic searches were performed at paediatric clinics. |
Interventions: review of registry data regarding cases with PSC Comparison: For background population mortality and cancer incidence estimates, data from the Swedish population were retrieved from http://www.socialstyrelsen.se, Swedish National board of health and welfare (cancer incidence year from 1992 to 2007) and http://www.scb.se, Statistics Sweden (mortality rates each year from 1992 to 2008). |
| Notes: | evidence level 4: retrospective prognostic follow-up study Author's conclusion: Primary sclerosing cholangitis was associated with a four-fold increase in mortality in this population-based study. In accordance with previous studies, the risk of hepatobiliary cancer was dramatically increased. However, the increased risk of colorectal cancer reported in previous studies could not be confirmed. |
||
| Outcome Measures/results | Primary Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and standardized incidence ratio (SIR) Secondary risk factors for liver related death or liver transplantation risk factors for cancer |
Results: Standardized mortality ratio and risk factors for liver related death or liver transplantation - 4-fold increased risk of mortality (SMR 4.20; 95% CI 3.01–5.69) compared with the general population in the Västra Götaland region - multivariate analysis of risk factors: Age, female gender, cholangitis, jaundice and bilirubin in the highest quartile were statistically and significantly associated with the risk of liver-related death or OLT in the adjusted model - The strongest association was found for bilirubin (RR 3.95; 95% CI 1.46–10.75), highest vs lowest quartile) and cholangitis (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.20–5.64), for presence vs absence of cholangitis) Standardized incidence ratio and risk factors for cancer - Overall, 29 incident malignancies were identified in the PSC cohort - 4-fold increased risk of any malignancy compared with the general population in Västra Götaland region (SIR 4.17; 95%CI 2.79–5.99) - the risk of cancer regardless of site was not significantly increased compared with the general population when hepatobiliary cancers were excluded (SIR for all sites excluding he-patobiliary cancer 1.12; 95% CI 0.48–2.21) - SIR for hepatobiliary cancer was 177 (95% CI 110–271) and for cholangiocarcinoma 868 (95% CI 505–1390) - SIR for colorectal cancer was not statistically and significantly increased in PSC subjects compared with the general population - age was the only variable associated with hepatobiliary cancer risk using univariate and multivariate analysis (RR 1.40; 95% CI 1.01–1.95, per decade) |
|
GB-Karzinom Risikofaktoren
Schlüsselfrage:
Welche Vorerkrankungen erhöhen das Risiko für die Entstehung von biliären Karzinomen (Gallenblasenkarzinom oder CCA)?
Inhalt: 5 Literaturstellen
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| Nagaraja, V. 2014 | 1 | Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis |
| Park, J. K. 2008 | 4 | prognostic study, observational |
| Park, J. Y. 2009 | 4 | observational follow-up study |
| Sarici, I. S. 2017 | 4 | prognostic study, observational, retrospective |
| Shrikhande, S. V. 2010 | 2 | systematic review |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 2 Bewertung(en)
| Nagaraja, V. et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the relationship between chronic Salmonella typhi carrier status and gall-bladder cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 39. 745-50. 2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis Databases: - MEDLINE (from 1950), PubMed (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1949), Current Contents Connect (from 1998), Cochrane library, Google scholar, Science Direct and Web of Science to November 2013 - The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched for appropriate studies. - A search for unpublished literature was not performed. Search period: 1946- November 2013 (see also 3.1 Databases) Inclusion Criteria: (i) Studies identifying the population of patients with gall-bladder cancer (ii) Cohort or case–control studies explored the relationship between gall-bladder cancer and Salmonella. Exclusion Criteria: no information |
Population: patients with gall-bladder cancer Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: level of risk (odds ratio) for developing gall-bladder cancer in patients with a chronic typhoid infection Secondary: none Results: - OR for cohort studies was 19.48 (95% CI: 0.27–1418.18, P value: 0.77) - OR for case-control studies was 3.08 (95%CI: 1.67–5.71,P value<0.01). - overall OR was 4.28 (95% CI: 1.84–9.96,Pvalue<0.01) subgroup analysis Chronic S. typhi carrier state was associated with gall-bladder carcinoma based on detection methods of S. typhi antibody levels (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.48–5.00,P value<0.01) and even more so on culture (OR: 4.14,95% CI: 2.41–7.12,P value<0.01). On the other hand, a past medical history of typhoid was not associated with carcinoma of the gall-bladder (OR: 3.33, 95% CI: 0.77–14.38,P value: 0.11). Author's Conclusion: Chronic S. typhi carrier state is an important risk factor among patients with carcinoma of the gall-bladder. Given the high risk associated with this carrier state, management options should include either elective cholecystectomy or careful monitoring using ultrasound. |
Caygill et al. 1994, Lancet Nath et al. 1997, Eur J Cancer Prev Shukla et al. 2000, Dig Dis Sci Csendes et al. 1994, Eur J Surg Hazrah et al. 2004, HPB Dutta et al. 2000, Am J Gastroenterol Serra et al. 2002, Int J Cancer Nath et al. 2008, J Infect Dev Ctries Sharma et al. 2007, Hepatogastroenterology Welton et al. 1979, Lancet Tewari et al. 2010, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int Safaeian et al. 2011, Infect Agent Cancer Yagyu et al. 2004, Cancer Sci Singh et al. 1996, Eur J Cancer Prev Pandey et al. 2003, Eur J Cancer Prev Strom et al. 1995, Cancer Roa et al. 1999, Rev Med Chil |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: Declaration of personal and funding interests: None Study Quality: Quality assessment of studies was performed by two reviewers according the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used as an assessment tool for selection, comparability and outcome assessment. Study quality was rated on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 9 (high). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Of 17 included studies, 2 were rated with 5 points, 2 with 6 points, 12 with 7 points and 1 with 8 points. Heterogeneity: The heterogeneity was high for overall studies: I2 =89.14 (p=0.001); cohort studies: I2 =96.26 (p=0.001) and case-control studies: I2 =73.57 (p=0.001) The reason for significant heterogeneity may be attributed to different population groups. Publication Bias: No publication bias was detected using the Egger’s regression model. Notes: - evidence level 1: SR with MA - data extraction (and subsequent MA) may have errors! (Safaeian et al: OR in this MA = 11.9; OR in original publication 1.9) |
||||
| Shrikhande, S. V. et al. Cholelithiasis in gallbladder cancer: coincidence, cofactor, or cause!. Eur J Surg Oncol. 36. 514-9. 2010 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: systematic review Databases: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Search period: 1891-2009 Inclusion Criteria: none given Exclusion Criteria: Confounding factors such as the presence of Mirizzi’s syndrome and its association with gallstones and gallbladder cancer have not been included in this review |
Population: no description of population Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: - epidemiological association between gallstones and gallbladder cancer - Duration of gallstones - Number, weight and volume of gallstones - Infection - Type of stone Secondary: none Results: Gallstones and gallbladder cancer - the epidemiology -There is substantial epidemiological data to support the role of gallstones in gallbladder cancer Duration of gallstones - While gallstones present for more than 20 years have been shown to be associated with an increased risk for gallbladder cancer, other authors have found that the duration of presence of the stone did not alter the risk of gallbladder cancer already associated with gallstones. Number, weight and volume of gallstones - More stones, as well as, larger and heavier stones have been shown to be associated with an increased risk for cancer causation. - gallstone >3 cm in size as a causative factor for gallbladder cancer Infection - It is believed that the presence of infection in the bile is a risk for stone formation and hence the attendant risk of cancer. Type of stone -differences in cholesterol, calcium and magnesium composition in gallstones in patients with gallbladder cancer and chronic cholecystitis Author's Conclusion: Gallstones have traditionally been regarded as an aetiological factor for gallbladder cancer. Despite some epidemiological data to support this, experimental models have failed to replicate the carcinogenetic process. It is thus difficult at the present time to firmly conclude whether gallstones are the cause or mere innocent by-standers in the causation of gallbladder cancer. They may however, be regarded as cofactors. In light of the high incidence of gallstones in regions reporting gallbladder cancer, the role of prophylactic cholecystectomy needs to be further assessed to define specific circumstances in which such a procedure could be justifiable. |
- Of the remaining 44 articles included in the study, 26 articles which provided clear epidemiological evidence of the relationship of gallstones to gallbladder cancer were then specifically analysed. - Citations see article |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: We declare no conflicts of interest. Study Quality: not analysed Heterogeneity: not analysed Publication Bias: not analysed Notes: - downgraded due to missing quality assessment of included studies - poor description of search strategy - no listing of the 44 included studies |
||||
COI: no statement
Randomization: none
Blinding: none
Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: none
Notes: evidence level 4: retrospective observational study
| Park, J. K. et al. Management strategies for gallbladder polyps: is it possible to predict malignant gallbladder polyps?. Gut Liver. 2. 88-94. 2008 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 4 Study type: prognostic study, observational Number of Patient: 1. prevalence analysis: data of 24,617 healthy subjects were collected. 2. risk factor analysis: 689 eligible patients were enrolled for characteristics of GB polyp and cholecystectomy Recruitung Phase: 1. prevalence analysis: To investigate epidemiologic information of GB polyps without any selection bias, we used data from healthy subjects who attended SNUH Gangnam Center for a routine health examination from October 1st, 2003 to July 31st, 2005. 2. risk factor analysis: For the study patients, 689 newly diagnosed GB polyp patients at SNUH from Janurary 1st 1988 to April 30th 2006 were enrolled from electronic medical records. Inclusion Criteria: 1. prevalence analysis: all healthy subjects who attended SNUH Gangnam Center for a routine health examination 2. risk factor analysis: patients, newly diagnosed with GB polyp patients at SNUH and for whom electronic medical data for age, sex, presence of symptoms, initial size, mass growth, mass multiplicity, accompanied stones, and shape are available Exclusion Criteria: 2. risk factor analysis: Patients were excluded if they had diseases capable of affecting survival, i.e., congestive heart failure, chronic renal failure, coronary heart disease, liver cirrhosis, malignancies and others. |
Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: - prevalence of GB polyps in healthy subjects - risk factors of malignancy in the 180 cholecystectomy cases Secondary: Characteristics of GB polyp and cholecystectomy Results: 1. Prevalence of GB polyps in healthy subjects - A total of 24,617 healthy subjects underwent abdominal ultrasonography during the study period - 954 of 13,328 (7.1%) men and 542 of 11,289 (4.8%) women had GB polyps, - overall prevalence of 6.1% (1,496/24,617) - a particularly high prevalence was found in those aged 40 to 70 years. 2.1 Characteristics of GB polyp and cholecystectomy - 689 eligible patients (M: 409, F: 280) of median age 47 years were followed for a median 60 months. - 405 (60%) patients had a single polyp and 57 (8%) patients had accompanying GB stones. - Mean diameter of GB polyps at initial diagnosis was 7 mm (range 2 to 30 mm). 109 (20%) patients with a GB polyp of >10 mm and 516 (75%) patients never had size change of polyps. - 180 patients underwent surgical resection 2.2 risk factors of malignancy in the 180 cholecystectomy cases - age (≥57 year-old), presence of symptoms, size (≥10 mm) and shape (sessile) were statistically significant risk factors by univariate analysis - multivariate analysis identified only age (≥57 year-old) and size (≥10 mm) as independent predictors of malignancy. Author's Conclusion: The present study shows that GB polyps ≥10mm in size in patients aged ≥57 years are the independent factors predicting malignancy of the GB. |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
COI: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this article.
Randomization: none
Blinding: none
Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: none
Notes: evidence level 4: retrospective observational study
| Sarici, I. S. et al. Gallbladder polypoid lesions >15mm as indicators of T1b gallbladder cancer risk. Arab J Gastroenterol. 18. 156-158. 2017 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 4 Study type: prognostic study, observational, retrospective Number of Patient: 69 females and 40 males were included in the study. Recruitung Phase: January 2005 - January 2015 Inclusion Criteria: - patients who were confirmed to have GBPs after cholecystectomy at the Department of General Surgery, Cukurova University Medical Faculty Exclusion Criteria: Those with definite evidence for malignancy such as adjacent organ invasion and metastasis on preoperative imaging studies and those with lack of preoperative imaging results were excluded. |
Intervention: none Comparison: none |
Primary: - The 10-mm cut-off sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignant polyps - cut-off diameter of T1b tumours Secondary: risk factors for gallbladder cancer Results: The 10-mm cut-off sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignant polyps - 10-mm cut-off sensitivity and specificity for predicting malignant polyps was 93.6% and 85.2%, respectively cut-off diameter of T1b tumours - Of the 15 patients with malignant pathological results, 12 had T1b tumours with polyps sizes >15 mm. - 15 mm might be the best cut-off point for predicting T1b tumours in the study risk factors for gallbladder cancer - The diameter of the polyp was a prominent risk factor for malignant GBPs (p < 0.001, OR = 1.724; 95% CI: 1.254–1.881). - Old age (>50 years) was associated with a higher risk of malignant GBPs (p < 0.001, OR = 1.241, 95% CI: 1.108–1.345). - the number of polyps and the levels of ALT, ALP, and total bilirubin did not increase the risk of malignancy Author's Conclusion: In conclusion, gallbladder cancer may occur in polyps of <10 mm="" in="" size="" doppler="" or="" contrast-enhanced="" ultrasound="" should="" be="" used="" in="" the="" follow-up="" of="" these="" patients="" larger="" size="" and="" older="" age="" were="" predictors="" of="" neoplastic="" gbps="" we="" suggest="" 15="" mm="" as="" the="" optimal="" cut-off="" point="" to="" predict="" t1b="" cancer="" the="" lack="" of="" a="" higher="" number="" of="" patients="" in="" the="" study="" and="" its="" retrospective="" design="" are="" the="" limitations="" of="" our="" study="" furthermore="" a="" large="" multicenter="" study="" will="" be="" required="" to="" create="" safe="" and="" definite="" criteria="" to="" predict="" malignancy="" and="" invasiveness="" of="" plgs="" td=""> |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
| Park, J. Y. et al. Long-term follow up of gallbladder polyps. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 24. 219-22. 2009 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | Methodical Notes | Patient characteristics | Interventions |
| Evidence level: 4 Study type: observational follow-up study |
Funding sources: no statement Conflict of Interests: no statement Randomization: none Blinding: none Dropout rates: none |
Total no. patients: In total, 1558 patients diagnosed with GBP were followed. Recruiting Phase: January 1995 and May 2005 Inclusion criteria: patients diagnosted with GBP at the Institute of Gastroenterology, Severance Hospital Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea between January 1995 and May 2005 Exclusion criteria: no specifications |
Interventions: follow up with ultrasonography (USG) until the time of cholecystectomy, last follow-up date, or March 2007 Comparison: none |
| Notes: | evidence level 4: retrospective observational study Author's conclusion: n summary, we conclude that the risk for neoplastic polyps is high for large polyps and GBP with gallbladder stones or sludge. For high-risk GBP, careful evaluation or cholecystectomy is recommended. Even small polyps have malignant risk, and the 10-mm criterion cannot rule out neoplastic polyps completely. The follow-up period should be long to avoid missing neoplastic polyps. Careful selection of patients with high-risk GBP and the follow up of GBP will help to detect and treat early GBC. |
||
| Outcome Measures/results | Primary cumulative detection rate of neoplastic and malignant polyps Secondary - risk factors of neoplastic polyps - sensitivity and specificity of the 10-mm size criterion to predict neoplastic polyps |
Results: Malignant risk of GBP - 33 cases (2.1%) were diagnosed with neoplastic polyps. 19 cases were adenoma, 2 were low-grade dysplasia, 4 were high-grade dysplasia, 4 were early GBC (stage T1), and 4 were advanced GBC (>stage T1 or N1). - cumulative detection rate of neoplastic polyps were 1.7% at 1 year, 2.8% at 5 years, and 4% at 8 years after diagnosis. - cumulative detection rate of malignant polyps were 0.2% at 1 year and 1% at 5 years after diagnosis. Risk factors for neoplastic GBP - The size of GBP was a significant risk factor for neoplastic GBP.(P<0.001, experiment B=1.207; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.163~1.254). - GBP with gallstones or sludge also had a higher risk of neoplastic polyps (P=0.001, experiment B=4.268; 95% CI:1.849~9.854). Optimal size to predict neoplastic GBP - Polyps ≥10 mm had a 24.2 times greater risk of malignancy than polyps <10 mm="" br=""> - when the size cut-off point was set to 10 mm, sensitivity and specificity of predicting neoplastic polyps were 54.5% and 94.1%, but when it was 8 mm, they were 63.6% and 85.9%. The number of cases with neoplastic polyps not predicted when the size criterion was set to 8 and 10 mm were 12 (36.4%) and 15 (45.5%) of 33. |
|
CCA - maximale Ausbreitung des Tumors
Schlüsselfrage:
Welche Untersuchungsmethoden geben Auskunft über die maximale Ausbreitung des Tumors?
Inhalt: 4 Literaturstellen
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| Kalaitzakis, E. 2011 | 3 | retrospective diagnostic study |
| Navaneethan, U. 2015 | 1 | Systematic Review and Meta Analysis |
| Osanai, M. 2013 | 3 | prospective multicenter single-arm study (Japan) |
| Zhang, H. 2015 | 1 | Systematic Review and Meta Analysis |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 2 Bewertung(en)
| Navaneethan, U. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma as the etiology of biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 3. 209-15. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis Databases: - PUBMED and EMBASE database - cross-checking the bibliographies of retrieved full-text papers Search period: January 1980 to April 2014 Inclusion Criteria: - Studies investigating the use of EUS for detection of CCA or indeterminate biliary strictures were included. - The data needed to be sufficient to calculate the sensitivity and specificity. - Only studies that accepted only a ‘positive for malignancy’ cytological interpretation as indicative of malignancy were included Exclusion Criteria: - studies with patients who were included if only under suspicion for malignancy were excluded - studies with insufficient data - reviews, editorials, correspondence letters that did not report their own data - case reports and studies with fewer than 10 patients. |
Population: no specification Intervention: Endoscopic Ultrasound for detection of CCA or indeterminate biliary strictures Comparison: Confirmation of CCA by histopathology at the time of surgery or inoperable at the time of surgery or autopsy was used as the reference standard. |
Primary: overall diagnostic utility of EUS for biliary strictures Secondary: role of EUS-FNA in patients in whom the results of brush cytology are negative Results: Six studies were included, covering 196 patients Sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio - The overall pooled sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of CCA were 66% [95% CI57–74%] and 0.34 (95% CI 0.26–0.43), respectively - In our subgroup analysis, limited to studies with a proximal biliary location of the stricture, the pooled sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of CCA were 81% [95% CI 69–89%] and 0.19 (95%CI 0.11–0.31), respectively - In our subgroup analysis limited to studies with a mass lesion detected during EUS, the pooled sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of CCA were 80% [95% CI 72–87%] and 0.20 (95% CI 0.13–0.28),respectively - For studies with a negative ERCP brush cytology, the pooled sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of CCA were 59% [95% CI 44–73%] and 0.41 (95% CI 0.27–0.56), respectively - Only two studies reported the value of EUS in patients without a mass lesion detected during cross-sectional imaging, the pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for diagnosis of CCA was 45% Author's Conclusion: To conclude, this meta-analysis summarizes available evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of EUS in the detection of CCA. Our study suggests that EUS-FNA contributes to the diagnosis of CCA in patients with negative cytology and in patients in whom cross-sectional imaging does not reveal any mass lesion. |
Fritscher-Ravens et al., 2000, Gastrointest Endosc Fritscher-Ravens et al., 2004, Am J Gastroenterol Eloubeidi et al., 2004, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Lee et al., 2004, Am J Gastroenterol Rösch et al., 2004, Gastrointest Endosc Dewitt et al., 2006, Gastrointest Endosc |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: The study was supported by a research grant to Udayakumar Navaneethan from the American College of Gastroenterology. COI: none declared Study Quality: The methodological quality of the included studies was asassessed by the QUADAS-2 criteria. - In most studies, there was a low risk of bias regarding the selection of patients and we had included only patients who were positive for cancer. There were no bias issues or concerns regarding validity of the selection of patients. There was no bias in any of the studies. Heterogeneity: not addressed Publication Bias: not addressed Notes: evidence level 1: SR and MA no heterogeneity analysis |
||||
| Zhang, H. et al. Radiological Imaging for Assessing the Respectability of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2015. 497942. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis Databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit and the Cochrane Library Search period: January 1980 to March 2015 Inclusion Criteria: The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) articles were published in English; (2) CT, MRI or PET/CT was used to evaluate the resectability of HCC; (3) for per-patient statistics, sufficient data were presented to calculate the true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN), false-positive (FP), and true-negative (TN) values; (4) 10 or more patients were included; (5) when data or subsets of data were presented in more than one article, the article with the most detail or the most recent article was chosen. Authors of abstracts and studies that did not report sufficient data were contacted to request additional information Exclusion Criteria: All review articles, letters, comments, and case reports were eliminated. |
Population: no specification Intervention: CT, MRI,or PET/CT was used to evaluate the resectability of hilar cholangiocarcinoma Comparison: not mentioned |
Primary: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy Secondary: Results: - a total of 16 studies including 651 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis, of which 11 were CT studies, 5 were MRI studies and 3 were PET/CT studies. sensitivity - pooled sensitivities for CT, MRI and PET/CT were 95% (95% CI: 91–97), 94% (95% CI: 90–97) and 91% (95% CI: 84–96), respectively - no statistically significant difference was found between CT and MRI ( Author's Conclusion: In summary, CT is the most frequently used imaging modality to assess HCC resectability with a good sensitivity and specificity. MRI was generally comparable with that of CT and can be used as an alternative imaging technique. PET/CT appears to be the best technique in detecting lymph node and distant metastasis in HCC but has no clear role in helping to evaluate issues of local resectability. |
Cha et al. 2000, Abdominal Imaging Lee et al. 2006, Radiology Aloia et al. 2007, The American Journal of Surgery Endo et al. 2007, Surgery Unno et al. 2007, Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Yin et al. 2007, Chinese Medical Journal Masselli et al. 2008, European Radiology Park et al. 2008, The American Journal of Roentgenology Li et al. 2008, Journal of Surgical Oncology Kim et al. 2008, American Journal of Gastroenterology Chen et al. 2009, Hepato-Gastroenterology Yu et al. 2010, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases International Ryoo et al. 2010, Investigative Radiology Cannon et al. 2012, HPB Gu et al. 2012, Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi Nagakawa et al 2014, Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This work was supported by Introductory Funding project from Shanghai Science and Technology Bureau (124119a-0600). COI: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Study Quality: The quality assessment scores of 16 studies showed high quality ranging from 10 to 12, with a mean study quality score of 11. The imaging findings were probably known during surgery and therefore the reference standard was generally not blinded to the results of the index test (QUADAS item 11). The time period between imaging and the reference standard was mentioned in only 7 studies and was 14 days or less in 6 studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly mentioned in all studies. Heterogeneity: No significant heterogeneity of diagnostic performance was found for the CT and MRI studies Publication Bias: The results of funnel plots did not suggest a publication bias Notes: evidence level 1: SR and MA |
||||
| Kalaitzakis, E. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography does not reliably distinguish IgG4-associated cholangitis from primary sclerosing cholangitis or cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 9. 800-803 e2. 2011 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | Population | Outcomes/Results | ||
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: retrospective diagnostic study |
Number of patients / samples: 20 patients with IgG4-associated cholangitis (IAC) 10 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) 10 patients with cholangiocarcinoma representative study collective not assumed. From 104 ERCs, a final set of 48 good quality ERCs were selected. Reference standard: Yes, ERCs were histologically and/or clinically confirmed. Validation: sensitivity, specificity and kappa statistic for inter- and intra-observer agreement for the diagnosis IAC Blinding: Yes. Readers of ERC images were not aware of any clinical data, underlying diagnoses or the relative frequency of each diagnosis within the image set. Inclusion of clinical information: no Dealing with ambiguous clinical findings: During this retrospective review of images, physicians were asked to provide the most probable diagnoses based on ERC findings. Up to 3 diagnoses could be listed by percentage confidence. The sum of the confidences had to add up to 100%. To be considered a correct interpretation a given ERC had to be read with at least 75% confidence for that condition. |
Results: - Sensitivity (95%): 45% (36–54%) - Specificity (95%): 88% (83–93%) - intra-observer agreement for IAC (kappa): 0.74 - inter-observer agreeement for IAC (kappa): 0.18 - no significant differences between centers Author conclusions: In conclusion, this multicenter study shows that the performance of ERC alone for the diagnosis of IAC is uniformly poor. Additional diagnostic strategies, including aggressive attempts to achieve a pathological diagnosis, are likely to be vital in distinguishing these diseases and so defining optimal management. |
||
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: Funding sources: None COI: Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest exist for any of the authors Notes: - evidence level 3: Retrospective study with reference standard and blinding - study does not fit to PICO question: wrong population |
||||
| Osanai, M. et al. Peroral video cholangioscopy to evaluate indeterminate bile duct lesions and preoperative mucosal cancerous extension: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 45. 635-42. 2013 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | Population | Outcomes/Results | ||
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: prospective multicenter single-arm study (Japan) |
Number of patients / samples: A total of 87 patients were eligible for the study Reference standard: The final diagnoses were made on the basis of surgical findings and pathology results or clinical follow-up of more than 12 months. Validation: The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)/tissue sampling, with or with-out PVCS, were calculated and compared with those in the final diagnosis. Blinding: No statement regarding blinding Inclusion of clinical information: - Dealing with ambiguous clinical findings: - |
Results: overall - A total of 87 patients were eligible for the study. 38 had indeterminate biliary disease and 49 suspected bile duct cancers. PVCS observation revealed malignant lesions in 77 patients and benign lesions in 10. Biopsy of the primary lesions was performed in 84 patients. indeterminate biliary disease - In indeterminate biliary disease, PVCS correctly identified 27 of 28 malignant lesions, and 8 of 10 benign lesions (accuracy 92.1%; sensitivity 96.4%; specificity 80.0%) - Endobiliary forceps biopsy via PVCS or the transpapillary route was conducted in 35 of the 38 patients (92.1%). Endobiliary forceps biopsy correctly identified 22 of 27 malignant lesions and 8 of 8 benign lesions (accuracy 85.7%; sensitivity 81.5%; specificity 100%) bile duct cancers - Of the 49 patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancers, mucosal extension of the tumor of ≥20mm was observed in 17 (34.7%), and this was observed more frequently in the localized and papillary gross types. The cholangioscopes were successfully advanced from the papilla to the bile duct in 100% (49/49) of patients, and insertion to the proximal tumor site was achieved in 91.8% (45/49) of patients. - The accuracy rates for the diagnosis of the presence or absence of mucosal cancerous extension were for ERC with PVCS 83.7% (sensitivity 88.2%; specificity 83.9%) and ERC with PVCS+mapping biopsy were 92.9% (sensitivity 93.8%; specificity 92.3%) - The accuracy rate for ERC alone for the diagnosis of the presence or absence of mucosal cancerous extension was 73.5% (sensitivity 35.3%; specificity 96.8%) Author conclusions: In conclusion, PVCS enables accurate diagnosis by providing excellent resolution in combination with biopsy. Prospective multi-center clinical trials are currently in progress to evaluate the clinical use of PVCS for the diagnosis of biliary tract diseases. |
||
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: Drs Osanai and Itoi have given lectures and serve as consultants for Olympus Medical Systems. The other authors have no competing interests Notes: Evidence level 3: Prospective study without blinding |
||||
CCA - Verfahren zur histologischen Sicherung
Schlüsselfrage:
Mit welchem Verfahren lässt sich die Diagnose eines CCA histologisch sichern
Inhalt: 4 Literaturstellen
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| De Moura, D. T. H. 2018 | 1 | systematic review and meta analysis |
| Lee, Y. N. 2019 | 2 | Single-center, prospective, observational study (Korea) |
| Navaneethan, U. 2015 | 1 | systematic review and meta analysis |
| Slivka, A. 2015 | 2 | Prospective, multicenter study (USA, Italy, France) |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 2 Bewertung(en)
| De Moura, D. T. H. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 7. 10-19. 2018 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane, LILACS (via BVS), Scopus and CINAHL (via EBSCO) databases Search period: No search period defined. The last search was performed on November 10, 2014. Inclusion Criteria: Types of studies — Clinical trials and observational studies were searched and targeted for a posterior selection process. Types of participants — We chose studies with patients who had indeterminate malignant biliary strictures and with similar population characteristics (age, sex, abnormal liver function tests and evidence of biliary obstruction). Types of intervention — We chose trials that used either ERCP or EUS-FNA in diagnostics. There were no restrictions regarding the modality of diagnosis in each. Types of outcome measures — The main outcomes were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Exclusion Criteria: no specification |
Population: Any patient with suspicion of cholangiocarcinoma Intervention: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) Comparison: gold standard: histopathology (surgery or the index test) and follow-up |
Primary: sensitivity, specificity, pretest probability, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of EUS-FNA and ERCP for detection of a malignant lesion Secondary: none Results: - sensitivity: EUS-FNA 75% (SD=19.87) versus ERCP 49% (SD=2.64) - specificity: EUS-FNA 100% (SD=0) versus ERCP 96.33% (SD=6.35) - positive predictive value: EUS-FNA 100% (SD=0) versus ERCP 98.33% (SD=2.22) - negative predictive value: EUS-FNA 47% (SD=14.73) versus ERCP 34% (SD=24.63) - accuracy: EUS-FNA 79% (SD=13.07) versus ERCP 60.66% (SD=8.62) - pretest probability: 76.66% (SD=19.218) Author's Conclusion: This study demonstrates that EUS-FNA is better than ERCP for the detection of suspected malignant biliary stricture as it has superior sensitivity, specificity, positive posttest probability and accuracy. A negative test using EUS-FNA or ERCP does not exclude a malignant biliary stricture because both have low negative posttest probabilities. |
DeWitt J 2005, Gastrointest Endosc Eloubeide MA 2004, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Fritscher-Ravens A 2004, Am J Gastroenterol Nayar MK 2011, Hepatogastroenterology Novis M 2010, Rev Col Bras Cir Ohshima Y 2011, J Gastroenterol Rösch T 2004, Gastrointest Endosc Weilert 2014, Gastrointest Endosc |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. COI: There are no conflicts of interest Study Quality: Risk of bias within studies Using QUADAS-2, we found that most studies did not impose bias Heterogeneity: not assessed Publication Bias: Risk of bias across studies The risks of bias were minimal because the articles followed the same patterns. The greatest bias was related to the lesion size and secondarily to the lesion location. The size of the trials varied, facilitating the chance of suitable material for pathological studies, which could introduce bias. Notes: - evidence level 1: systematic review and mata analysis - no heterogeneity assessed |
||||
| Navaneethan, U. et al. Single-operator cholangioscopy and targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 82. 608-14.e2. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: PubMed and Embase Search period: January 1980 to October 2014 Inclusion Criteria: Only studies involving both cholangioscopy using SpyGlass and SpyBite biopsies in the identification of biliary strictures with availability of data for the construction of 2x2 contingency tables were included. Exclusion Criteria: We removed studies with insufficient data and those with a sample size of<10. td=""> |
Population: patients with biliary strictures Intervention: SpyGlass and SpyBite biopsy Comparison: surgical pathology or autopsy and long-term clinical follow-up. |
Primary: estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio. Secondary: none Results: overall - 10 studies (n=456) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. - sensitivity: 60.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.9%-65.2%) - specificity: 98.0% (95% CI, 96.0%-99.0%) - Diagnostic odds ratio: 66.4 (95% CI, 32.1-137.5). - positive LR: 21.0 (95% CI, 11.0-40.1); negative LR: 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.49) subgroup analyses - 4 studies included patients who had previous negative imaging and brushings and/or intraductal biopsies.The pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures was 74.7% (95% CI, 63.3%-84.0%) and 93.3% (95% CI, 85.1%-97.8%), respectively. The pooled DOR was 46.0 (95% CI,15.4-138.1). - Only 1 study directly compared the yield of SpyBite biopsies with standard brushings and biopsies. SpyBite biopsies had a sensitivity of 76.5% compared with brushings (5.8%) and biopsies (29.4%). - Six studies specifically reported the role of cholangioscopy with targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of CCA. The pooled sensitivity and specificity to detect CCA was 66.2% (95% CI, 59.7%-72.3%) and 97.0% (95% CI, 94.0%-99.0%), respectively. The pooled DOR to detect CCA was 79.7 (95% CI, 32.7-194.7) Author's Conclusion: To conclude, our study suggests that SpyGlass cholangioscopy with SpyBite biopsies have moderate sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. Future trials should develop algorithmic approaches incorporating cholangioscopy targeted biopsies and validate them in diagnosing patients with indeterminate biliary strictures. |
Chen 2007, Gastrointest Endosc Chen 2011, Gastrointest Endosc Draganov 2012, Gastrointest Endosc Hartman 2012, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Kalaitzakis 2012, Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Manta 2012, Surg Endosc Nishikawa 2013, Gastrointest Endosc Ramchandani 2011, Gastrointest Endosc Siddiqui 2012, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Woo 2014, Dig Dis Sci |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: U. Navaneethan is a consultant for AbbVie. R. Hawes and S.Varadarajulu are consultants for Olympus and Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. Study Quality: QUADAS-2 - In most studies low risk of bias regarding the selection of patients - no bias issues or concerns regarding applicability of the selection of patients - no risk of bias issues of the index test in any of the studies - In most studies low risk of bias to determine whether an appropriate reference standard was used or its applicability Heterogeneity: not assessed Publication Bias: The Begg-Mazumdar indicator for bias gave a Kendall tau b of 0.23; P value=.11, and the Egger test, another indicator for publication bias, was -0.15 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.19;P=.42). These tests did not suggest any evidence of publication bias; however, power was low with our small sample size of only 10 studies. Notes: evidence level 1: systematic review and meta analysis heterogeneity not assessed |
||||
| Lee, Y. N. et al. Tissue acquisition for diagnosis of biliary strictures using peroral cholangioscopy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy. 51. 50-59. 2019 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | Population | Outcomes/Results | ||
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Single-center, prospective, observational study (Korea) |
Number of patients / samples: Yes. 181 patients from 188 screened patients (Consecutive patients with suspected MBS that required tissue sampling) were included Reference standard: Final diagnosis was confirmed using one of the following criteria: 1) definite result of malignancy in a surgical specimen or biopsy of a metastatic lesion; 2)malignant diagnosis by TPB or EUS-FNAB or POC-FB, and clinical/imaging follow-up compatible with malignant disease; 3) malignancy not found on TPB and EUS-FNAB or POC-FB, and clinical/imaging follow-up compatible with benign disease for at least 12 months. Validation: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy analyses were performed Blinding: final diagnosis was confirmed after diagnostic tests Inclusion of clinical information: - Dealing with ambiguous clinical findings: - |
Results: accuracy - the diagnostic accuracy of initial TPB was 71.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.3%–78.4 %]. - The accuracy of malignancy detection using POC-FB for proximal biliary strictures and EUS-FNAB for distal biliary strictures was 93.6% (95%CI 84.9%−100%) and 96.3% (95%CI 89.2%−100 %), respectively. - The overall diagnostic accuracy for the combination of TPB with either POC-FB for proximal strictures and EUS-FNAB for distal strictures was 98.3%(95 %CI 95.9%−100%) and 98.4% (95%CI 95.3%−100%),respectively. sensitivity - The sensitivity of malignancy detection using POC-FB for proximal biliary strictures and EUS-FNAB for distal biliary strictures was 92.3% (95%CI 74.9%−99.1%) and 96.0% (95%CI 79.7%−99.9 %), respectively. - The overall sensitivity for the combination of TPB with either POC-FB for proximal strictures and EUS-FNAB for distal strictures was 98.2%(95 %CI 93.7%−99.8%) and 98.4% (95%CI 91.2%−99.9%),respectively. specificity The specificity of malignancy detection using POC-FB for proximal biliary strictures and EUS-FNAB for distal biliary strictures was 100% (47.8−100) and 100% (15.8−100), respectively - The overall specificity for the combination of TPB with either POC-FB for proximal strictures and EUS-FNAB for distal strictures was 100% (47.8−100) and 100% (15.8−100), respectively Author conclusions: In conclusion, an approach using POC-FB or EUS-FNAB according to the stricture location may be useful for the diagnosis of suspected MBS. |
||
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This work was supported in part by the SoonChunHyang University Research Fund. COI: none Notes: evidence level 2: Individual prospective studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding. |
||||
| Slivka, A. et al. Validation of the diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for the characterization of indeterminate biliary strictures: results of a prospective multicenter international study. Gastrointest Endosc. 81. 282-90. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | Population | Outcomes/Results | ||
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Prospective, multicenter study (USA, Italy, France) |
Number of patients / samples: A total of 136 patients with indeterminate biliary strictures were screened for eligibility, 128 were enrolled and 112 were finally evaluated. Reference standard: By having an independent second physician blinded to the pCLE findings, make a presumptive diagnosis based on an electronic review of clinical data and ERCP images before and after tissue sampling, we estimated the standard of care without pCLE. Validation: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity during ERCP alone, ERCP with pCLE, and ERCP with pCLE and tissue sampling. Blinding: pCLE was not blinded but reference standard was applied in a blinded fashion. Inclusion of clinical information: yes Dealing with ambiguous clinical findings: - |
Results: Investigators provided a presumptive diagnosis based on the patient history, ERCP impression,and pCLE during the procedure before and after tissue sampling results were available. A presumptive diagnosis also was made separately by a blinded investigator during ERCP and after tissue sampling to estimate care without pCLE. - ERCP impression: sensitivity (CI 95%)=84% (73-92); specificity (CI 95%)=76% (60-88); Accuracy(CI 95%)=81% (72-88) - ERCP impression + pCLE: sensitivity (CI 95%)=89% (79-95); specificity (CI 95%)=71% (54-84); Accuracy(CI 95%)=82% (74-89) - ERCP impression + pCLE + tissue sampling: sensitivity (CI 95%)=89% (79-95); specificity (CI 95%)=88% (74-96); Accuracy(CI 95%)=88% (81-94) - tissue sampling (cytology&histology): sensitivity (CI 95%)=56% (44-68); specificity (CI 95%)=100% (91-100); Accuracy(CI 95%)=72% (63-80) - ERCP impression + tissue sampling: sensitivity (CI 95%)=85% (75-93); specificity (CI 95%)=69% (52-83); Accuracy(CI 95%)=79% (71-87) Author conclusions: Overall, this study confirms the high performance of pCLE performed in real time when combined with tissue sampling in providing more accurate and more sensitive diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma compared with standard procedures. pCLE has the potential to overcome some of the inherent limitations of tissue sampling techniques in establishing a pathologic confirmation of the stricture and offering the ability to objectify patient management decision making. The high sensitivity and accuracy brought by the addition of pCLE may improve the management of patients with indeterminate biliary strictures and expedite treatment, saving unnecessary repeat ERCPs and precious time for the patients. |
||
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This study was funded by a research grant from Mauna Kea Technologies. COI: - A. Slivka does research for Mauna Kea Technologies, research and consulting for Boston Scientific, and research for Wilson-Cook. - I. Gan is a speaker for Mauna Kea Technologies. P. Jamidar does research for Mauna Kea Technologies and is a consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific. - M. Giovannini does research for Mauna Kea Technologies and Wilson-Cook. - M.Kahaleh does research for Mauna Kea Technologies, research and consulting for Boston Scientific, and research for MI Tech, Apollo, Emcision, and Pinnacle. - No other financial relationships relevant to this article were disclosed. Notes: evidence level 2: Individual prospective studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding. |
||||
CCA Op, Transplantation
Schlüsselfrage:
Profitieren Patienten mit einem lokal begrenzten Cholangiozellulären Karzinom von einer Operation oder Transplantation?
Inhalt: 4 Literaturstellen
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| Becker, N. S. 2008 | 3 | retrospective follow-up study |
| Darwish Murad, S. 2012 | 3 | retrospective, multi-center, follow-up study (USA) |
| Mavros, M. N. 2014 | 2 | systematic review and meta-analysis |
| Tang, H. 2016 | 1 | systematic review and meta analysis |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 2 Bewertung(en)
| Mavros, M. N. et al. Treatment and Prognosis for Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 149. 565-74. 2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: systematic review and meta-analysis Databases: Pubmed Search period: studies published on or after January 1, 2000. Inclusion Criteria: studies reporting on factors prognostic of survival or recurrence in patients undergoing curative-intent surgical treatment of ICC. Prognostic factors included preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables. Exclusion Criteria: - Small series assessing fewer than 20 patients - studies not assessing factors prognostic of clinical outcome or not reporting - studies reporting on mixed series of patients with intrahepatic and other types of cholangiocarcinoma (eg, hilarcholangiocarcinoma) - series of patients with exclusively hepatolithiasis-associated ICC or recurrent ICC - Conference abstracts that did not proceed to publication in peer-reviewed journals were not included in the present review |
Population: patients undergoing curative-intent surgical treatment of ICC Intervention: surgical treatment of ICC Comparison: none |
Primary: overall survival and recurrence-free survival prognostic factors Secondary: none Results: - 57 Articles included in the systematic review - 7 included in Meta Analysis overall survival - Median, 3-year, and 5-year over-all survival (OS) ranged from 9 to 53 months, 16% to 65%, and 5% to 56%, respectively. - In a subset analysis of the 5 largest studies, the median, 3-year, and 5-year OS ranged from 18 to 33 months, 32% to 47%, and 21% to 35%, respectively. recurrence-free survival - median, 3-year, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) ranged from 7 to 34 months, 6% to 47%, and 2% to 39%, respectively prognostic factors: meta analysis - Factors associated with shorter OS included older age (pooled hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17), larger tumor size (1.09; 1.02-1.16), presence of multiple tumors (1.70; 1.43-2.02), lymph node metastasis (2.09; 1.80-2.43), vascular invasion(1.87; 1.44-2.42), and poor tumor differentiation (1.41; 1.17-1.71), - none of the factors were significantly associated with shorter RFS Author's Conclusion: The prognosis of ICC remains grave, with less than one-third of the patients who undergo curative-intent surgical treatment surviving beyond 5 years after resection. Prognosis is dictated primarily by tumor factors, such as tumor size, lymphnode invasion, and vascular invasion, which underlines the necessity for earlier diagnosis. Furthermore, the high incidence of recurrence and its association with certain tumor-specific factors highlight the need for more effective adjuvant therapies. Future research should therefore target the identification of novel agents with more activity toward ICC so as to increase the goal of prolonging survival among this challenging group of patients. |
for meta analysis: de Jong et al. 2011, J Clin Oncol. Ribero et al. 2012, Arch Surg. Wang et al. 2013, J Clin Oncol. Tamandl et al. 2008, Ann Surg Oncol. Bunsiripaiboon et al. 2010, J Med Assoc Thai. Clark et al. 2011, HPB (Oxford) Fisher et al. 2012, HPB (Oxford) |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: None reported Study Quality: no quality assessment Heterogeneity: - Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed with a χ2-test and I2; P< .10 for the χ2-test or I2 greater than 50% indicated significant heterogeneity. - hetereogeneity can be assumed for the factors "large tumor size" and "positive surgical margin" Publication Bias: There was no publication bias, as evidenced in the funnel plot of all combined risk factors Notes: evidence level 2: SR and MA, downgraded due to missing quality assessment |
||||
| Tang, H. et al. Influence of surgical margins on overall survival after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 95. e4621. 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Search period: from the initiation of the databases to February 2016 Inclusion Criteria: - ICC (confirmed by pathological examination) patients primarily undergoing poten-tially curative resections - inclusion of surgical margins as a variable in the outcome analysis; - stratification of negative surgical margins into less than 10mm (with or without additional subgroups) and 10mm or more groups; - a survival hazard ratio (HR) for a less than 10mm group compared with a 10mm or more group, either directly available in the article or possible to calculate Exclusion Criteria: - articles with the types of abstracts, reviews, case reports, editorials, and expertopinions - articles grouping the patients by other cut off values of margin length; - overlapping or duplicate reports; - articles including patients mainly undergoing repeated hepatectomy for recurrent ICC - articles including patients with extrahepatic metastases (metastases in the lung, bone, or brain) |
Population: ICC patients primarily undergoing potentially curative resections. Only patients with negative margins (R0 resection) were eligible to be included. Intervention: surgical resection with negative resection margin of ≥10mm Comparison: surgical resection with negative resection margin of <10mm td=""> |
Primary: hazard ratios for survival Secondary: Subgroup analyses were performed according to the following four predefined parameters: cohorts with all MF subtype, cohorts without lymph node involvement and cohort sample size (size≥50 or size<50). Results: - 6 studies (8 cohorts) involving 712 patients were included in the final synthesis - 269 (37.80%) were in the ≥10mm group, 443 (62.20%) were in <10mm group="" br=""> survival hazard ratios - pooled HR for the <10mm negative="" margin="" group="" was="" 1="" 59="" 95="" ci:="" 1="" 09="" 2="" 32="" when="" compared="" with="" the="" hr="" for="" the="" 10mm="" group="" reference="" br=""> - a statistically significant survival benefit was identified in patients with negative margins ≥10mm Subgroup analyses - pooled HR for the <10mm negative="" margin="" group="" was="" 2="" 19="" 95="" ci:="" 0="" 23="" 20="" 52="" when="" compared="" with="" the="" hr="" for="" the="" 10mm="" group="" reference="" in="" the="" subgroup="" of="" cohorts="" with="" a="" sample="" size="" 50="" br=""> - no significant differences for other 3 parameters Author's Conclusion: In summary, the result of this meta-analysis suggests a survival advantage for negative margins of 10mm or more in comparison with negative margins less than 10mm for patients undergoing surgical resection of ICC. However, because such a wide surgical margin may not be feasible in every case, a resection margin less than 10mm should not be recognized as a contraindication to surgery. Taken together, the findings suggest that surgeons ought to strive to achieve a negative margin of 10mm or more in surgical resection of ICC to obtain a long-term survival (OS) benefit. Further multicenter and high-quality randomized controlled trials will be required to support this conclusion. |
Spolverato G, 2015, Ann Surg Oncol Farges O, 2011, Ann Surg Cho SY, 2010, Ann Surg Oncol Tamandl D, 2008, Ann Surg Oncol Shimada K, 2007, J Surg Oncol Cherqui D, 1995, Arch Surg |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: The work is supported by the National Key Technology R&D Program of China (No. 2012BAI06B01) and the National S&T Major Project for Infectious Diseases of China (No.2012ZX10002-017). COI: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose. Study Quality: "A quality assessment of each included article was conducted using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, which is mainly concerned withthree aspects (selection of patients, comparability of groups, andassessment of outcomes). Studies scored with 6 or more were considered to be of high quality." - However only 2 Scores were stated: Spolverato et al, 2015: NOS-Score=8; Farges et al, 2011: NOS-Score=7 Heterogeneity: - overall between-study hetereogeneity was moderate (I2=45.30%, P=0.07) - moderate to high between-study hetereogeneity in subgroups of sample size (≥50: I2=44.70%, P=0.11; <50: i="" sup="">2=68.90, P=0.07) Publication Bias: no obvious publication bias was detected by Egger test (P=0.99), with symmetry in Begg funnel plot Notes: - evidence level 1: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis - NOS-Score for quality assessment, however scores were stated for only 2 out of 6 studies |
||||
| Becker, N. S. et al. Outcomes analysis for 280 patients with cholangiocarcinoma treated with liver transplantation over an 18-year period. J Gastrointest Surg. 12. 117-22. 2008 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | Methodical Notes | Patient characteristics | Interventions |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: retrospective follow-up study |
Funding sources: no statement Conflict of Interests: no statement Randomization: none Blinding: none Dropout rates: none |
Total no. patients: 302 analyzed transplants in 280 study patients Recruiting Phase: April 1987 and December 2005 Inclusion criteria: - patient information in UNOS/OPTN database - diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma at listing (n=102) or at discharge (n=245) Exclusion criteria: no statement |
Interventions: orthotopic liver transplantation Comparison: none |
| Notes: | evidence level 3: retrospective follow-up study Author's conclusion: This multi-institutional analysis of the US experience with liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma determined that outcomes following OLT for cholangiocarcinoma have improved over time with a 5-year survival rate of 45% during the most recent era of transplantation. Compared to outcomes in similar patients treated with medical therapy alone, patients with known cholangiocarcinoma that presents at an early, but unresectable, stage appear to benefit from OLT. However, patients incidentally found to have cholangiocarcinoma at the time of transplant, independent of the presence or absence of PSC, have a poorer prognosis. |
||
| Outcome Measures/results | Primary 1- and 5-year patient survival Secondary prognostic value of multiple clinicopathologic variables |
Results: - median follow-up interval of 452 days (range: 0–6,166 days), patient survival - 1- and 5-year patient survivals were 74 and 38%, respectively, with 49 actual 5-year survivors and 21 actual 10-year survivors. - Posttransplant 1- and 5-year allograft survivals were 69 and 36%, respectively. prognostic value of multiple clinicopathologic variables - Study variables associated with improved survivals included diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma pre-OLT [5-year OS: 68 vs. 20% for patients with incidental diagnoses at the time of OLT, p<0.001] and OLT after 1993 (5-year OS: 45 vs. 30% pre-1994,p<0.01). |
|
| Darwish Murad, S. et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, followed by liver transplantation, for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at 12 US centers. Gastroenterology. 143. 88-98.e3; quiz e14. 2012 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | Methodical Notes | Patient characteristics | Interventions |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: retrospective, multi-center, follow-up study (USA) |
Funding sources: Sarwa Darwish Murad is a recipient of the 2010/2011 AASLD/LIFER Clinical and Translational ResearchFellowship in Liver Diseases Award Conflict of Interests: all authors declare no conflict of interest Randomization: none Blinding: none Dropout rates: In total, 71 patients (25%) dropped out after a median of 4.6 months (1.1–17.1) from presentation. |
Total no. patients: In total, 12 participating centers reported 319 patients. 26 patients were excluded, thus 287 eligible patients were included in this study. Recruiting Phase: January 1993 to July 2010 Inclusion criteria: 1) perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; 2) diagnosis by a malignant-appearing stricture on cholangiography with malignant endoluminal brushing/biopsy, CA 19-9 greater than 100 U/ml, mass on cross-sectional imaging and/or polysomy on Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization (FISH)); 3) unresectable disease or arising in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis; 4) completion of neoadjuvant therapy before LT; and 5)medical suitability for transplantation Exclusion criteria: Patients with intrahepatic or distal cholangiocarcinoma were excluded |
Interventions: Neoadjuvant therapy followed by liver transplantation Comparison: none |
| Notes: | evidence level 3: retrospective follow-up study Author's conclusion: In conclusion, this study confirms excellent outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by LT for patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma across 12 U.S. institutions with variable neoadjuvant protocols. |
||
| Outcome Measures/results | Primary recurrence-free survival overall survival (intent-to-treat) Secondary none |
Results: basic results - patients completed external radiation (99%), brachytherapy (75%), radio-sensitizing (98%), and/or maintenance chemotherapy (65%). - Median follow-up time 2.5 years (range 0.1–17.8) from time of listing for transplantation. - 122 patients died (43%) after a median of 1.2 years from presentation (0.1–17.5), of whom 60 (49%) died pre-transplant - Post-transplant, 43 patients (20%) developed recurrence, and 62 patients died (22%) from either recurrence (N=40), sepsis (N=8), multiorgan failure (N=3), liver failure (N=3), post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (N=2), or other causes (N=6). recurrence-free survival - at 2 years: 78% (95% CI 72–84) - at 5 years: 65% (95% CI 57–73) - at 10 years: 59% (95% 49–69) overall survival (intent-to-treat) - at 2 years: 68% (95% CI 62–70) - at 5 years: 53% (95% CI 46–60) - at 10 years: 42% (95% 33–51) |
|
CCA lokoregionäre Therapieverfahren
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| Edeline, J. 2020 | 3 | Phase 2 clinical trial |
| Ke, Q. 2020 | 2 | Systematic review and meta-analysis (22 cohort studies) |
| Liu, J. B. 2020 | 2 | Systematic review and meta-analysis (9 observational studies) |
| Mosconi, C. 2021 | 3 | Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis (31 observational studies included). |
| Zhen, Y. 2019 | 3 | Systematic review and meta-analysis (16 cohort studies) |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 4 Bewertung(en)
| Ke, Q. et al. The effect of adjuvant therapy for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after surgical resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 15. e0229292. 2020 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysis (22 cohort studies) Databases: MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science Search period: Jan.1st 1990 to Aug. 31st 2019. Inclusion Criteria: criteria. i) patients with ICC confirmed by pathology; ii) patients receiving surgical resection; iii) groups must include AT group and non-AT group; iv) outcomes must include the long-term outcomes. Exclusion Criteria: i) patients including gallbladder carcinoma or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; ii) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy; iii) patients receiving palliative resection; iv) data on the long-term outcomes was not available; v) studies based on overlapping cohorts deriving from the same center; vi) reviews, comments, letters, case report, and conference abstract. |
Population: Patients with Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) confirmed by pathology receiving surgical resection. Intervention: adjuvant therapy Comparison: non-adjuvant therapy |
Primary: Overall survival (OS) Secondary: recurrence-free survival (RFS) Results: 22 studies with 10181 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 832 patients in the chemotherapy group, 309 patients in the transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) group, 1192 patients in the radiotherapy group, 235 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 6424 patients in the non-AT group. The pooled HR for the OS rate and RFS rate in the AT group were 0.63 (95%CI 0.52~0.74), 0.74 (95%CI 0.58~0.90), compared with the non-AT group. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR for the OS rate in the AT group compared with non-AT group were as follows: chemotherapy group was 0.57 (95%CI = 0.44~0.70), TACE group was 0.56 (95%CI = 0.31~0.82), radiotherapy group was 0.71 (95%CI = 0.39~1.03), chemoradiotherapy group was 0.73 (95%CI = 0.57~0.89), positive resection margin group was 0.60 (95%CI = 0.51~0.69), and lymph node metastasis (LNM) group was 0.67 (95%CI = 0.57~0.76). Author's Conclusion: With the current data, we concluded that AT such as chemotherapy, TACE and chemoradiotherapy could benefit patients with ICC after resection, especially those with positive resection margin and LNM, but the conclusion needed to be furtherly confirmed. |
22 cohort studies included, see article for list. | |
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This work was supported by Startup Fund for scientific research, Fujian Medical University (Grant number: 2018QH1195), but no authors in this study received a salary from this fund. COI: NO authors have competing interests. Study Quality: The quality of non-randomized studies was assessed by the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and more than 7 stars were defined as high quality, 4~6 star as medium quality, and <4 stars="" as="" low="" quality="" br=""> Study quality ranged from 5-9, but most studies were of high quality. Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity was substantial in several analyses: overall survival between adjuvant therapy and operation only I2 = 79.4%; p =0.000 and overall survival s between adjuvant TACE and operation only I2 = 68.1%; p =0.014. This is investigated in a subgroup analyis for radio and chemoradiotherapy. Publication Bias: was determined using Begg’s and Egger’s tests, and “trim and fill” method was introduced to check the effect of potentially unpublished studies on the present result. Publication bias analysis was conducted in the primary endpoint comparing between AT group and non-AT group. Asymmetry was observed in the funnel plot (Fig 8) with significant publication bias in the egger’s test (p = 0.004) but not in the Begg’s test (p = 0.09). “Trim and fill” analysis was then conducted, and 5 more studies were found to be potentially unpublished. The adjusted HR for the OS in the AT group was 0.73 (95%CI 0.63–0.85), compared with the non-AT group, indicating that the present result could not be affected by the unpublished studies Notes: Oxford level of evidence: 2 Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. |
||||
| Liu, J. B. et al. Prognosis for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients treated with postoperative adjuvant transcatheter hepatic artery chemoembolization. Curr Probl Cancer. 44. 100612. 2020 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysis (9 observational studies) Databases: Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed. Search period: Inception - June 18, 2018. Inclusion Criteria: (1) were reported on ICC (case group: ICC patients treated with TACE; control group: ICC patients treated without using TACE), (2) were published in the English literature, and (3) could provide or aid in computation of prognostic data in both the postoperative case and control groups, including 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS and hazard ratio (HR). Exclusion Criteria: (1) they lacked complete data and could not be used for statistical analysis, (2) they were nonoriginal articles, such as reviews, letters, and overviews, and (3) they were repeated publications on the same data. In those cases, only the latest reports or the articles with the complete information were included. |
Population: ICC patients Intervention: TACE Comparison: No TACE |
Primary: 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS Secondary: Hazard ratio Results: Nine controlled clinical trials involving 1724 participants were included in this study; patients came mainly from China, Italy, South Ko- rea, and Germany. In the OS meta-analysis, the 1-year and 3-year OS showed significant heterogeneity, but not the 5-year OS. TACE increased the 1-year OS (odds ratio = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.10-6.46) of the patients with ICC, but the 3- and 5-year OS rates were not significantly increased. The results had no publication bias, but the stability was weak. The HR had significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%, P = 0.54). TACE significantly de- creased the HR of ICC patients (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.73). The results had no publication bias, and the stability was good. Author's Conclusion: Treatment with TACE is effective for patients with ICC. Regular updating and further research and analysis still need to be carried out. |
9 observational studies included: Alibert 2008, Li A 2016, Li J 2015, Li T 2013, Lu 2016, Scheuermann 2013, Shen 2011, Wu 2012. |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: Funding: This study was supported partly by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. COI: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Study Quality: All the selected publications were assessed by quality evaluation criteria for cohort study provided by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, including Exposed selection, Comparability, and Outcome, with a full score of 9. ). The results showed that the quality scores of the nine articles included were above 5-7 points. Heterogeneity: The heterogeneity test was performed using the Q-test based on chi-square and I 2 statistics. In the OS meta-analysis, the 1-year and 3-year OS showed significant heterogeneity, but not the 5-year OS. The HR had significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%, P = 0.54). In the HR analysis no publication bias was found by Egger’s test ( t = 1.59, P = 0.25), suggesting that the result was stable. In a sensitivity analysis the combined HR values were reversed, indicating that the results were unstable. No subgroup analysis was performed. Publication Bias: Egger’s test was used to test the publication bias. The publication bias was evaluated by Egger’s method, and no publication bias was identified (1-year OS, t = 0.23, P = 0.83; 3-year OS, t = 0.29, P = 0.80; and 5-year OS, t = 0.57, P = 0.63), indicating that the results were stable and reliable. Notes: Oxford level of evidence: 2 Systematic review and meta-analysis (9 cohort studies) High heterogeneity was observed. In a sensitivity analysis the combined HR values were reversed, indicating that the results were unstable. |
||||
| Mosconi, C. et al. Transarterial Chemoembolization and Radioembolization for Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma-a Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 44. 728-738. 2021 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis (31 observational studies included). Databases: PubMed and Web of Science databases Search period: Inception - 1 March 2020 Inclusion Criteria: "studied of IAT for unresectable ICC, to understand in a timely fashion causes and consequences of different indications and results between TACE and TARE, with the final aim to clarify whether one single IAT can be superior to the alternative, evaluating objective response, clinical adverse events and survival of the pooled study populations for each IAT group identified." Exclusion Criteria: not described. |
Population: Patients with unresectable ICC. Intervention: TACE Comparison: TARE |
Primary: Overall survival after IAT was considered as the primary end point. Secondary: Occurrence of clinical adverse events (not including biochemical toxicities) and tumour overall response rate (complete response ? partial response) defined according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumours. Results: A total of 31 articles (of 793, n.1695 patients) were selected for data extraction, 13 were on TACE (906 patients) and 18 were on TARE (789 patients). Clinical and tumour characteristics showed moderate heterogeneity between the two groups. The median survival after TACE was 14.2 months while after TARE was 13.5 months (95%C.I.: 11.4–16.1). The survival difference was small (d = 0.112) at 1 year and negligible at 2 years (d = 0.028) and at 3 years (d = 0.049). The radiological objective response after TACE was 20.6% and after TARE was 19.3% (d = 0.032). Clinical adverse events occurred in 58.5% after TACE, more frequently than after TARE (43.0%, d = 0.314). Author's Conclusion: In conclusion, IATs are promising treatments for improving outcomes for patients with unresectable ICC. To date, TACE and TARE provide similar good outcomes, except for adverse events. Therefore, the decision about techniques is determined by ability to utilize these resources and patient specific factors (liver function or lesion dimension). |
31 observational studies included, see article for list. | |
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This study was not supported by any funding. COI: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Study Quality: The quality of each selected study was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Quality of the included studies ranged from 6-8 out 9. Heterogeneity: "significant heterogeneity would exist both within patients treated either with TACE or TARE when comparing single studies, as well as when comparing the two techniques across all pertinent studies." Publication Bias: Not investigated. Notes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies Downgrade to evidence level 3 Lacking description of criteria for inclusion or exclusion. No investigation of publication bias. Substantial heterogeneity in all results limits causal inference and is not investigated by subgroups or sensitivity analysis. |
||||
| Zhen, Y. et al. A pooled analysis of transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres for the treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 12. 4489-4498. 2019 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysis (16 cohort studies) Databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, SCI Search period: Inception to October 2018. Inclusion Criteria: 1. Clinical trials or studies 2. Studies that described TARE with 90Y microspheres in the treatment of unresectable ICC Exclusion Criteria: 1. Review articles, animal studies, abstracts, case reports 2. Duplicated clinical studies 3. Studies with fewer than 10 cases |
Population: Patients with unresectable ICC. Intervention: TARE with 90Y microspheres Comparison: nondescript (non-TARE) |
Primary: Median OS Secondary: Disease control rate (DCR). Results: There were 16 eligible studies included in this pooled analysis. The pooled median overall survival (OS) from 12 studies was 14.3 (95% CI: 11.9–17.1) months. Based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), no complete response was reported, and the median of partial response, stable disease and progressive disease were 11.5% (range: 4.8–35.3%), 61.5% (range: 42.9–81.3%) and 22.7% (range: 12.5–52.4%) respectively. The pooled disease control rate (DCR) from nine studies was 77.2% (95% CI: 70.2–84.2%). According to the type of microspheres, subgroup analysis was performed, the median OS in the glass microspheres group was 14.0 (95% CI: 9.1–21.4) months, and 14.3 (95% CI: 11.5–17.8) months in the resin microspheres group. The DCR was 77.3% (95% CI: 63.5–91.1%) and 77.4% (95% CI: 66.8–87.9%) in the glass and resin microspheres groups respectively. Most of the side effects reported in the included studies were mild and did not require intervention. Author's Conclusion: TARE with 90Y microspheres is safe and effective for patients with unresectable ICC with acceptable side effects. And it seems that the type of microsphere has no influence on therapeutic efficacy. |
16 cohort studies: Saxena 2010, Mosconi 2016, Rafi 2013, Mouli 2013, Hoffmann 2012, Jia 2017, Soydal 2016, Swinburne 2017, Reimer 2018, Orwat 2017, Paprottka 2017, Gangi 2018, Filippi 2015, Beuzit 2016, Camacho 2014. |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: not described. COI: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. Study Quality: The quality of the studies was independently evaluated by two reviewers based on the Downs and Black quality assessment checklist. Study quality was evaluated but not reported or discussed. Heterogeneity: Mild and moderate heterogeneity was shown in pooled median OS and DCR. These estimates were robust in the sensitivity analysis. Publication Bias: An Egger test was used to assess publication bias, and Metaninf was used for sensitivity analysis, a two-sided P<0.05 was="" regarded="" as="" significant="" no="" significant="" publication="" bias="" was="" identified="" in="" pooled="" analysis="" br=""> Notes: Oxford level of evidence: 2 Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies Downgrade to evidence level 3: Lacking definition of criteria for inclusion or exclustion.Study quality was evaluated but not reported or discussed. |
||||
COI: Declared, see article.
Randomization: not randomized.
Blinding: not blinded
Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: -
Notes:
Artikel stammt aus der Handsuche
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence (Treatment Benefits): 3 Non-randomized controlled cohort
| Edeline, J. et al. Radioembolization Plus Chemotherapy for First-line Treatment of Locally Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 6. 51-59. 2020 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention - Comparison | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Phase 2 clinical trial Number of Patient: 41 Recruitung Phase: patients were aged 18 years or older, had unresectable ICC. Inclusion Criteria: e patients were aged 18 years or older, had unre- sectable ICC, a measurable lesion (≥2 cm), either noncirrhotic liver or cirrhosis with Child-Pugh score less than B8 (a score ofliver function in which lower scores indicate better liver function), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, no or limited extrahepatic disease (limited extra- hepatic disease was defined as hilar lymph node ≤3 cm or <5 lung="" nodules="" each="" 10="" mm="" adequate="" hematologic="" or="" kid-="" ney="" function="" albumin="" level="" of="" at="" least="" 28="" g="" l="" to="" convert="" to="" mil-="" ligrams="" per="" deciliter="" divide="" by="" 10="" and="" bilirubin="" level="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 3="" times="" the="" upper="" limit="" of="" norma="" br=""> Exclusion Criteria: Patients who had undergone resection and experienced intrahepatic unresect- able recurrence could be included in the study. |
Intervention: Concomitant first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin, 25 mg/m2, and gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 (gemcitabine reduced to 300 mg/m2 for the cycles just before and after SIRT), on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for 8 cycles. Selective internal radiotherapy was administered during cycle 1 (1 hemiliver disease) or cycles 1 and 3 (disease involving both hemilivers) using glass Y90 microspheres. Comparison: - |
Primary: Response rate at 3 months according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Secondary: Toxic effects, progression-free survival, overall survival, disease control rate, and response rate according to Choi criteria. Results: Of 41 patients included in the study, 26 (63%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 64.0 (10.7) years. Response rate according to RECIST was 39% (90% CI, 26%-53%) at 3 months according to local review and was confirmed at 41% as best response by central review; disease control rate was 98%. According to Choi criteria, the response rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 36 months (95% CI, 26-52 months), median progression-free survival was 14 months (95% CI, 8-17 months), with progression-free survival rates of 55% at 12 months and 30% at 24 months. Median overall survival was 22 months (95% CI, 14-52 months), with overall survival rates of 75% at 12 months and 45% at 24 months. Of 41 patients, 29 (71%) had grades 3 to 4 toxic effects; 9 patients (22%) could be downstaged to surgical intervention, with 8 (20%) achieving R0 (microscopic-free margins) surgical resection. After a median of 46 months (95% CI, 31 months to not reached) after surgery, median relapse-free survival was not reached among patients who underwent resection Author's Conclusion: Combination chemotherapy and SIRT had antitumor activity as first-line treatment of unresectable ICC, and a significant proportion of patients were downstaged to surgical intervention. A phase 3 trial is ongoing. |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
CCA lokoregionäre Therapie
Schlüsselfrage:
Profitieren Patienten mit nicht-operablen Cholangiozellulärem Karzinom von lokoregionären Verfahren?
Inhalt: 5 Literaturstellen
| Literaturstelle | Evidenzlevel | Studientyp |
|---|---|---|
| Al-Adra, D. P. 2015 | 2 | Systematic review and pooled analysis |
| Boehm, L. M. 2015 | 1 | systematic review and meta analysis |
| Cucchetti, A. 2017 | 1 | systematic review and meta-regression analysis |
| Han, K. 2015 | 2 | systematic review and meta analysis |
| Moole, H. 2017 | 2 | systematic review and meta analysis |
OXFORD (2011) Appraisal Sheet: Systematic Reviews: 5 Bewertung(en)
| Al-Adra, D. P. et al. Treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with yttrium-90 radioembolization: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 41. 120-7. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Systematic review and pooled analysis Databases: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (e.g., MED-LINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, BIOSIS Previews and the Cochrane Library) Search period: 2000 to 2013 Inclusion Criteria: - studies with greater than one patient were included in order to ensure the comprehensive capture of the available clinical experience. This included human case-series (>1 case), randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort series - adult (>18 years old) male or female patients with unresectable ICC - intervention under study is radioembolization therapy with yttrium-90 microspheres Exclusion Criteria: none |
Population: adult (>18 years old) male or female patients with unresectable ICC Intervention: radioembolization therapy with yttrium-90 microspheres, treatment may be performed before, synchronously, or after systemic chemotherapy Comparison: none |
Primary: overall survival and radiological response to radioembolization Secondary: ability of yttrium-90 treatment to convert unresectable cholangiocarcinoma to resectable, mortality, and morbidity Results: basics - 12 primary studies meeting the inclusion criteria, these included 7 prospective case series and 5 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 298 patients overall survival - weighted median survival was 15.5 months (range: 7-22.2), based on 11 included studies radiological response - data of studies reporting RECIST, modified (m)RECIST and Positron emission tomography response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (PERCIST) were pooled for analysis (=6 studies) - A weighted mean partial response was seen in 28% and stable disease was seen in 54% of patients at three months. secondary outcomes - Combined, 3 studies with a total 73 patients, reported on surgical resection to previously unresectable disease and surgery was performed on seven patients post-radioembolization - Mortality data was specifically reported in three included studies, and of these, there was one treatment-related death. - Overall morbidity was reported in eight included studies. The most common types of morbidity following radioembolization therapy with yttrium-90 microspheres were fatigue (33%), abdominal pain (28%) and nausea (25%). Author's Conclusion: Therefore, the use of yttrium-90 microspheres should be considered in the list of available treatment options for ICC. However, future randomized trials comparing systemic chemotherapy, TACE and local radiation will be required to identify the optimal treatment modality for unresectable cholangiocarcinoma. In addition, the creation of a treatment registry with standardized criteria has been recommended by the Brachytherapy Oncology Consortium. Report standardization may also allow any synergistic effects from the concomitant use of chemotherapy and Yittrium-90 radiation microspheres to be identified. |
Bower and Little, 2013, Intern Med J Camacho et al., 2013, J Clin Oncol Camacho et al., 2013, J Vasc Interv Radiol Chaiteerakij et al., 2011, Gastroenterology Hoffmann et al., 2012, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Hyder et al., 2013, Ann Surg Oncol Martinez et al., 2013, J Vasc Interv Radiol Mouli et al., 2013, J Vasc Interv Radiol Prajapati et al., 2012, J Vasc Interv Radiol Saxena et al., 2010, Ann Surg Oncol Shridhar et al., 2012, J Vasc Interv Radiol Turkmen et al., 2013, Cancer Biother Radiopharm |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose and there has been no financial support for this research study. COI: The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose and there has been no financial support for this research study. Study Quality: not assessed Heterogeneity: not assessed Publication Bias: not assessed Notes: - evidence level 2: SR with pooled analysis, downgraded due to missing quality assessment, heterogeneity and publication bias assessment - 7 of the 12 included studies are abstracts only |
||||
| Boehm, L. M. et al. Comparative effectiveness of hepatic artery based therapies for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 111. 213-20. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: Pubmed Search period: January 1990 to April 2013 Inclusion Criteria: - clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective studies of human subjects - published in PubMed in English language between January, 1990 and April, 2013. - Studies reporting the primary outcome of interest on patients with unresectable ICC receiving HAT were included. Exclusion Criteria: - Case reports or case series (<10 patients="" br=""> - studies including patients receiving concomitant systemic chemotherapy and patients receiving concomitant radiotherapy - studies on patients with resectable tumor and studies reporting outcomes of patients with mixed histology such as ICC with HCC |
Population: patients with unresectable ICC Intervention: HAI, TACE, DEB‐TACE or Y‐90 in the treatment of unresectable ICC Comparison: none |
Primary: overall survival (OS) Secondary: - tumor response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) - treatment related toxicity assessed with the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) or World Health Organization (WHO) criteria Results: basics - Of 793 total articles, 20 were selected for analysis HAI: 3 articles with 62 patients, TACE: 11 articles with 431 patients, DEB-TACE: 2 articles with 37 patients, Y-90: 5 articles with 127 patients survival - The median OS across the entire cohort was 14.5 months (95% CI 12.48–16.43) - The median OS across the four strategies: HAI 22.8 months (95%CI 9.8–35.8) versus Y‐90 13.9 months (9.5–18.3) versus TACE 12.4 months (10.9–13.9) versus DEB‐TACE 12.3 months (11.0–13.5) Tumor Response to Therapy - Overall, partial or complete response was observed in 28.5% (95% CI 18.0–39.1, n=390) of evaluable subjects - Response rates (complete or partial) stratified according to treatment strategy: HAI group 56.9% (95% CI 41.0–72.8) versus Y‐90 27.4% (17.4–37.5) versus TACE 17.3% (6.8–27.8) - The rate of stable disease was highest in the DEB‐TACE group 61.5% (95% CI 42.8–80.2) versus Y‐90 54.8% (95% CI 45.2–56.7) versus TACE 46.9% (95% CI 5.5–58.4) versus HAI 42.2% (95% CI 17.1–67.2) Toxicity - rate of grade III/IV complications (events per patient) was highest for HAI 0.35 (95% CI 0.22–0.48) versus TACE 0.26 (95% CI 0.21–0.32) versus DEB‐TACE 0.32 (95% CI 0.17–0.48) - organ specific (hepatic) toxicity was highest for HAI 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.86) versus Y‐90 0.64 (95% CI 0.55–0.72) versus TACE 0.09 (95% CI 0.06–0.12) versus DEB‐TACE 0.08 (95% CI 0.0–0.17). - None of the studies using Y‐90 reported complications according to NCI/WHO criteria and could not be used for quantitative synthesis of complications for comparison. Author's Conclusion: Hepatic artery based therapies offer a promising strategy for improving outcomes for patients with unresectable ICC. Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) offers the best outcomes in terms of tumor response and OS but was associated with increased toxicity. Individualization of strategy based on patient‐disease characteristics and patient preferences are a focus for future research. |
HAI Tanaka et al. (2002), Eur J Radiol Jarnagin et al. (2009), Ann Oncol Inaba et al. (2011) , Am J Clin Oncol Burger et al. (2005), J Vasc Interv Radiol TACE Herber et al. (2007), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Gusani et al. (2008), J Gastrointest Surg Shitara et al. (2008), Clin Oncol (R Coll of Radiol) Andrasina et al. (2010), Gut liver Park et al. (2011), Clin Radiol Kiefer et al. (2011), Cancer Kuhlman et al. (2012), Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Halappa et al. (2012), Radiology Vogl et al. (2012), Int J Cancer Scheuermann et al. (2013), Eur J Surg Oncol DEB‐TACE Aliberti et al. (2008), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Kuhlman et al. (2012), Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Y-90 Ibrahim et al. (2008), Cancer Saxena et al. (2010), Ann Surg Oncol Haug et al. (2011), Eur J Nucl Med MolImaging Hoffmann et al. (2012), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Rafi et al. (2013), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: There was no source of funding for this study COI: all authors have no disclosures to make Study Quality: Of the studies included in our analysis, the majority (60%) was prospective cohort studies and the rest were retrospective studies. When analyzed in accordance with Centre for Evidence‐based Medicine (CEBM, Oxford) guidelines, 70% were assigned as level 2b and 30% were level 4. The confounding factors were described adequately only in 24% of the articles, and therefore could not be utilized for analysis. Heterogeneity: high heterogeneity assumed for all survival analysis - overall: I2=99.3%, P=0.000 - HAI: I2=99.8%, P=0.000 - TACE: I2=98.4%, P=0.000 - DEB-TACE: I2=70.8%, P=0.064 - Y-90: I2=96.3%, P=0.000 low-to-high heterogeneity assumed for all complete/partial response analysis - overall: I2=85.9%, P=0.000 - HAI: I2=0.0%, P=0.576 - TACE: I2=83.1%, P=0.000 - Y-90: I2=11.8%, P=0.322 Publication Bias: in methods section, note that publication bias was explored using funnel plots, but no reporting of results Notes: evidence level 1: systematic review and meta analysis - hetereogeneity high across survival analysis |
||||
| Cucchetti, A. et al. Improving patient selection for selective internal radiation therapy of intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-regression study. Liver Int. 37. 1056-1064. 2017 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Study type: systematic review and meta-regression analysis Databases: PubMed and Scopus Search period: until 1 September 2016 Inclusion Criteria: (i) a study population formed by patients treated for cholangiocarcinoma or extractable from studies in which SIRT was performed also for other clinical malignancies; (ii) a sufficient description of this study population; (iii) a description of patient survival rates for at least 1 year after SIRT. Exclusion Criteria: none |
Population: patients treated for cholangiocarcinoma treated with SIRT Intervention: Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) Comparison: none |
Primary: patient survival Secondary: tumour overall response rate Results: basics - The final list of included studies consisted of 9 reports. 6 of these were a prospective (n=151), whereas the remainder were retrospective (n=73) survival - The pooled 1- , 2- and 3- year survival estimates were 55.7%, 33.1% and 20.2%, respectively, with a median survival of 14.9 months. (I2=17%, 48.9% and 0%, respectively) Variables significantly related to survival - infiltrative iCCAs have a 1- year survival of 36.0% vs. mass-forming type with 65.8% - 2-year survival of naïve iCCAs 50.4% vs. iCCAs treated after failure/recurrence of a previous treatment 23.6% - 2-year survival of patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy 42.5% vs. patients not receiving chemotherapy <10% tumour overall response rate - The overall response rate was 24.1% (95% CI: 16.4-34.0; I2= 27.7%), and 68.1% of patients experienced some clinical adverse events (95% CI: 53.4-80.0; I2=70.3%). - Metaregression did not find any significant relationship between clinical and tumour features and overall response rate or occurrence of clinical adverse events Author's Conclusion: In conclusion, this study tries to provide an assessment of survival that can be expected following SIRT in various clinical scenarios through a meta-analytic approach. Best survival outcomes can be suggested in mass-forming, naïve iCCAs patients and concomitant chemotherapy is advisable. Even if larger trial are surely needed to draw any more evidence-based conclusions, the present results can be useful for planning such prospective trials such as providing some indications for patient selection and study planning. |
Mosconi (2016), Br J Cancer Soydal (2016), Ann Nucl Med Edeline (2015), Clin Nucl Med Filippi (2015), Nucl Med Biol Camacho (2014), J Vasc Interv Radiol Mouli (2013), J Vasc Interv Radiol Rafi (2013), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Hoffmann (2012), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Saxena (2010), Ann Surg Oncol |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: The authors do not have any disclosures to report. Study Quality: - The quality of each selected study was assessed by means of the quality appraisal tool for case series studies using a modified Delphi technique. - max. score was 20 points. All studies scored at least 15 points. These studies were regarded as high quality. Heterogeneity: Statistical heterogeneity was explored by inconsistency (I2) statistics. - Clinical and tumour characteristics showed medium-to-considerable heterogeneity (I2>50%). - see results section for further I2 values Publication Bias: not assessed Notes: evidence level 1: SR and MR |
||||
| Han, K. et al. Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 26. 943-8. 2015 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases Search period: The last search was done on September 5, 2014 Inclusion Criteria: - Population: Patients with biopsy-proven, primary or recurrent ICC (in this review, ICC refers to tumors that are confined to the liver with or without evidence of extrahepatic disease) - Intervention: RF ablation - Outcome: Technical success, technical effectiveness, median overall survival, 5 year-survival rate, local tumor progression and complications - Study designs: All observational studies (retrospective or prospective) Exclusion Criteria: - case reports; - review articles, letters, comments and conference proceedings - studies on topics other than the efficacy and safety of RF ablation in the management of ICC - studies with overlapping patients and data |
Population: Patients with biopsy-proven, primary or recurrent ICC Intervention: RF ablation Comparison: none |
Primary: - survival rates (1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates) - local tumor progression rates Secondary: none Results: survival - The pooled 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were 82% (95% CI, 72%–90%), 47% (95% CI, 28%–65%), and 24% (95% CI, 11%–40%) - no substantial heterogeneity was found in the 1-year and 5-year survival rates. Borderline heterogeneity was noted in the pooled 3-year survival rate (I2=57%) Local Tumor Progression - The pooled rate was 21% (95% CI, 13%–30%) - no substantial heterogeneity was noted Author's Conclusion: Our results suggest that RF ablation is a locoregional treatment option that prolongs survival rates in patients with ICC who are ineligible for surgery. |
Butros et al, 2014, Clin Imaging Fu et al, 2012, J Vasc Interv Radiol Haidu et al, 2012, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Kim et al, 2011, Eur J Radiol Kim et al, 2011 AJR Am J Roentgenol Carrafiello et al, 2010, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Chiou et al, 2005, J Med Sci |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: The authors acknowledge support for this work by the Korea Research Foundation grant (NRF-2014R1A1A1003475). COI: None of the authors have identified a conflict of interest. Study Quality: not assessed Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity of the pooled data was assessed using the CochraneQ test and quantified with I2 statistics. An I2 value ≥50% was considered to indicate substantial heterogeneity. Publication Bias: The publication bias was not evaluated using the funnel plot because fewer than 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Notes: evidence level 2: SR and MA, downgraded due to missing quality assessment |
||||
| Moole, H. et al. Success of photodynamic therapy in palliating patients with nonresectable cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 23. 1278-1288. 2017 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: systematic review and meta analysis Databases: Medline, PubMed, Ovid journals, EMBASE, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ACP journal club, DARE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, old Medline, Medline nonindexed citations, OVID Healthstar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Search period: 1966 to May 2016 Inclusion Criteria: - Studies evaluating the role of PDT as a palliative option in patients with advanced non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma, - Prospective studies, retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) - Only full text articles, peer reviewed and published in international journals Exclusion Criteria: - Studies that used PDT as a neo-adjuvant therapy in patients with resectable cholangiocarcinoma - Studies that used chemotherapy or radiation therapy along with PDT in patients with resectable or unresectable cholangiocarcinoma - Studies without original data, perspective articles review articles, and expert opinions |
Population: patients with advanced non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma Intervention: photodynamic therapy along with biliary stenting (PDT group) Comparison: biliary stenting alone (BS group) |
Primary: surival change in Karnofsky performance scores Secondary: Biliary drainage outcomes Adverse events Results: basics - Data was extracted from 10 studies (n=402) which met the inclusion criterion. - Studies evaluating survival of patients followed up with the patients till death. - Studies describing the adverse events and quality of life had a median follow up period of three months. - All except 3 studies used Photofrin 2 mg/kg as the PDT agent. Photogem, Photosan-3 and Temoporfin were the three other PDT agents Survival benefit and Quality of life with photodynamic therapy - survival periods in PDT group and BS group were 413.04 d (95%CI: 349.54-476.54) and 183.41 days (95%CI: 136.81 to 230.02) respectively. I² (inconsistency) = 85.1% (95%CI: 73.5%-90.2%), Egger: bias = 5.09 (95%CI: 2.12-8.07), P = 0.0043. - The change in Karnofsky performance scores after intervention in PDT and BS groups were +6.99 (95%CI: 4.15-9.82) and -3.93 (95%CI: -8.63-0.77) respectively. I² (inconsistency)= 97.6% (95%CI: 96.7%-98.1%), Egger: bias = 7.66 (95%CI: -0.22-15.53) P = 0.054 Biliary drainage outcomes - Pooled odds ratio for successful biliary drainage in PDT group vs BS group was 4.39 (95%CI: 2.35-8.19). I² (inconsistency) = 28.8% (95%CI: 0%-79.9%), Horbold-Egger: bias = -1.19 (92.5%CI: -20.32-17.94) P = 0.69. - pre-treatment bilirubin levels (mg/dL) in PDT and BS group were 6.36 (95%CI: 5.86-6.87) and 7.83 (95%CI: 7.08-8.58) respectively. - after intervention (after 3 months), the bilirubin levels decreased by 4.23 (95%CI: 3.86-4.60) and 2.45 (95%CI: 2.08-2.81) in PDT and BS group respectively; I² (inconsistency) = 97.1% (95%CI: 96.4%-97.7%), Egger: bias = 11.38 (95%CI: 5.28-17.48), P = 0.0026. Adverse events - Pooled odds ratio for post-intervention cholangitis episodes in PDT group vs BS group was 0.57 (95%CI: 0.35-0.94). I² (inconsistency) = 48.3% (95%CI: 0%-73.4%), Egger: bias = -0.70 (95%CI: -2.44-1.03), P = 0.38 - In the pooled proportion of patients in PDT group, 10.51% (95%CI: 6.94-14.72) had photosensitivity reactions that were self-limiting. I² (inconsistency)= 61.2% (95%CI: 0%-79.5%), Egger: bias = 2.81 (95%CI: 0.38-5.23) P = 0.02. Subgroup analysis of prospective studies showed similar results, except the incidence of cholangitis was comparable in both groups. Author's Conclusion: Overall, PDT combined with biliary stenting improves the success of biliary drainage and has a significant benefit in improving the survival period and quality of life. PDT is beneficial, minimally invasive, and well tolerated with a favorable side effect profile. We conclude that PDT with biliary stenting could be offered to all patients with nonresectable cholangiocarcinoma as a palliative option. |
Ortner et al, 2003, Gastroenterology Dumoulin et al, 2003, Gastrointest Endosc Cheon et al, 2004, Korean J Gastroenterol Wiedmann et al, 2004, Gastrointest Endosc Shim et al, 2005, Endoscopy Zoepf et al, 2005, Am J Gastroenterol Witzigmann et al, 2006, Ann Surg Prasad et al, 2007, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Lee et al, 2012, World J Gastroenterol Wagner et al, 2013, Photochem Photobiol Sci |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: no statement COI: The authors deny any conflict of interest. Study Quality: description of quality assessment in methods section but no reporting of results of such an assessment Heterogeneity: - The heterogeneity among studies was tested using I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test based upon inverse variance weights. I2 of 0%-39% was considered as non-significant heterogeneity, 40%-75% as moderate heterogeneity, and 76%-100% as considerable heterogeneity - See results section for individual I2 values Publication Bias: - The effect of publication and selection bias on the summary estimates was tested by both Harbord-Egger bias indicator and Begg bias indicator. Also, funnel plots were constructed to evaluate potential publication bias - See results section for individual Egger bias scores Notes: evidence level 2: systematic review and meta analysis, downgraded due to missing quality assessment (described in method section, but no reporting of results) |
||||
CCA Zhen 2019 TARE
| Zhen, Y. et al. A pooled analysis of transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres for the treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 12. 4489-4498. 2019 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysis (16 cohort studies) Databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, SCI Search period: Inception to October 2018. Inclusion Criteria: 1. Clinical trials or studies 2. Studies that described TARE with 90Y microspheres in the treatment of unresectable ICC Exclusion Criteria: 1. Review articles, animal studies, abstracts, case reports 2. Duplicated clinical studies 3. Studies with fewer than 10 cases |
Population: Patients with unresectable ICC. Intervention: TARE with 90Y microspheres Comparison: nondescript (non-TARE) |
Primary: Median OS Secondary: Disease control rate (DCR). Results: There were 16 eligible studies included in this pooled analysis. The pooled median overall survival (OS) from 12 studies was 14.3 (95% CI: 11.9–17.1) months. Based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), no complete response was reported, and the median of partial response, stable disease and progressive disease were 11.5% (range: 4.8–35.3%), 61.5% (range: 42.9–81.3%) and 22.7% (range: 12.5–52.4%) respectively. The pooled disease control rate (DCR) from nine studies was 77.2% (95% CI: 70.2–84.2%). According to the type of microspheres, subgroup analysis was performed, the median OS in the glass microspheres group was 14.0 (95% CI: 9.1–21.4) months, and 14.3 (95% CI: 11.5–17.8) months in the resin microspheres group. The DCR was 77.3% (95% CI: 63.5–91.1%) and 77.4% (95% CI: 66.8–87.9%) in the glass and resin microspheres groups respectively. Most of the side effects reported in the included studies were mild and did not require intervention. Author's Conclusion: TARE with 90Y microspheres is safe and effective for patients with unresectable ICC with acceptable side effects. And it seems that the type of microsphere has no influence on therapeutic efficacy. |
16 cohort studies: Saxena 2010, Mosconi 2016, Rafi 2013, Mouli 2013, Hoffmann 2012, Jia 2017, Soydal 2016, Swinburne 2017, Reimer 2018, Orwat 2017, Paprottka 2017, Gangi 2018, Filippi 2015, Beuzit 2016, Camacho 2014. |
|
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: not described. COI: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. Study Quality: The quality of the studies was independently evaluated by two reviewers based on the Downs and Black quality assessment checklist. Study quality was evaluated but not reported or discussed. Heterogeneity: Mild and moderate heterogeneity was shown in pooled median OS and DCR. These estimates were robust in the sensitivity analysis. Publication Bias: An Egger test was used to assess publication bias, and Metaninf was used for sensitivity analysis, a two-sided P<0.05 was regarded as significant. No significant publication bias was identified in pooled analysis. Notes: Oxford level of evidence: 2 Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies Downgrade to evidence level 3: Lacking definition of criteria for inclusion or exclustion.Study quality was evaluated but not reported or discussed. |
||||
CCA Mosconi 2021 TACE und TARE
| Mosconi, C. et al. Transarterial Chemoembolization and Radioembolization for Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma-a Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 44. 728-738. 2021 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis (31 observational studies included). Databases: PubMed and Web of Science databases Search period: Inception - 1 March 2020 Inclusion Criteria: "studied of IAT for unresectable ICC, to understand in a timely fashion causes and consequences of different indications and results between TACE and TARE, with the final aim to clarify whether one single IAT can be superior to the alternative, evaluating objective response, clinical adverse events and survival of the pooled study populations for each IAT group identified." Exclusion Criteria: not described. |
Population: Patients with unresectable ICC. Intervention: TACE Comparison: TARE |
Primary: Overall survival after IAT was considered as the primary end point. Secondary: Occurrence of clinical adverse events (not including biochemical toxicities) and tumour overall response rate (complete response ? partial response) defined according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumours. Results: A total of 31 articles (of 793, n.1695 patients) were selected for data extraction, 13 were on TACE (906 patients) and 18 were on TARE (789 patients). Clinical and tumour characteristics showed moderate heterogeneity between the two groups. The median survival after TACE was 14.2 months while after TARE was 13.5 months (95%C.I.: 11.4–16.1). The survival difference was small (d = 0.112) at 1 year and negligible at 2 years (d = 0.028) and at 3 years (d = 0.049). The radiological objective response after TACE was 20.6% and after TARE was 19.3% (d = 0.032). Clinical adverse events occurred in 58.5% after TACE, more frequently than after TARE (43.0%, d = 0.314). Author's Conclusion: In conclusion, IATs are promising treatments for improving outcomes for patients with unresectable ICC. To date, TACE and TARE provide similar good outcomes, except for adverse events. Therefore, the decision about techniques is determined by ability to utilize these resources and patient specific factors (liver function or lesion dimension). |
31 observational studies included, see article for list. | |
| Methodical Notes | ||||
| Funding Sources: This study was not supported by any funding. COI: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Study Quality: The quality of each selected study was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Quality of the included studies ranged from 6-8 out 9. Heterogeneity: "significant heterogeneity would exist both within patients treated either with TACE or TARE when comparing single studies, as well as when comparing the two techniques across all pertinent studies." Publication Bias: Not investigated. Notes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies Downgrade to evidence level 3 Lacking description of criteria for inclusion or exclusion. No investigation of publication bias. Substantial heterogeneity in all results limits causal inference and is not investigated by subgroups or sensitivity analysis. |
||||
CCA Luvira 2021 Adjuvanz Capecitabine
| Luvira, V. et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable cholangiocarcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 9. Cd012814. 2021 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence level/Study Types | P - I - C | Outcomes/Results | Literature References | |
| Evidence level: 1 Overall confidence in the results of the review: AMSTAR II critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: No critical flaw, zero non-critical flaws. Overall quality of evidence: high Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (2011): Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Study type: Systematic review and META-Analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials. Databases: Cochrane Hepato- Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Search period: up to 28 April 2021 Inclusion Criteria: Randomized clinical trials irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or a different postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for participants with curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma. Exclusion Criteria: |
Population: Adults (aged 18 years or older) of any sex who underwent curative intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma and received any type of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy compared with people with the same condition, but receiving placebo, no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, or other adjuvant chemotherapies. Intervention: All regimens of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (intravenous infusion, intravenous bolus, intraportal infusion, and oral administration of a single regimen or a combination of chemotherapy regimens). Comparison: No postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (surgery alone), placebo, or a different regimen or form of chemotherapy. |
Primary: - All-cause mortality. - Serious adverse events. - Health-related quality of life. Secondary: - Cancer-related mortality (death from cancer). • Time to recurrence of the tumour. • Non-serious adverse events. Results: The trials included 931 adults (18 to 83 years old) who underwent curative intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma. Four trials compared postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); gemcitabine; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; or capecitabine) versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (surgery alone) in 867 participants with cholangiocarcinoma only. All cause mortality: post-op adjuvant chemotherapy versus no post-op adjuvant chemotherapy: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 4 trials, 867 participants, very low-certainty evidence. Adverse events: Serious adverse events: RR 17.82, 95% CI 2.43 to 130.82; 1 trial, 219 participants, very low-certainty evidence. A fifth trial compared postoperative adjuvant S-1 (a novel oral fluoropyrimidine derivative) chemotherapy versus gemcitabine in 70 participants with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (64 participants), and gallbladder carcinoma (6 participants). The authors reported that one-year overall mortality after adjuvant S-1 therapy was lower than with adjuvant gemcitabine-based therapy following major hepatectomy for biliary tract cancer (RR 0.38 (0.15-0.96), 1 trial, 70 patients, very-low certainty of evidence). There were no differences in two-year overall mortality (RR 0.81 (0.58-1.13), 1 trial, 70 patients, very-low certainty of evidence). We assessed all of the included trials at overall high risk of bias. Author's Conclusion: Based on the very low-certainty evidence found in four trials in people with curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma, we are very uncertain of the effects of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (mitomycin-C and 5-FU; gemcitabine; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; or capecitabine) versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on mortality. The effects of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy compared with no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on serious adverse events are also very uncertain, but the result of the single trial showed 20% higher occurrences of haematologic adverse events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to overall high risk of bias, and imprecision. Due to insufficient power of the only identified trial, the best postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimen in people with only cholangiocarcinoma could not be established. We also lack randomized clinical trials with outcome data on adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy versus adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in people with cholangiocarcinoma alone. There is a need for further randomized clinical trials designed to be at low risk of bias and with adequate sample size exploring the best adjuvant chemotherapy treatment aGer surgery in people with cholangiocarcinoma. |
Takada 2002; Ebata 2018; Edeline 2019; Kobayashi 2019; Primrose 2019). |
|
CCA Primrose 2019 BILCAP
| Primrose, John N. et al. Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study. The Lancet Oncology. 20. 663-673. 2019 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention - Comparison | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: randomized controlled study, open-label Number of Patient: - 447 patients (intention-to-treat population) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the capecitabine group (n=223) or the observation group (n=224) - The per-protocol population comprised 430 patients (210 in capecitabine group) and 220 in the observation group) following the exclusion of 17 patients - The safety population comprised any patient receiving at least one dose of capecitabine. Recruitung Phase: Between March 15, 2006 and Dec 4, 2014 Inclusion Criteria: - Patients aged 18 years or older - with histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had a macroscopically complete resection with curative intent - should have had radical surgical treatment, which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection or both. - The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status had to be less than 2, - adequate renal, haematological, and liver function was required. Exclusion Criteria: - Patients with pancreatic or ampullary cancer, mucosal gallbladder cancer, or unresolved biliary tree obstruction - Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer |
Intervention: Oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m²) was given post-operatively twice a day on days 1 to 14 of a 3-weekly cycle for 24 weeks (eight cycles) Comparison: observation |
Primary: overall survival Secondary: per-protocol analysis of outcomes, recurrence-free survival, toxicity, health economics, and quality of life. Results: overall survival - In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51.1 months (95% CI 34.6–59.1) in the capecitabine group and 36.4 months (29.7–44.5) in the observation group (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63–1.04; p=0.097), when adjusted for minimisation factors other than surgical centre - In the per-protocol analysis, median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30–44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.97; p=0.028) recurrence-free survival - In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24.4 months (95% CI 18.6–35.9) in the capecitabine group and 17.5 months (12.0–23.8) in the observation group. - The adjusted recurrence-free survival HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.58–0.98; p=0.033) in the first 24 months from randomisation, with no evidence of a difference in the period from 24 to 60 months (recurrence-free survival HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.80–2.77; p=0.21). - In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25.9 months (95% CI 19.8–46.3) in the capecitabine group and 17.4 months (12.0–23.7) in the observation group - The adjusted recurrence-free survival HR from 0 to 24 months was 0.70 (95% CI 0.54–0.92; p=0.0093), and there was no evidence of a difference beyond 24 months (recurrence-free survival HR 1.55, 95% CI 0.82–2.93; p=0.18) safety - 122 (55%) patients completed eight cycles of capecitabine. - of the 69 (32%) who discontinued treatment because of toxicity, the most common complaints were hand-foot syndrome in ten patients (14%), diarrhoea in nine patients (13%) and other (patients could cite more than one toxicity type) in 21 (31%) patients - Of the 213 patients who strted treatment, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, and one patient (<1%) had grade 4 cardiac ischaemia or infarction. - The most frequent grade 3 events were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%), diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. - Serious adverse events were observed in 47 (21%) of 223 patients (64 events, 33 of them treatment-related) in the capecitabine group and 22 (10%) of 224 patients (29 events) in the observation group. quality of life - significant differences were observed in the social functioning scale of the QLQ-C30, with a median standardised area under the curve of 76.2 (IQR 56.9–91.7) in the capecitabine group and 83.3 (64.6–95.8) in the observation group (p=0.0060). Author's Conclusion: In summary, although the BILCAP study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the sensitivity and secondary analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable and the quality of life data favourable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting. |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
Lilly Oncology provided the investigators with gemcitabine at no cost but was not involved in the accrual or analysis of the data, the interpretation of the results, or the preparation of the manuscript.
COI: Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Randomization: Patients were randomly assigned by telephone by the Cancer Research United Kingdom and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, which coordinated the trial. Randomization was conducted with the use of a minimization algorithm stratified according to the primary tumor site, extent of disease (locally advanced vs. metastatic), performance status, previous therapy, and recruiting center.
Blinding: - none (open-label)
- Investigators were unaware of the overall survival analysis in the ABC-01 trial (preceding phase II trial), as mandated by the independent data and safety monitoring committee.
Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis
CCA Jeong 2023 adj. Gem/Cis STAMP
Schlüsselfrage:
| Jeong, H. et al. Adjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine in node-positive extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the STAMP randomized trial. Hepatology. 77. 1540-1549. 2023 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention / Comparison | Outcomes/Results | Methodical Notes |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Randomized controlled trial Number of Patients: 101 Recruiting Phase: July 2017 to November 2020 Inclusion Criteria: patients aged ≥ 19 years who had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of extrahepatic (perihilar or distal) bile duct with at least 1 regional lymph node metastasis and had undergone complete (R0 or R1) surgical resection within 12 weeks before randomization. Patients had to have no evidence of distant metastases or residual (R2) disease, no previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for BTC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1, and adequate major organ functions. Exclusion Criteria: Patients with tumor histology other than adenocarcinoma, a serum CA 19-9 level of ≥ 100 U/mL, or gastrointestinal obstruction were ineligible. |
Intervention: Capecitabine (CAP) 1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1 through 14, every 3 weeks (n = 101) Comparison: Intravenously cisplatin 25 mg/m2 over 1 hour, followed by gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks (GemCis) (n = 101) |
Primary: disease-free survival (DFS) Secondary: Overall survival, adverse events, health-related QoL, and exploratory biomarker analysis using tumor tissues and serially collected blood samples. Results: Median follow-up duration from randomization in the intention-totreat population was 33.4 months. Disease free survival (DFS) The 2-year DFS rate was 38.5% (1-sided 90% CI, 29.5–47.4%) in the GemCis group and 25.1% (1-sided 90% CI, 17.4%–33.5%) in the CAP group. The median DFS was 14.3 months (1-sided 90% CI, 10.7–16.5) in the GemCis group and 11.1 months (1-sided 90% CI, 8.4–12.7) in the CAP group [HR, 0.96 (1-sided 90% CI, 0.71–1.30), 1-sided p =0.430] Overall survival The 2-year OS rate was 77.8% (1-sided 90% CI, 68.4–84.7%) in the GemCis group and 71.0% (1-sided 90% CI, 61.1–78.8) in the CAP group. The median OS was 35.7 months (1-sided 90% CI, 29.5 to not estimated) in the GemCis group and 35.7 months (1-sided 90% CI, 30.9 to not estimated) in the CAP group [HR, 1.08 (1-sided 90% CI, 0.71–1.64), 1-sided p =0.404] Safety Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 42 patients (84%) in the GemCis group and 8 patients (16%) in the CAP group. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia (n =36, 72%) in the GemCis group, with 1 patient experiencing febrile neutropenia. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (n =4, 8%) was the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event in the CAP group. No treatment-related deaths were reported in both groups. Quality of life During study treatment, no significant deterioration in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scores was observed during treatment in both groups. No significant differences in the GHS/QoL scores were observed between groups during treatment. Overall, the baseline functional scales were similar between the 2 groups, without significant deterioration during treatment. Among the symptom scales, the constipation score was higher in the GemCis group from cycles 2 to 8, whereas the diarrhea score was higher in the CAP group from cycles 2 to 5 Author's Conclusion: In resected lymph node–positive extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, adjuvant GemCis did not improve survival outcomes compared with capecitabine. |
Funding Sources: Stated, see article. COI: Changhoon Yoo has received honoraria from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Ipsen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Boryung Pharmaceuticals, Merck Randomization: Randomization was performed Blinding: No masking was performed (open-label study) Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: ITT analysis was performed Notes: Cochrane risk of bias tool (Rob)-1: 3 questions(s) were considered to be high risk of bias Overall risk of bias: High Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (2011): Randomized trial Downgraded one level due to high risk of bias. |
CCA Oh 2022 Gem/Cis+D TOPAZ1
| A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo Controlled, Multi-Regional, International Study of Durvalumab in Combination With Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Placebo in Combination With Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin for Patients With First-Line Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers (NCT03875235) | |||||
| Short Name | Design | Population | Intervention | Comparator | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOPAZ-1 D933AC00001 |
Randomized, Parallel Assignment, Phase 3 quadruple-blind study | Treatment-naive with ECOG 0-1 Biliary Tract Neoplasms | Treatment Arm (N=341)1 | Placebo Arm (N=344)2 |
|
| Levels of Evidence | |||||
| GRADE | ⊕⊕⊕⊖a | We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. | |||
| 1: Durvalumab + Gemcitabine + Cisplatin; 2: Placebo + Gemcitabine + Cisplatin | |||||
| a: Fragliche Übertragbarkeit auf den Deutschen Versorgungskontext (Anteil Europäischer Patienten <70%) | |||||
| Outcome | Treatment Arm N=341 | Placebo Arm N=344 | Effect Estimate | GRADE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: Oh, OD 2022. Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer. ; 1 (8)* | |||||||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||||||
| OS - Time To Event | N=341 | 12.8 [11.1; 14] | N=344 | 11.5 [10.1; 12.5] | HR 0.8 [0.66; 0.97]; p=0.021 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| Age | |||||||
| <65 | N=181 | N=184 | HR 0.8 [0.61; 1.04] | ||||
| >=65 | N=160 | N=160 | HR 0.79 [0.6; 1.04] | ||||
| Biliary tract cancer | |||||||
| locally advanced | N=38 | N=57 | HR 0.49 [0.26; 0.88] | ||||
| metastatic | N=303 | N=286 | HR 0.83 [0.68; 1.02] | ||||
| Disease status | |||||||
| initially unresectable | N=274 | N=279 | HR 0.84 [0.69; 1.03] | ||||
| recurrent | N=67 | N=64 | HR 0.56 [0.32; 0.96] | ||||
| ECOG | |||||||
| 0 | N=173 | N=163 | HR 0.9 [0.68; 1.2] | ||||
| 1 | N=168 | N=181 | HR 0.72 [0.56; 0.94] | ||||
| PD-L1 expression | |||||||
| <1% | N=103 | N=103 | HR 0.86 [0.6; 1.23] | ||||
| >=1% | N=197 | N=205 | [; ] | HR 0.79 [0.61; 1] | |||
| Primary tumor location | |||||||
| extrahepatic CC | N=66 | N=65 | HR 0.76 [0.49; 1.19] | ||||
| gallbladder | N=85 | N=86 | HR 0.94 [0.65; 1.37] | ||||
| intrahepatic CC | N=190 | N=193 | HR 0.76 [0.58; 0.98] | ||||
| Race | |||||||
| Asian | N=185 | N=201 | HR 0.73 [0.57; 0.94] | ||||
| non-Asian | N=156 | N=143 | HR 0.89 [0.66; 1.19] | ||||
| Sex | |||||||
| female | N=172 | [; ] | N=168 | HR 0.82 [0.62; 1.08] | |||
| male | N=169 | N=176 | HR 0.78 [0.6; 1.01] | ||||
| PFS - Time To Event | N=341 | 7.2 [6.7; 7.4] | N=344 | 0.75 [0.63; 0.89] | HR 0.75 [0.63; 0.89]; p=0.001 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| Age | |||||||
| <65 | N=181 | N=184 | HR 0.68 [0.54; 0.85] | ||||
| >=65 | N=160 | N=160 | HR 0.84 [0.66; 1.07] | ||||
| Biliary tract cancer | |||||||
| locally advanced | N=38 | N=57 | HR 0.42 [0.25; 0.68] | ||||
| metastatic | N=303 | N=286 | HR 0.81 [0.68; 0.97] | ||||
| Disease status | |||||||
| initially unresectable | N=274 | N=279 | HR 0.79 [0.66; 0.95] | ||||
| recurrent | N=67 | N=64 | HR 0.63 [0.42; 0.94] | ||||
| ECOG | |||||||
| 0 | N=173 | N=163 | HR 0.77 [0.61; 0.98] | ||||
| 1 | N=168 | N=181 | HR 0.76 [0.6; 0.95] | ||||
| PD-L1 expression | |||||||
| TAP <1% | N=103 | N=103 | HR 0.8 [0.59; 1.09] | ||||
| TAP >=1% | N=197 | N=205 | HR 0.73 [0.59; 0.91] | ||||
| Primary tumor location | |||||||
| extrahepatic CC | N=66 | N=65 | HR 0.52 [0.35; 0.78] | ||||
| gallbladder | N=85 | [; ] | N=86 | HR 0.9 [0.65; 1.24] | |||
| intrahepatic CC | N=190 | N=193 | HR 0.79 [0.64; 0.99] | ||||
| Race | |||||||
| Asian | N=185 | N=201 | HR 0.67 [0.54; 0.83] | ||||
| non-Asian | N=156 | N=143 | HR 0.88 [0.69; 1.14] | ||||
| Sex | |||||||
| female | N=172 | [; ] | N=168 | HR 0.78 [0.62; 0.99] | |||
| male | N=169 | [; ] | N=176 | HR 0.73 [0.58; 0.93] | |||
| DCR - Time To Event | N=341 | 291 (85.34%) | N=344 | 284 (82.56%) | OR 1.23 [0.817; 1.852]; p=0.3224 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| DOR - Time To Event | N=341 | 6.4 [; ] | N=344 | 17.2 [; ] | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | ||
| ORR - TuDD | N=341 | 91 (26.69%) | N=344 | 64 (18.6%) | RR 1.43 [1.081; 1.903]; p=0.0123 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE (Any) | N=338 | 336 (99.41%) | N=342 | 338 (98.83%) | RR 1.01 [0.992; 1.02]; p=0.4198 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=338 | 256 (75.74%) | N=342 | 266 (77.78%) | RR 0.97 [0.896; 1.058]; p=0.5295 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE-D (Any) | N=338 | 12 (3.55%) | N=342 | 14 (4.09%) | RR 0.87 [0.407; 1.848]; p=0.7121 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE-Disc (Any) | N=338 | 44 (13.02%) | N=342 | 52 (15.2%) | RR 0.86 [0.59; 1.242]; p=0.4136 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| SAE (Any) | N=338 | 160 (47.34%) | N=342 | 149 (43.57%) | RR 1.09 [0.921; 1.281]; p=0.3239 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (Any) | N=338 | 314 (92.9%) | N=342 | 308 (90.06%) | RR 1.03 [0.985; 1.08]; p=0.1850 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=338 | 212 (62.72%) | N=342 | 222 (64.91%) | RR 0.97 [0.863; 1.082]; p=0.5525 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE-Disc (Any) | N=338 | 30 (8.88%) | N=342 | 39 (11.4%) | RR 0.78 [0.495; 1.223]; p=0.2768 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TirAE-D (Any) | N=338 | 2 (0.59%) | N=342 | 1 (0.29%) | RR 2.02 [0.184; 22.214]; p=0.5641 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TSAE (Any) | N=338 | 53 (15.68%) | N=342 | 59 (17.25%) | RR 0.91 [0.648; 1.276]; p=0.5810 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| *Database cutoff: 09.08.2021 | |||||||
| a: Fehlende Einzelauswertung der Komponenten des zusammengesetzten Endpunktes (Progression) | |||||||
| AE: Adverse Events; AE-D: Adverse Events Leading to Death; AE-Disc: Adverse Events Leading to Treatment Discontinuation; Any: Any Grade; CTCAE ≥3: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Grade ≥3; DCR: Disease Control Rate; DOR: Duration Of Response; ORR: Objective Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-Free Survival; SAE: Serious Adverse Events; TAE: Treatment-related Adverse Events; TAE-Disc: Treatment-related Adverse Events Leading to Treatment Discontinuation; TirAE-D: Treatment-related immun-related Advers Events Leading to Death; TSAE: Treatment-related Serious Adverse Events; TuDD: Time to Definitive Deterioration | |||||||
CCA Valle 2010 Gem/Cis
| Valle, Juan et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 362. 1273-81. 2010 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention - Comparison | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: randomized controlled study Number of Patient: 410 patients, 204 patients received cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and 206 received gemcitabine alone Recruitung Phase: February 2002 and October 2008 Inclusion Criteria: - 18 years of age or older - received a histopathological or cytologic diagnosis of nonresectable, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract carcinoma (intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary carcinoma) - an Eastern Cooperative Oncolog y Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, 1, or 2 - and an estimated life expectancy of more than 3 months. - adequate hematologic and biochemical function, in particular a total bilirubin level of 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range or less, liver-enzyme levels that were five times the upper limit of the normal range or less, renal function with levels of serum urea and serum creatinine that were less than 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range, and a calculated glomerular filtration rate of 45 ml per minute or higher Exclusion Criteria: none |
Intervention: cisplatin plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone for up to 24 weeks. - In the cisplatin–gemcitabine group, each cycle comprised cisplatin (25 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter), each administered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, initially for four cycles. Comparison: gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks, initially for three cycles. |
Primary: overall survival Secondary: progression-free survival tumor response adverse events Results: basics - median follow-up time was 8.2 months. At the time of the final analysis, 327 deaths had occurred, and 362 patients (88.3%) had tumor progression. - median duration of treatment 14 weeks in the gemcitabine-only group vs. 21 weeks in the cisplatin–gemcitabine group, P=0.003 overall survival - median survival in the cisplatin–gemcitabine group was 11.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5 to 14.3), as compared with 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.1 to 8.7) for the gemcitabine-only group (P<0.001). - Patients who received cisplatin plus gemcitabine were 36% less likely to die at any time than those who received gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.80). - Adjustment for the randomization stratification factors did not significantly alter this outcome (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.84). progression-free survival - Cisplatin plus gemcitabine significantly improved progression-free survival, with a median of 8.0 months (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.6) in the cisplatin–gemcitabine group as compared with 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.9) in the gemcitabine-only group (P<0.001). - The hazard ratio for disease progression was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.77) tumor response - Tumor control (complete or partial response or stable disease) was achieved in 131 of 161 patients who received cisplatin plus gemcitabine (81.4%), as compared with 102 of 142 patients who received gemcitabine alone (71.8%) (P=0.049) adverse events - Liver function was significantly worse in the gemcitabine-only group (27.1%) than in the cisplatin–gemcitabine group (16.7%) - 7 suspected, unexpected serious adverse reactions all of whom were reported in the gemcitabine-only group Author's Conclusion: In summary, this study shows a significant survival advantage for cisplatin plus gemcitabine over gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced biliary cancer. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is an appropriate option for the treatment of these patients. |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
CCA Oh 2022 Gem/Cis+DT
| Biomarker-oriented Study of Durvalumab(MEDI4736)/Tremelimumab in Combination With Gemcitabine/Cisplatin in Chemotherapy-naïve Biliary Tract Cancer (NCT03046862) | |||||
| Short Name | Design | Population | Intervention | Comparator | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTC-1st MEDITREME BTC-1st MEDITREME |
N/a, Single Group Assignment, Phase 2 Open Label study | Patients with Biliary Tract Neoplasms | 1. Durvalumab/Tremelimumab+chemotherapy (N=47)1 2. Durvalumab+chemotherapy (N=49)2 3. Chemotherapy followed by Durvalumab/Tremelimumab+chemotherapy (N=32)3 |
|
|
| Levels of Evidence | |||||
| GRADE | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a,b,c | Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. | |||
| 1: Durvalumab (1120 mg) and Tremelimumab (75 mg) in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2); 2: Durvalumab (1120 mg) in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2); 3: Gemcitabine/cisplatin gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2) followed by Durvalumab (1120 mg) in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2) | |||||
| a: Open Label Study;b: Treatment regimen not consistent with authorized dosage (Durvalumab 1500 mg);c: Single-arm study | |||||
| Outcome | Durvalumab/Tremelimumab+chemotherapy N=47 | GRADE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemcitabine and cisplatin plus durvalumab with tremelimumab: Oh, DY 2022. Gemcitabine and cisplatin plus durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: an open-label, single-centre, phase 2 study.. ; 7 (6); 522-532* | |||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||
| OS - Time To Event | N=47 | 18.7 [14.1; 23.2] | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a |
| PFS - Time To Event | N=47 | 12.3 [9.3; 15.2] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b |
| DOR - Time To Event | N=47 | 8.2 [5.4; 17.7] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| ORR - TuDD | N=47 | 33 (70.21%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| pCR - None | N=47 | 1 (2.13%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| AE (Any) | N=47 | 25 (53.19%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=47 | 23 (48.94%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a |
| Outcome | Durvalumab+chemotherapy N=49 | GRADE | |
| Gemcitabine and cisplatin plus durvalumab without tremelimumab: Oh, DY 2022. Gemcitabine and cisplatin plus durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: an open-label, single-centre, phase 2 study.. ; 7 (6); 522-532** | |||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||
| OS - Time To Event | N=47 | 20.2 [12.8; 27.6] | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a |
| PFS - Time To Event | N=47 | 11.8 [6.9; 16.6] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b |
| DOR - Time To Event | N=47 | 11.4 [8.5; 19.3] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| ORR - TuDD | N=47 | 34 (72.34%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| pCR - None | N=47 | 3 (6.38%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| AE (Any) | N=47 | 32 (68.09%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=47 | 27 (57.45%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a |
| Outcome | Chemotherapy followed by Durvalumab/Tremelimumab+chemotherapy N=32 | GRADE | |
| Chemotherapy followed by gemcitabine and cisplatin plus durvalumab and tremelimumab: Oh, DY 2022. Gemcitabine and cisplatin plus durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: an open-label, single-centre, phase 2 study.. ; 7 (6); 522-532*** | |||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||
| OS - Time To Event | N=30 | 15.0 [10.7; 19.2] | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a |
| PFS - Time To Event | N=30 | 12.8 [10.1; 15.4] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b |
| DOR - Time To Event | N=30 | 9.4 [4; 20.1] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| ORR - TuDD | N=30 | 15 (50%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| pCR - None | N=30 | 2 (6.67%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| AE (Any) | N=32 | 26 (81.25%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=32 | 18 (56.25%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a |
| *Database cutoff: not reported **Database cutoff: not reported ***Database cutoff: not reported |
|||
| a: Keine Effektschätzer berichtet; b: Fehlende Einzelauswertung der Komponenten des zusammengesetzten Endpunktes (Progression) | |||
| AE: Adverse Events; Any: Any Grade; CTCAE ≥3: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Grade ≥3; DOR: Duration Of Response; ORR: Objective Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; pCR: Pathological Complete Response; PFS: Progression-Free Survival; TuDD: Time to Definitive Deterioration | |||
CCA Kelley 2023 Pembrolizumab Keynote 966
Schlüsselfrage:
Von welchen Systemtherapien profitieren Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem biliären Karzinom?
| Kelley, R. K. et al. Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 401. 1853-1865. 2023 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention / Comparison | Outcomes/Results | Methodical Notes |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Randomized controlled trial Number of Patients: 1069 Recruiting Phase: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021 Inclusion Criteria: aged 18 years or older; had histologically confirmed unresectable locally advanced or metastatic extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (including mixed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma), gallbladder cancer, or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 determined by the investigator; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; provided tumour tissue for biomarker assessment; had adequate organ function; and had life expectancy of more than 3 months. Exclusion Criteria: Individuals were excluded from enrolment if they had ampullary cancer or had active autoimmune disease that required systemic treatment in the previous 2 years. |
Intervention: pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles)(n = 533). Pembrolizumab and placebo were limited to 35 cycles, and cisplatin was limited to eight cycles; there was no limit to the number of cycles of gemcitabine. Comparison: placebo administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles)(n = 536) |
Primary: overall survival Secondary: progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response Results: Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25.6 months (IQR 21.7–30.4). Overall survival Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI 11.5–13.6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9.9–11.6) in the placebo group. Estimated 12-month overall survival rates were 52% (95% CI 47–56) in the pembrolizumab group and 44% (40–48) in the placebo group; estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 25% (95% CI 21–29) in the pembrolizumab group and 18% (15–22) in the placebo group. The efficacy boundary for a statistically significant overall survival benefit for the pembrolizumab group was met (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·72–0·95]; p=0·0034). Progression-free survival Median progression-free survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 5·7–6·9) in the pembrolizumab group and 5·6 months (5·1–6·6) in the placebo group. Estimated 6-month progression-free survival was 52% (95% CI 48–57) in the pembrolizumab group and 46% (42–50) in the placebo group; estimated 12-month progression-free survival was 25% (21–30) in the pembrolizumab group and 20% (16–24) in the placebo group. The efficacy boundary for a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit for the pembrolizumab group was not met (HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·75–1·00]; p=0·023) Response At the first interim analysis, 153 (29% [95% CI 25 to 33]) of 533 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 153 (29% [25 to 33]) of 536 participants in the placebo group had a complete or partial response. The efficacy boundary for a statistically significant objective response rate benefit for the pembrolizumab group was not met (treatment difference 0.2 percentage points [95% CI –5.2 to 5·6]; p=0·47). Median duration of response was 9.7 months (95% CI 6.9 to 12.2) in the pembrolizumab group and 6.9 months (5.7 to 8.2) in the placebo group. Estimates of ongoing response at 24 months were 18% (95% CI 11–26) in the pembrolizumab group and 6% (2–13) in the placebo group. Adverse events In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events. Potentially immune-mediated adverse events and infusion reactions occurred in 117 (22%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 69 (13%) of 534 participants in the placebo group, including 37 (7%) in the pembrolizumab group and 21 (4%) in the placebo group who had a grade 3 or 4 adverse event. Author's Conclusion: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer |
Funding Sources: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA. COI: Stated, see full text Randomization: Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. Blinding: Double-blind trial Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population Notes: Cochrane risk of bias tool (Rob)-1: 0 question were considered to be high risk of bias, 0 questions were considered to be high risk of bias. Overall risk of bias: Low Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (2011): 2 Randomized trial |
CCA Lamarca 2021 FOLFOX
| Lamarca, A. et al. Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 22. 690-701. 2021 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention - Comparison | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Randomized controlled trial, phase 3, open label. Number of Patient: 162 randomized 1:1 to FOLFOX (n=81) or ASC alone (n=81). Recruitung Phase: Between March 27, 2014, and Jan 4, 2018 Inclusion Criteria: Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older and had histologically or cytologically verified locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, and ampullary carcinoma) with documented radiological disease progression to previous first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy. Any other form of first-line systemic chemotherapy or additional line of first-line chemotherapy (including rechallenge with cisplatin and gemcitabine) was not allowed. Patients who had been started on firstline cisplatin and gemcitabine for whom the cisplatin was stopped due to toxicity (with continuation of gemcitabine) were eligible. Exclusion Criteria: Patients with clinical evidence of metastatic disease to the brain and those with clinically significant cardiovascular disease were excluded |
Intervention: Active symptom control (ASC) and FOLFOX. FOLFOX chemotherapy was administered intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², L-folinic acid 175 mg [or folinic acid 350 mg], fluorouracil 400 mg/m² [bolus], and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m² as a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion). Comparison: ASC alone. FOLFOX chemotherapy was administered intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², L-folinic acid 175 mg [or folinic acid 350 mg], fluorouracil 400 mg/m² [bolus], and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m² as a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion). |
Primary: Overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. Secondary: progression-free survival (time between randomisation and radiological disease progression or death of any cause, whichever occurred first) and radiological response as per RECIST version 1.1 for the ASC plus FOLFOX group only; and assessment of adverse events, quality of life, and health economics in both groups. Results: Between March 27, 2014, and Jan 4, 2018, 162 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ASC plus FOLFOX (n=81) or ASC alone (n=81). Median follow-up was 21·7 months (IQR 17·2–30·8). Overall survival was significantly longer in the ASC plus FOLFOX group than in the ASC alone group, with a median overall survival of 6·2 months (95% CI 5·4–7·6) in the ASC plus FOLFOX group versus 5·3 months (4·1–5·8) in the ASC alone group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·031). The overall survival rate in the ASC alone group was 35·5% (95% CI 25·2–46·0) at 6 months and 11·4% (5·6–19·5) at 12 months, compared with 50·6% (39·3–60·9) at 6 months and 25·9% (17·0–35·8) at 12 months in the ASC plus FOLFOX group. Grade 3–5 adverse events were reported in 42 (52%) of 81 patients in the ASC alone group and 56 (69%) of 81 patients in the ASC plus FOLFOX group, including three chemotherapy-related deaths (one each due to infection, acute kidney injury, and febrile neutropenia). The most frequently reported grade 3–5 FOLFOX-related adverse events were neutropenia (ten [12%] patients), fatigue or lethargy (nine [11%] patients), and infection (eight [10%] patients). Author's Conclusion: The addition of FOLFOX to ASC improved median overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer after progression on cisplatin and gemcitabine, with a clinically meaningful increase in 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates. To our knowledge, this trial is the first prospective, randomised study providing reliable, high-quality evidence to allow an informed discussion with patients of the potential benefits and risks from second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. Based on these findings, FOLFOX should become standard-of-care chemotherapy in second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer and the reference regimen for further clinical trials. |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
| Funding Sources: Cancer Research UK, StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity), and The Christie Charity, with additional funding from The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award for translational research COI: Declared, see article for list. Randomization: Randomisation was done following a minimisation algorithm using platinum sensitivity, serum albumin concentration, and stage as stratification factors. Blinding: open-label study. Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: All analyses were carried out as intention to treat. Similar number of losses to follow-up in each group. Notes: Oxford level of evidence: 2 Randomized controlled trial. |
|||
CCA Abou-Alfa 2020 Pemigatinib
| Abou-Alfa, G. K. et al. Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 21. 671-684. 2020 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention - Comparison | Outcomes/Results | |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Phase 2 study, single arm, open label, (FIGHT-202) Number of Patient: 146 patients assigned to one cohorts patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, patients with other FGF/FGFR alterations, or patients with no FGF/FGFR alterations. Recruitung Phase: Between Jan 17, 2017, and March 22, 2019. Inclusion Criteria: patients were aged 18 years or older, had a histological or cytological diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with documented disease progression following at least one previous systemic cancer therapy (previous treatment with selective FGFR inhibitors was not permitted), radiologically measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and previously treated and clinically stable brain or CNS metastases without corticosteroids for at least 4 weeks (corticosteroids were otherwise allowed without restriction). Patients were also required to have adequate hepatic and renal function (total bilirubin <1·5 × upper limit of normal [ULN], or ≥2·5 × ULN for Gilbert syndrome or a disease involving the liver; aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase ≤2·5 × ULN; and creatinine clearance >30 mL/min calculated with the Cockcroft-Gault formula), serum phosphate less than or equal to the institutional ULN, and serum calcium within the institutional normal range Exclusion Criteria: Eligible patients had no history of HIV infection, did not have active hepatitis B or C virus infection, did not have an abnormal echocardiogram or uncontrolled cardiac disease, had no history or current evidence of ectopic mineralisation or calcification, and had no clinically significant corneal or retinal disorders confirmed by ophthalmological examination. |
Intervention: Assignment to one of three cohorts: patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, patients with other FGF/FGFR alterations, or patients with no FGF/FGFR alterations. All enrolled patients received a starting dose of 13·5 mg oral pemigatinib once daily (21-day cycle; 2 weeks on, 1 week off) Comparison: - |
Primary: The proportion of patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements who achieved an objective response (best overall response of confirmed complete response or confirmed partial response), assessed by independent central review. Secondary: The proportion of patients with an objective response in patients with other FGF/FGFR alterations, in all patients with FGF/FGFR alterations, and in patients with no FGF/FGFR alterations, and duration of response, the proportion of patients with disease control, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety in all cohorts, and population pharmacokinetics Results: Between Jan 17, 2017, and March 22, 2019, 146 patients were enrolled: 107 with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, 20 with other FGF/FGFR alterations, 18 with no FGF/FGFR alterations, and one with an undetermined FGF/FGFR alteration. The median follow-up was 17·8 months (IQR 11·6–21·3). 38 (35·5% [95% CI 26·5–45·4]) patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements achieved an objective response (three complete responses and 35 partial responses). Overall, hyperphosphataemia was the most common all-grade adverse event irrespective of cause (88 [60%] of 146 patients). 93 (64%) patients had a grade 3 or worse adverse event (irrespective of cause); the most frequent were hypophosphataemia (18 [12%]), arthralgia (nine [6%]), stomatitis (eight [5%]), hyponatraemia (eight [5%]), abdominal pain (seven [5%]), and fatigue (seven [5%]). 65 (45%) patients had serious adverse events; the most frequent were abdominal pain (seven [5%]), pyrexia (seven [5%]), cholangitis (five [3%]), and pleural effusion (five [3%]). Overall, 71 (49%) patients died during the study, most frequently because of disease progression (61 [42%]); no deaths were deemed to be treatment related. Author's Conclusion: These data support the therapeutic potential of pemigatinib in previously treated patients with cholangiocarcinoma who have FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. |
|
| Methodical Notes | |||
| Funding Sources: Incyte Corporation. COI: Declared, see article for list. Randomization: Non randomized study. Blinding: Open-label study. Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: All enrolled patients were analyzed, Notes: Oxford level of evidence: 3 Non-randomized controlled cohort. |
|||
>
CCA Zhu 2021 ClarlDHy
| A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Study of AG-120 in Previously-treated Subjects With Nonresectable or Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma With an IDH1 Mutation (NCT02989857) | |||||
| Short Name | Design | Population | Intervention | Comparator | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClarIDHy AG120-C-005 |
Randomized, Parallel Assignment, Phase 3 double-blind study | Patients with Stage 3-4 and ECOG 0-1 Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma | After Cross over to AG-120 (N=0)1 | 1. AG-120 (N=126)2 2. Placebo (N=61)3 |
|
| Levels of Evidence | |||||
| GRADE | ⊕⊕⊕⊖a | We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. | |||
| 2: Participants received AG-120 500 mg, tablet, orally, once a day (QD) in each 28-day treatment cycle, until occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, confirmed pregnancy, death, subject withdrawal, lost to follow-up, or the sponsor ended the study for up to approximately 45 months.; 3: Participants received AG-120 matched placebo, orally, QD in each 28-day treatment cycle, until occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, confirmed pregnancy, death, subject withdrawal, lost to follow-up or the sponsor ended the study for up to approximately 7 months. Participants who experienced disease progression and received placebo were allowed to cross over and receive AG-120. | |||||
| a: unklare Übertragbarkeit auf deutschen Versorgungskontext (<80%) | |||||
| Outcome | AG-120 N=126 | Placebo N=61 | Effect Estimate | GRADE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial.: Zhu, AX 2021. Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial.. ; 7 (11); 1669-1677* | |||||||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||||||
| OS - Time To Event | N=126 | 10.3 [7.8; 12.4] | N=61 | 7.5 [4.8; 11.1] | HR 0.79 [0.56; 1.12]; p=0.09 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| Cancer type at initial diagnosis | |||||||
| Extraheatic cholangiocarcinoma | N=5 | N=1 | HR 0.51 [0.046; 5.742] | ||||
| Intraheptic cholangiocarcinoma | N=113 | N=58 | HR 0.79 [0.552; 1.119] | ||||
| Unkown | N=8 | N=2 | HR 2.23 [0.435; 11.459] | ||||
| ECOG PS score at baseline | |||||||
| ≥1 | N=76 | N=42 | HR 1.11 [0.733; 1.688] | ||||
| 0 | N=50 | [; ] | N=19 | HR 0.46 [0.248; 0.857] | |||
| Extent of disease at screening | |||||||
| Locally advanced | N=9 | N=5 | HR 0.96 [0.214; 4.322] | ||||
| Metastatic | N=117 | N=56 | HR 0.79 [0.558; 1.126] | ||||
| Gender | |||||||
| Female | N=82 | N=37 | HR 0.77 [0.491; 1.193] | ||||
| Male | N=44 | N=24 | HR 0.94 [0.548; 1.604] | ||||
| Prior lines of therapy | |||||||
| ≥2 | N=56 | N=25 | HR 0.75 [0.449; 1.267] | ||||
| 1 | N=70 | N=36 | HR 0.83 [0.527; 1.307] | ||||
| Regions | |||||||
| Asia | N=7 | N=5 | HR 0.4 [0.073; 2.206] | ||||
| Europe | N=34 | N=16 | HR 1.07 [0.555; 2.06] | ||||
| North America | N=85 | N=40 | HR 0.75 [0.496; 1.148] | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=123 | 62 (50.41%) | N=59 | 22 (37.29%) | RR 1.35 [0.93; 1.966]; p=0.1146 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)1 | N=123 | 11 (8.94%) | N=59 | 4 (6.78%) | RR 1.32 [0.438; 3.969]; p=0.6221 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)2 | N=123 | 7 (5.69%) | N=59 | 6 (10.17%) | RR 0.56 [0.197; 1.592]; p=0.2764 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)3 | N=123 | 8 (6.5%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 8.23 [0.483; 140.161]; p=0.1452 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)4 | N=123 | 7 (5.69%) | N=59 | 1 (1.69%) | RR 3.36 [0.423; 26.668]; p=0.2519 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| AE-D (Any) | N=123 | 6 (4.88%) | N=59 | RR 6.29 [0.36; 109.831]; p=0.2075 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | ||
| AE-Disc (Any) | N=123 | 9 (7.32%) | N=59 | 5 (8.47%) | RR 0.86 [0.303; 2.463]; p=0.7836 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AESI5 | N=123 | 12 (9.76%) | N=59 | 2 (3.39%) | RR 2.88 [0.665; 12.448]; p=0.1571 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| SAE (Any) | N=123 | 42 (34.15%) | N=59 | 14 (23.73%) | RR 1.44 [0.856; 2.418]; p=0.1694 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=123 | 8 (6.5%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 8.23 [0.483; 140.161]; p=0.1452 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| TSAE (Any) | N=123 | 3 (2.44%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 3.39 [0.178; 64.531]; p=0.4172 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| Outcome | AG-120 N=126 | Placebo N=61 | Effect Estimate | GRADE | |||
| Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.: Abou-Alfa, GK 2020. Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.. ; 21 (6); 796-807** | |||||||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||||||
| OS - Time To Event | N=124 | 10.8 [7.7; 17.6] | N=61 | 9.7 [4.8; 12.1] | HR 0.69 [0.44; 1.1]; p=0.060 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| PFS - Time To Event | N=124 | 2.7 [1.6; 4.2] | N=61 | 1.4 [1.4; 1.6] | HR 0.37 [0.25; 0.54]; p<0.0001 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖b | |
| Cancer type at initial diagnosis | |||||||
| Extraheptic cholangiocarcinoma | N=5 | N=1 | |||||
| Intraheptic cholangiocarcinoma | N=111 | N=58 | HR 0.38 [0.26; 0.57] | ||||
| Unkown | N=8 | N=2 | |||||
| ECOG performance status at baseline | |||||||
| ≥1 | N=75 | N=42 | HR 0.52 [0.33; 0.8] | ||||
| 0 | N=49 | N=19 | HR 0.26 [0.12; 0.54] | ||||
| Extent of disease at screening | |||||||
| Local-regional | N=9 | N=5 | HR 0.2 [0.035; 1.11] | ||||
| Metastatic | N=115 | N=56 | HR 0.41 [0.28; 0.6] | ||||
| Previous lines of therapy | |||||||
| ≥2 | N=54 | N=25 | HR 0.41 [0.23; 0.73] | ||||
| 1 | N=70 | N=36 | HR 0.37 [0.22; 0.61] | ||||
| Region | |||||||
| Asia | N=7 | N=5 | HR 0.42 [0.11; 1.6] | ||||
| Europe | N=33 | N=16 | HR 0.39 [0.19; 0.83] | ||||
| North America | N=84 | N=40 | HR 0.4 [0.25; 0.63] | ||||
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | N=80 | N=37 | HR 0.36 [0.22; 0.59] | ||||
| Male | N=44 | [; ] | N=24 | HR 0.45 [0.25; 0.81] | |||
| DOR - Time To Event | N=124 | 2.6 [1.4; 6] | N=61 | 1.6 [1.1; 2.7] | ⊕⊕⊖⊖c | ||
| ORR - TuDD | N=124 | 3 (2.42%) | N=61 | 0 (0%) | RR 3.47 [0.182; 66.174]; p=0.4078 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| AE-D (Any) | N=121 | 4 (3.31%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 4.43 [0.242; 80.879]; p=0.3156 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| AE-Disc (Any) | N=121 | 7 (5.79%) | N=59 | 5 (8.47%) | RR 0.68 [0.226; 2.06]; p=0.4982 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| SAE (Any) | N=121 | 36 (29.75%) | N=59 | 13 (22.03%) | RR 1.35 [0.777; 2.346]; p=0.2868 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3)6 | N=121 | 1 (0.83%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 1.48 [0.061; 35.682]; p=0.8109 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3)7 | N=121 | 2 (1.65%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 2.46 [0.12; 50.421]; p=0.5593 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3)8 | N=121 | 2 (1.65%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 2.46 [0.12; 50.421]; p=0.5593 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| TAE (Any)9 | N=121 | 25 (20.66%) | N=59 | 9 (15.25%) | RR 1.35 [0.676; 2.715]; p=0.3925 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (Any)10 | N=121 | 25 (20.66%) | N=59 | 5 (8.47%) | RR 2.44 [0.983; 6.047]; p=0.0545 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=121 | 7 (5.79%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 7.38 [0.428; 127.028]; p=0.1687 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| TAE (Any) | N=121 | 76 (62.81%) | N=59 | 22 (37.29%) | RR 1.68 [1.177; 2.41]; p=0.0043 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE (Any)8 | N=121 | 19 (15.7%) | N=59 | 4 (6.78%) | RR 2.32 [0.825; 6.503]; p=0.1108 | ⊕⊕⊕⊖ | |
| TAE-Disc (Any) | N=121 | 2 (1.65%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 2.46 [0.12; 50.421]; p=0.5593 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| TSAE (Any) | N=121 | 3 (2.48%) | N=59 | 0 (0%) | RR 3.44 [0.181; 65.583]; p=0.4110 | ⊕⊕⊖⊖a | |
| *Database cutoff: 29.05.2020 **Database cutoff: 29.01.2019 |
|||||||
| 1: Ascites; 2: Hyponatremia; 3: Anemia; 4: Blood bilirubin increased; 5: Prolonged QT interval on electrocardiogram; 6: Anaemia; 7: Hypophosphatemia; 8: Fatigue; 9: Nausea; 10: Diarrhoea | |||||||
| a: zu geringe Anzahl von Ergebnisereignissen; b: Missing individual analysis of combined endpoint componenets (progression); c: Keine Effektschätzer berichtet | |||||||
| AE: Adverse Events; AE-D: Adverse Events Leading to Death; AE-Disc: Adverse Events Leading to Treatment Discontinuation; AESI: Adverse Events of Special Interest; Any: Any Grade; CTCAE ≥3: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Grade ≥3; DOR: Duration Of Response; ORR: Objective Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-Free Survival; SAE: Serious Adverse Events; TAE: Treatment-related Adverse Events; TAE-Disc: Treatment-related Adverse Events Leading to Treatment Discontinuation; TSAE: Treatment-related Serious Adverse Events; TuDD: Time to Definitive Deterioration | |||||||
| Outcome | AG-120 N=126 | Placebo N=61 | Effect Estimate | GRADE | |||
| Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial.: Zhu, AX 2021. Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial.. ; 7 (11); 1669-1677* | |||||||
| Continuous Outcomes | |||||||
| EORTC QLQ-BIL21 (Pain)1 | N=126 | N=61 | LSMD 4.4 [-5.82; 14.55]; p=0.4 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-BIL21 (Eating)1 | N=126 | N=61 | LSMD -6.1 [-15.34; 3.12]; p=0.19 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-C30 (Pain)1 | N=50 | N=9 | LSMD 4.1 [-8.74; 17.04]; p=0.53 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-C30 (Lack of Appetite)1 | N=50 | N=9 | LSMD -3.7 [-17.46; 10.11]; p=0.60 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical Function)1 | N=50 | N=9 | LSMD 12.3 [3.85; 20.78]; p=0.004 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| Outcome | AG-120 N=126 | Placebo N=61 | Effect Estimate | GRADE | |||
| Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.: Abou-Alfa, GK 2020. Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.. ; 21 (6); 796-807** | |||||||
| Continuous Outcomes | |||||||
| EORTC QLQ-BIL21 (Pain)2 | N=124 | N=61 | LSMD -2.9 [-11; 5.1]; p=0.473 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-BIL21 (Eating)2 | N=124 | N=61 | LSMD 2.4 [-5.2; 10]; p=0.539 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-C30 (Pain)2 | N=124 | N=61 | LSMD -8.2 [-17.6; 1.1]; p=0.084 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-C30 (Lack of Appetite)2 | N=124 | N=61 | LSMD 7.4 [-3.4; 18.3]; p=0.177 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical Function)2 | N=124 | N=61 | LSMD 9.8 [2.8; 16.7]; p=0.006 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | |||
| *Database cutoff: 29.05.2020 **Database cutoff: 29.01.2019 |
|||||||
| 1: From Baseline at Cycle 3 Day 1; 2: baseline at cycle 2 day 1 | |||||||
| a: im Studienverlauf sinkender Rücklauf von Fragebogen; b: breite Effektschätzer | |||||||
| Eating: Eating; EORTC QLQ-BIL21: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer; EORTC QLQ-C30: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30; Lack of Appetite: Lack of Appetite; Pain: Pain; Physical Function: Physical Function | |||||||
CCA Goyal 2023 Futibatinib
Schlüsselfrage:
Von welchen Systemtherapien profitieren Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem biliären Karzinom?
| Goyal, Lipika. Futibatinib for FGFR2-Rearranged Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. The New England journal of medicine. 388. . 2023 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention / Comparison | Outcomes/Results | Methodical Notes |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Phase 2 single group study. Number of Patients: 109 patients Recruiting Phase: Between April 16, 2018, and November 29, 2019 Inclusion Criteria: 18 years of age and had unresectable or metastatic intrahepatic chol- angiocarcinoma harboring an FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement that had been prospectively iden- tified by local testing of tumor tissue or ctDNA or by testing of tumor tissue at a central or local laboratory with the use of a 324-gene-panel assay. Exclusion Criteria: Patients with a history of or current clinically significant retinal disorder or altered non–tumor-related calcium–phospho- rus homeostasis. |
Intervention: Oral futibatinib at a dose of 20 mg once daily in a continuous regimen. Comparison: No comparison. |
Primary: Objective response (partial or complete response), as assessed by independent central review. Secondary: Response duration, disease control, progression-free survival, overall survival, safe- ty, and patient-reported outcomes Results: Response: 43 of 103 patients (42%; 95% confidence interval, 32 to 52) had a response, and the median duration of response was 9.7 months. Responses were consistent across patient subgroups, including patients with heavily pretreated disease, older adults, and patients who had co-occurring TP53 mutations. PFS: Median progression- free survival was 9.0 months. OS: Median overall survival was 21.7 months. Adverse events: Common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (in 30% of the patients), an increased aspartate aminotransferase level (in 7%), stomatitis (in 6%), and fatigue (in 6%). Treatment-related adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of futibatinib in 2% of the patients. No treatment-related deaths oc- curred. Qol: Quality of life was maintained throughout treatment. Author's Conclusion: In previously treated patients with FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement–positive intra- hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the use of futibatinib, a covalent FGFR inhibitor, led to measurable clinical benefit. (Funded by Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceu- tical; FOENIX-CCA2. |
Funding Sources: Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceutical study sponsor. COI: Declared. Randomization: not randomized. Blinding: Not blinded. Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: Not applicable. Notes: Article submitted by hand search. Cochrane risk of bias tool (Rob)-1: One questions were considered to be high risk of bias, two questions were considered as unclear risk of bias. Overall risk of bias: Low Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (2011):3 Non-randomized controlled cohort/follow-up study |
CCA Maio 2022 Keynote 158 Pembrolizumab MSIhigh
| Pembrolizumab (Neues Anwendungsgebiet: biliäres Karzinom mit MSI-H oder dMMR, vorbehandelt) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Wirkstoff | Pembrolizumab | Handelsname | Keytruda |
| Pharmazeutischer Unternehmer | MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH | Beschlussdatum | 19.01.2023 |
| Anwendungsgebiet | Biliäres Karzinom | ||
| Population/ZVT | Titel | Mortalität | Morbidiät | QoL | Sicherheit | Zusatznutzen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Erwachsene mit nicht-resezierbarem oder metastasierendem biliären Karzinom mit hochfrequenter Mikrosatelliten-Instabilität (MSI-H) oder mit einer Mismatch-Reparatur Defizienz (dMMR) und Fortschreiten der Erkrankung während oder nach mindestens einer vorherigen Therapie | n.b.
Es liegen keine bewertbaren Daten vor. |
n.b.
Es liegen keine bewertbaren Daten vor. |
n.b.
Es liegen keine bewertbaren Daten vor. |
n.b.
Es liegen keine bewertbaren Daten vor. |
ist nicht belegt |
| ZVT | Therapie nach ärztlicher Maßgabe | |||||
| ↑↑/↓↓: positiver/negativer statistisch signifkanter Effekt, hohe Aussagesicherheit; ↑/↓: positiver/negativer statistisch signifkanter Effekt, niedrige oder unklare Aussagesicherheit; ↔: kein signifikanter/relevanter Unterschied; ↓: n.b.: nicht bewertbar; Ø: keine Daten | ||||||
| A Clinical Trial of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) Evaluating Predictive Biomarkers in Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors (KEYNOTE 158) (NCT02628067) | |||||
| Short Name | Design | Population | Intervention | Comparator | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KEYNOTE-158 3475-158, 163196, MK-3475-158, KEYNOTE-158, 2022-500397-34-00, 2015-002067-41 |
Nonrandomized, Parallel Assignment, Phase 2 Open Label study | Pretreated with Stage 3-4 and ECOG 0-1 Advanced Cancer for 2nd Line, 3rd Line, >3rd Line or Palliative treatment | Kohorte K - biliäres Karzinom und MSI-H (N=22)1 |
|
|
| Levels of Evidence | |||||
| GRADE | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b,c | We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||
| 1: Participants will receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously on Day 1 of each 3-week cycle. | |||||
| a: Open Label Study; b: Single-arm study; c: Non-randomized Study | |||||
| Outcome | Kohorte K - biliäres Karzinom und MSI-H N=22 | GRADE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH 2022. Modul 4E der Nutzenbewertung von Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®): MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH 2022. Modul 4E der Nutzenbewertung von Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®)* | |||||||
| Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study.: Maio, M 2022. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study.. ; 33 (9); 929-938 | |||||||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||||||
| OS - Time To Event | N=22 | 19.4 [6.5; 44.8] | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| PFS - Time To Event | N=22 | 4.2 [2.1; 24.9] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a | ||||
| DOR - Time To Event | N=22 | 30.59 [23; ] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| ORR - TuDD | N=22 | 9 (40.91%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| TTR - TTE | N=22 | 2.37 [2; 4.14] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)1 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)2 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)3 | N=22 | 3 (13.64%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)4 | N=22 | 3 (13.64%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)5 | N=22 | 3 (13.64%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)3 | N=22 | 5 (22.73%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)6 | N=22 | 7 (31.82%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)7 | N=22 | 7 (31.82%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)8 | N=22 | 7 (31.82%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)9 | N=22 | 7 (31.82%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)10 | N=22 | 13 (59.09%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)11 | N=22 | 16 (72.73%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any)5 | N=22 | 17 (77.27%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=22 | 9 (40.91%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (Any) | N=22 | 22 (100%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)12 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)13 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| AE-Disc (Any) | N=22 | 3 (13.64%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| irAE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=22 | 0 (0%) | ⊕⊕⊖⊖ | ||||
| SAE (Any)10 | N=22 | 5 (22.73%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| SAE (Any)3 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| SAE (Any)2 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| SAE (Any)1 | N=22 | 2 (9.09%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| SAE (Any) | N=22 | 7 (31.82%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| SirAE (Any) | N=22 | 0 (0%) | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | ||||
| *Database cutoff: 14.10.2021 | |||||||
| 1: PT: Sepsis; 2: PT: Leberabszess; 3: SOC: Leber- und Gallenerkrankungen; 4: SOC: Untersuchungen; 5: SOC: Erkrankungen des Gastrointestinaltrakts; 6: PT: Ausschlag; 7: PT: Fieber; 8: PT: Erschöpfung; 9: PT: Diarrhoe; 10: SOC: Infektionen und parasitäre Erkrankungen; 11: SOC: Allgemeine Erkrankungen und Beschwerden am Verabreichungsort; 12: PT: Alkalische Phosphatase im Blut erhöht; 13: PT: Bilirubin im Blut erhöht | |||||||
| a: Missing individual analysis of combined endpoint componenets (progression) | |||||||
| AE: Adverse Events; AE-Disc: Adverse Events Leading to Treatment Discontinuation; Any: Any Grade; CTCAE ≥3: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Grade ≥3; DOR: Duration Of Response; irAE: Immun-related Advers Events; ORR: Objective Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-Free Survival; SAE: Serious Adverse Events; SirAE: Serious Immun-related Advers Events; TTE: Time To Event ; TTR: Time To Response; TuDD: Time to Definitive Deterioration | |||||||
| A Phase III, Randomised, Multicentre Open-label Study of Active Symptom Control (ASC) Alone or ASC With Oxaliplatin/ 5F-U Chemotherapy for Patients With Locally Advanced/ Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancers Previously Treated With Cisplatin/ Gemcitabine Chemotherapy. (NCT01926236) | |||||
| Short Name | Design | Population | Intervention | Comparator | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABC-06 CFTSp048, A16281, 2013-001812-30 |
Randomized, Parallel Assignment, Phase 3 Open Label study | Pretreated with Stage 3-4 and ECOG 0-1 Biliary Tract Cancer for 2nd Line, 3rd Line, >3rd Line or Palliative treatment | Arm B: ASC with OxMdG chemotherapy (FOLFOX) (N=81)1 | Arm A: Active symptom control (ASC) (N=81)2 |
|
| Levels of Evidence | |||||
| GRADE | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | |||
| 1: Active Symptom Control with OxMdG chemo (Oxaliplatin, L-folinic acid & 5FU); 2: Active Symptom Control | |||||
| a: Open Label Study;b: keine hinreichende Ähnlichkeit der Populationen | |||||
| Outcome | Arm B: ASC with OxMdG chemotherapy (FOLFOX) N=81 | Arm A: Active symptom control (ASC) N=81 | Effect Estimate | GRADE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH 2022. Modul 4E der Nutzenbewertung von Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®): MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH 2022. Modul 4E der Nutzenbewertung von Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA®)* | |||||||
| Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.: Lamarca, A 2021. Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.. ; 22 (5); 690-701* | |||||||
| Dichotomous Outcomes | |||||||
| OS - Time To Event | N=81 | 6.2 [5.4; 7.6] | N=81 | 5.3 [4.1; 5.8] | HR 0.69 [0.5; 0.97]; p=0.031 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | |
| Albumin | |||||||
| <35 g/l | N=19 | N=21 | HR 0.41 [0.2; 0.83] | ||||
| >=35 g/l | N=62 | N=60 | HR 0.84 [0.58; 1.23] | ||||
| Disease stage | |||||||
| Locally advanced | N=14 | N=15 | HR 0.73 [0.32; 1.67] | ||||
| Metastatic | N=67 | N=66 | HR 0.7 [0.48; 1] | ||||
| ECOG | |||||||
| 0 | N=25 | N=28 | HR 0.58 [0.32; 1.08] | ||||
| 1 | N=56 | N=52 | HR 0.73 [0.49; 1.09] | ||||
| Platinum sensitive | |||||||
| No | N=54 | N=47 | HR 0.63 [0.41; 0.96] | ||||
| Yes | N=27 | [; ] | N=34 | HR 0.81 [0.47; 1.4] | |||
| Primary tumor site | |||||||
| Ampulla | N=4 | N=7 | HR 0.71 [0.18; 2.77] | ||||
| Extrahepatic | N=26 | N=19 | HR 0.84 [0.45; 1.57] | ||||
| Gallbladder and cyst duct | N=17 | N=17 | HR 0.56 [0.27; 1.17] | ||||
| Intrahepatic | N=34 | N=38 | HR 0.64 [0.37; 1.06] | ||||
| PFS - Time To Event | N=81 | 4.0 [3.2; 5] | N=81 | [; ] | ⊕⊖⊖⊖a,b | ||
| ORR - TuDD | N=81 | 4 (4.94%) | N=81 | RR 9 [0.492; 164.505]; p=0.1383 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| AE (Any) | N=81 | 80 (98.77%) | N=81 | 77 (95.06%) | RR 1.04 [0.983; 1.098]; p=0.1754 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=81 | 56 (69.14%) | N=81 | 42 (51.85%) | RR 1.33 [1.033; 1.721]; p=0.0272 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)1 | N=81 | 15 (18.52%) | N=81 | 6 (7.41%) | RR 2.5 [1.021; 6.12]; p=0.0449 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)2 | N=81 | 13 (16.05%) | N=81 | 13 (16.05%) | RR 1 [0.494; 2.023]; p=1.0000 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | |
| AE (CTCAE ≥3)3 | N=81 | 12 (14.81%) | N=81 | 3 (3.7%) | RR 4 [1.173; 13.646]; p=0.0268 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | |
| AE-D (Any) | N=81 | 8 (9.88%) | N=81 | 2 (2.47%) | RR 4 [0.876; 18.263]; p=0.0736 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖ | |
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3)1 | N=81 | 9 (11.11%) | N=81 | RR 19 [1.124; 321.11]; p=0.0412 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3)4 | N=81 | 8 (9.88%) | N=81 | RR 17 [0.997; 289.733]; p=0.0502 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3)3 | N=81 | 6 (7.41%) | N=81 | RR 13 [0.744; 227.036]; p=0.0788 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| TAE (Any) | N=81 | 68 (83.95%) | N=81 | RR 137 [8.627; 2175.57]; p=0.0005 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| TAE (CTCAE ≥3) | N=81 | 31 (38.27%) | N=81 | RR 63 [3.92; 1012.407]; p=0.0035 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| TAE-D (Any) | N=81 | 3 (3.7%) | N=81 | RR 7 [0.367; 133.393]; p=0.1957 | ⊕⊖⊖⊖b | ||
| *Database cutoff: 03.01.2019 | |||||||
| 1: Fatigue or lethargy; 2: Biliary event; 3: Infection; 4: Neutropenia | |||||||
| a: Missing individual analysis of combined endpoint componenets (progression); b: Unvollständige Berichterstattung der erhobenen Items | |||||||
| AE: Adverse Events; AE-D: Adverse Events Leading to Death; Any: Any Grade; CTCAE ≥3: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Grade ≥3; ORR: Objective Response Rate; OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-Free Survival; TAE: Treatment-related Adverse Events; TAE-D: Treatment-related Adverse Events Leading to Death; TuDD: Time to Definitive Deterioration | |||||||
>
CCA Choi 2021 FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI
| Choi, I. S. et al. A randomised phase II study of oxaliplatin/5-FU (mFOLFOX) versus irinotecan/5-FU (mFOLFIRI) chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer refractory to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 154. 288-295. 2021 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention / Comparison | Outcomes/Results | Methodical Notes |
| Evidence level: 2 Study type: Randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Number of Patients: 118 patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC refractory to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized and 59 assigned to each group. Recruiting Phase: 24 August 2015 to 5 November 2019. Inclusion Criteria: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC refractory to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy; - histologically confirmed BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer and ampulla of Vater cancer; - Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0 to 2; - failure to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin; - measurable or evaluable tumour lesion by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) and adequate organ function Exclusion Criteria: - two or more prior lines of systemic chemotherapy, - other solid tumour history, - pregnancy or lactating woman, - uncontrolled medical disease, - known hypersensitivity history for investigational agents and - uncontrolled CNS lesion. |
Intervention: irinotecan/5-fluorouracil (5-FU; mFOLFIRI, 150 mg/m2 irinotecan for 2 h, 100 mg/m2 leucovorin for 2 h followed by 2400 mg/m2 5-FU for 46 h, every 2 weeks). Comparison: Oxaliplatin/5-FU (mFOLFOX, 100 mg/m2 oxaliplatin for 2 h, 100 mg/m2 leucovorin for 2 h followed by 2400 mg/m2 5-FU for 46 h, every 2 weeks). |
Primary: OS rate at 6 months. Secondary: - objective response rate (ORR) - disease control rate (DCR) - PFS - Adverse events Results: Overall survival: At a median follow-up duration of 25.8 months [95% CI, 6.1-45.5], the 6-month OS rate as the primary endpoint was - 54.1% in the mFOLFOX arm and - 44.1% in the mFOLFIRI arm. The median OS was - 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.2) in the mFOLFOX arm and - 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.7) in the mFOLFIRI arm (p = 0.677 (logrank test); HR = 1.1 (95% CI, 0.7-1.6), p = 0.683 (Cox regression test)). Progression free survival: The median PFS was - 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) in the mFOLFOX arm and - 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.1e3.1) in the mFOLFIRI arm (p Z 0.974 (logrank test); HR = 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7-1.5), p = 0.986. ORR and DCR were - 5.9% (95% CI, 0-12.4) and 66.7% (95% CI, 53.8-79.6), respectively, in the mFOLFOX arm and - 4.0% (95% CI, 0-9.4) and 64.0% (95% CI, 50.7-77.3), respectively, in the mFOLFIRI arm (p = 0.663 and p = 0.778, respectively. Adverse events: Adverse events of grade 3 were slightly more frequently observed in the mFOLFOX arm (55.4%) than in the mFOLFIRI arm (50.0%). Common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (25.0%) and AST/ALT elevation (16.1%) in the mFOLFOX arm and neutropenia (25.9%) and anaemia (17.2%) in the mFOLFIRI arm. No chemotherapy-related deaths were reported. Author's Conclusion: In conclusion, mFOLFIRI was not superior to mFOLFOX in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BTC refractory to first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin combination. However, the clinical efficacy of mFOLFIRI was comparable with that of mFOLFOX. The adverse events were different. Therefore, irinotecanbased chemotherapy could be considered as a good alternative regimen to mFOLFOX at second-line BTC or the subsequent treatment after second-line mFOLFOX in BTC. A further study to evaluate the efficacy of irinotecan-based chemotherapy in the third-line setting of BTC is planned. |
Funding Sources: This work was supported by HK inno.N Corporation, Korea. Irinotecan and palonosetron were provided by HK inno.N Corporation, Korea. Oxaliplatin was provided by Jeil Pharma, Korea. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. COI: No potential conflict of interest was disclosed. Randomization: - randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either mFOLFOX (control arm) or mFOLFIRI (experimental arm). - Randomisation was stratified by tumour location (intrahepatic versus extrahepatic versus gallbladder versus ampulla of Vater) and ECOG PS (0, 1 versus 2). Blinding: n.s. Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: Given the treatment assignment ratio of 1:1, 53 patients in each group should be evaluated in the study, and finally, 59 patients in each group were required considering that the dropout rate was 10%. mFOLFOX treated n=56, ITT n= 59 (three dropout before treatment); mFOLFIRI treated n=58, ITT n=59 (one dropout before treatment). Notes: Cochrane risk of bias tool (Rob)-1: 3 questions(s) were considered to be unclear risk of bias; 0 question(s) were considered to be high risk of bias. Overall risk of bias: Low. Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (2011): Randomized controlled trial (randomized phase 2 trial). |
CCA Hyung 2023 NIFTY
Schlüsselfrage:
Von welchen Systemtherapien profitieren Patienten mit fortgeschrittenem biliären Karzinom?
| Hyung, J. et al. Treatment With Liposomal Irinotecan Plus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer: The Phase 2b NIFTY Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 9. 692-699. 2023 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population | Intervention / Comparison | Outcomes/Results | Methodical Notes |
| Evidence level: 3 Study type: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2b clinical trial Number of Patients: 178 Recruiting Phase: September 5, 2018, and December 31, 2021 Inclusion Criteria: Histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced BTC, including age of 19 years or older; disease progression as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, while receiving first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin; at least 1 measurable lesion as defined by RECIST, version 1.1; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. Exclusion Criteria: |
Intervention: Patients assigned to the liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus s fluorouracil (FU) /leucovorin (LV) group received 70 mg/m2 of nal-IRI for 90 minutes intravenously before the administration of LV and FU. Comparison: 400 mg/m2 of LV for 30 minutes and 2400 mg/m2 of FU for 46 hours intravenously every 2 weeks. |
Primary: Progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by MICR Secondary: PFS as assessed by the investigator, overall survival, and objective response rate. Results: The median follow-up duration of the patients in the full analysis set was 33.2months (IQR, 27.6-35.7), with 12 patients (6.9%; 8 in the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group and 4 in the FU/LV group) continuing follow-up for survival as of the data cut-off date (December 31, 2021). Progression-free survival The MICR-assessed median PFS of the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group (4.2 months [IQR, 2.0-7.2]; 95% CI, 2.8- 5.3) was significantly longer than the FU/LV group (1.7 months [IQR, 1.2-4.1]; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6) with a stratified HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.86; stratified log-rank P = .004). The MICR-assessed 6-month PFS rate was 31.8% (95% CI, 21.7%-41.8%) for the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group and 15.1% (95% CI, 7.5%-22.7%) for the FU/LV group. The investigator-assessed median PFS of the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group (3.9 months [IQR, 2.0-7.0]; 95% CI, 2.7-5.2) was also significantly longer than that of the FU/LV group (1.6 months [IQR, 1.2-3.8]; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2)with stratified HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.71; stratified log-rank P < .001). Investigator assessed 6-month PFS was 30.0% (95% CI, 20.2%-39.8%) for the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group and 11.6% (95% CI, 4.9%-18.4%) for the FU/LV group. The discordance rate for tumor progression date between the MICR and investigators was 17.8% (vs 30% in the previous study). Overall survival Median OS was significantly longer for the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group (8.6 months [IQR, 3.8-15.7]; 95% CI, 5.4-10.5) compared with the FU/LV group (5.3 months [IQR, 3.4-9.4]; 95% CI, 4.7-7.2), with a stratified HR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48- 0.95; stratified log-rank P = .02). The 6-month OS rate was 60.7% (95% CI, 50.3%-71.2%) for the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group and 44.7% (95% CI, 34.2%-55.3%) for the FU/LV group (Table 2). The ORRs were significantly higher for the nal-IRI plus FU/LV group compared with the FU/LV group according to MICR (12.5% vs 3.5%; P = .04) and investigators (19.3% vs 2.3%; P < .001) Author's Conclusion: The NIFTY randomized clinical trial demonstrated significant improvement in PFS with treatment with nal-IRI plus FU/LV compared with FU/LV alone for patients with advanced BTC after progression to gemcitabine plus cisplatin. The combination of nal-IRI plus FU/LV could be considered as a second-line treatment option for patients with previously treated advanced BTC. |
Funding Sources: This study was funded in part by Servier and HK inno.N. Servier supported this study by providing liposomal irinotecan and financing the study operation costs. HK inno.N provided palonosetron and financed its pharmacy cost COI: Stated, see article. Randomization: Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either nal-IRI plus FU/LV or FU/LV and were stratified by the primary tumor location (intrahepatic vs extrahepatic vs gallbladder), previous surgery with curative intent (yes vs no), and participating centers. Method of randomization not specified. Blinding: No masking was performed (open-label study) Dropout Rate/ITT-Analysis: ITT-analysis was performed Notes: Cochrane risk of bias tool (Rob)-1: 1 question were considered to be high risk of bias, 3 questions(s) were considered to be high risk of bias Overall risk of bias: High Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (2011): Randomized trial Downgraded one level due to high risk of bias. |
Literaturhinweise
[487] Atchison, E. A., Gridley, G., Carreon, J. D., Leitzmann, M. F., McGlynn, K. A., Risk of cancer in a large cohort of U.S. veterans with diabetes, Int J Cancer, 2011. 128(3): p. 635-43., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ijc.25362?download=true
[488] de Valle, M. B., Björnsson, E., Lindkvist, B., Mortality and cancer risk related to primary sclerosing cholangitis in a Swedish population-based cohort, Liver Int, 2012. 32(3): p. 441-8., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2011.02614.x?download=true
[489] El-Serag, H. B., Engels, E. A., Landgren, O., Chiao, E., Henderson, L., Amaratunge, H. C., et.al. Risk of hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers after hepatitis C virus infection: A population-based study of U.S. veterans, Hepatology, 2009. 49(1): p. 116-23., https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/hep.22606?download=true
[490] Huang, Y., You, L., Xie, W., Ning, L., Lang, J., Smoking and risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Oncotarget, 2017. 8(59): p. 100570-100581., https://www.oncotarget.com/article/20141/pdf/
[491] Jing, W., Jin, G., Zhou, X., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., Shao, C., et.al. Diabetes mellitus and increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis, Eur J Cancer Prev, 2012. 21(1): p. 24-31.
[492] Palmer, W. C., Patel, T., Are common factors involved in the pathogenesis of primary liver cancers? A meta-analysis of risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, J Hepatol, 2012. 57(1): p. 69-76., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3804834/pdf/nihms363811.pdf
[493] Wongjarupong, N., Assavapongpaiboon, B., Susantitaphong, P., Cheungpasitporn, W., Treeprasertsuk, S., Rerknimitr, R., et.al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMC Gastroenterol, 2017. 17(1): p. 149., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721586/pdf/12876_2017_Article_696.pdf
[494] Park, J. Y., Hong, S. P., Kim, Y. J., Kim, H. J., Kim, H. M., Cho, J. H., et.al. Long-term follow up of gallbladder polyps, J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2009. 24(2): p. 219-22., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05689.x?download=true
[495] Nagaraja, V., Eslick, G. D., Systematic review with meta-analysis: the relationship between chronic Salmonella typhi carrier status and gall-bladder cancer, Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2014. 39(8): p. 745-50., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/apt.12655?download=true
[496] Zalevskaja, K, Mecklin, JP, Seppälä, TT, Clinical characteristics of pancreatic and biliary tract cancers in Lynch syndrome: A retrospective analysis from the Finnish National Lynch Syndrome Research Registry., Front Oncol, 2023. 13 (): p. 1123901., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36816932/
[497] Golan, T, Raitses-Gurevich, M, Kelley, RK, Bocobo, AG, Borgida, A, Shroff, RT, et.al. Overall Survival and Clinical Characteristics of BRCA-Associated Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study., Oncologist, 2017. 22 (7)(7): p. 804-810., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28487467/
[498] Razumilava, N., Gores, G. J., Cholangiocarcinoma, Lancet, 2014. 383(9935): p. 2168-79., https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(13)61903-0.pdf
[499] Rizvi, S., Khan, S. A., Hallemeier, C. L., Kelley, R. K., Gores, G. J., Cholangiocarcinoma - evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies, Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2018. 15(2): p. 95-111.
[500] Valle, J. W., Borbath, I., Khan, S. A., Huguet, F., Gruenberger, T., Arnold, D., Biliary cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, Ann Oncol, 2016. 27(suppl 5): p. v28-v37., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27664259/
[501] Rizvi, S., Gores, G. J., Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma, Gastroenterology, 2013. 145(6): p. 1215-29., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3862291/pdf/nihms535439.pdf
[502] Kamsa-ard, S., Kamsa-ard, S., Luvira, V., Suwanrungruang, K., Vatanasapt, P., Wiangnon, S., Risk Factors for Cholangiocarcinoma in Thailand: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2018. 19(3): p. 605-614., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980830/pdf/APJCP-19-605.pdf
[503] Qian, M. B., Utzinger, J., Keiser, J., Zhou, X. N., Clonorchiasis, Lancet, 2016. 387(10020): p. 800-10.
[504] Qian, M. B., Zhou, X. N., Global burden of cancers attributable to liver flukes, Lancet Glob Health, 2017. 5(2): p. e139.
[505] You, M. S., Lee, S. H., Kang, J., Choi, Y. H., Choi, J. H., Shin, B. S., et.al. Natural Course and Risk of Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Recurrent Pyogenic Cholangitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Gut Liver, 2019. 13(3): p. 373-379., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6529165/pdf/gnl-13-373.pdf
[506] Ten Hove, A., de Meijer, V. E., Hulscher, J. B. F., de Kleine, R. H. J., Meta-analysis of risk of developing malignancy in congenital choledochal malformation, Br J Surg, 2018. 105(5): p. 482-490., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5900735/pdf/BJS-105-482.pdf
[507] Fahrner, R., Dennler, S. G., Inderbitzin, D., Risk of malignancy in Caroli disease and syndrome: A systematic review, World J Gastroenterol, 2020. 26(31): p. 4718-4728., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445861/pdf/WJG-26-4718.pdf
[508] Claessen, M. M., Vleggaar, F. P., Tytgat, K. M., Siersema, P. D., van Buuren, H. R., High lifetime risk of cancer in primary sclerosing cholangitis, J Hepatol, 2009. 50(1): p. 158-64.
[509] Tyson, G. L., El-Serag, H. B., Risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma, Hepatology, 2011. 54(1): p. 173-84., https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/hep.24351?download=true
[510] McGee, E. E., Jackson, S. S., Petrick, J. L., Van Dyke, A. L., Adami, H. O., Albanes, D., et.al. Smoking, Alcohol, and Biliary Tract Cancer Risk: A Pooling Project of 26 Prospective Studies, J Natl Cancer Inst, 2019. 111(12): p. 1263-1278., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910180/pdf/djz103.pdf
[102] Petrick, J. L., Thistle, J. E., Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, A., Zhang, X., Wactawski-Wende, J., Van Dyke, A. L., et.al. Body Mass Index, Diabetes and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Risk: The Liver Cancer Pooling Project and Meta-analysis, Am J Gastroenterol, 2018. 113(10): p. 1494-1505., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6521884/pdf/nihms-1027973.pdf
[511] Clements, O., Eliahoo, J., Kim, J. U., Taylor-Robinson, S. D., Khan, S. A., Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J Hepatol, 2020. 72(1): p. 95-103.
[512] Schmidt, M. A., Marcano-Bonilla, L., Roberts, L. R., Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and genetic risk associations, Chin Clin Oncol, 2019. 8(4): p. 31., http://cco.amegroups.com/article/view/28517/25064
[513] Rawla, P., Sunkara, T., Thandra, K. C., Barsouk, A., Epidemiology of gallbladder cancer, Clin Exp Hepatol, 2019. 5(2): p. 93-102., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728871/pdf/CEH-5-36699.pdf
[514] Kratzer, W., Schmid, A., Akinli, A. S., Thiel, R., Mason, R. A., Schuler, A., et.al. [Gallbladder polyps: prevalence and risk factors], Ultraschall Med, 2011. 32 Suppl 1: p. S68-73., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0029-1245265.pdf
[515] Schnelldorfer, T., Porcelain gallbladder: a benign process or concern for malignancy?, J Gastrointest Surg, 2013. 17(6): p. 1161-8., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-013-2170-0.pdf
[516] DesJardins, H., Duy, L., Scheirey, C., Schnelldorfer, T., Porcelain Gallbladder: Is Observation a Safe Option in Select Populations?, J Am Coll Surg, 2018. 226(6): p. 1064-1069., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1072751518301571?via%3Dihub
[517] Patel, S., Roa, J. C., Tapia, O., Dursun, N., Bagci, P., Basturk, O., et.al. Hyalinizing cholecystitis and associated carcinomas: clinicopathologic analysis of a distinctive variant of cholecystitis with porcelain-like features and accompanying diagnostically challenging carcinomas, Am J Surg Pathol, 2011. 35(8): p. 1104-13.
[518] Gutt, C., Jenssen, C., Barreiros, A. P., Götze, T. O., Stokes, C. S., Jansen, P. L., et.al. [Updated S3-Guideline for Prophylaxis, Diagnosis and Treatment of Gallstones. German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) and German Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (DGAV) - AWMF Registry 021/008], Z Gastroenterol, 2018. 56(8): p. 912-966., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/a-0644-2972.pdf
[519] Eaton, J. E., Thackeray, E. W., Lindor, K. D., Likelihood of malignancy in gallbladder polyps and outcomes following cholecystectomy in primary sclerosing cholangitis, Am J Gastroenterol, 2012. 107(3): p. 431-9.
[520] [Practice guideline autoimmune liver diseases - AWMF-Reg. No. 021-27], Z Gastroenterol, 2017. 55(11): p. 1135-1226., https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0043-120199
[521] Wiles, R., Thoeni, R. F., Barbu, S. T., Vashist, Y. K., Rafaelsen, S. R., Dewhurst, C., et.al. Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps : Joint guidelines between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery - European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), Eur Radiol, 2017. 27(9): p. 3856-3866., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5544788/pdf/330_2017_Article_4742.pdf
[522] Fung, B. M., Lindor, K. D., Tabibian, J. H., Cancer risk in primary sclerosing cholangitis: Epidemiology, prevention, and surveillance strategies, World J Gastroenterol, 2019. 25(6): p. 659-671., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6378537/pdf/WJG-25-659.pdf
[523] Charatcharoenwitthaya, P., Enders, F. B., Halling, K. C., Lindor, K. D., Utility of serum tumor markers, imaging, and biliary cytology for detecting cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis, Hepatology, 2008. 48(4): p. 1106-17., https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/hep.22441?download=true
[524] Naitoh, I., Nakazawa, T., Kato, A., Hayashi, K., Miyabe, K., Shimizu, S., et.al. Predictive factors for positive diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures by transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy, J Dig Dis, 2016. 17(1): p. 44-51., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1751-2980.12311
[525] Navaneethan, U., Njei, B., Lourdusamy, V., Konjeti, R., Vargo, J. J., Parsi, M. A., Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Gastrointest Endosc, 2015. 81(1): p. 168-76., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4824293/pdf/nihms773255.pdf
[111] Paradis V, Fukayama M, Park YN, Schirmacher P, Tumors of the liver and intrahepatic bile ducts., In: WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board WHO-Classification of Tumours (5th ed.) Digestive System Tumours. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon 2019. p. 215-264.
[526] Klimstra DS, Lam AK, Paradis V, Schirmacher P., Tumors of the gallbladder and extrahepatic bile ducts., In: WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board WHO-Classification of Tumours (5th ed.) Digestive System Tumours. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon 2019. p. 265-294.
[527] Moeini, A., Sia, D., Zhang, Z., Camprecios, G., Stueck, A., Dong, H., et.al. Mixed hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma tumors: Cholangiolocellular carcinoma is a distinct molecular entity, J Hepatol, 2017. 66(5): p. 952-961.
[528] Paradis V, Schirmacher P, Singh R., Other tumours of the digestive system., In: WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board WHO-Classification of Tumours (5th ed.) Digestive System Tumours. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon 2019. p. 499-510.
[529] C, Wittekind, TNM-Klassifikation maligner Tumoren. (8. Auflage, korrigierter Nachdruck)., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2020.
[530] Wagner G, Hermanek P, Organspezifische Tumordokumentation – Prinzipien und Verschlüsselungsanweisungen für Klinik und Praxis, Online-version: deutsche Krebsgesellschaft. Frankfurt (Main), 1995.
[531] Khuntikeo, N., Chamadol, N., Yongvanit, P., Loilome, W., Namwat, N., Sithithaworn, P., et.al. Cohort profile: cholangiocarcinoma screening and care program (CASCAP), BMC Cancer, 2015. 15: p. 459., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26054405
[532] Li, R., Zhang, X., Ma, K. S., Li, X. W., Xia, F., Zhong, H., et.al. Dynamic enhancing vascular pattern of intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the influence of chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis, Abdom Imaging, 2013. 38(1): p. 112-9., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00261-012-9854-x.pdf
[533] Xu, H. X., Chen, L. D., Liu, L. N., Zhang, Y. F., Guo, L. H., Liu, C., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: correlation with pathological examination, Br J Radiol, 2012. 85(1016): p. 1029-37., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22374276
[534] Wildner, D., Bernatik, T., Greis, C., Seitz, K., Neurath, M. F., Strobel, D., CEUS in hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma in 320 patients - early or late washout matters: a subanalysis of the DEGUM multicenter trial, Ultraschall Med, 2015. 36(2): p. 132-9., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0034-1399147.pdf
[535] Bach, A. M., Hann, L. E., Brown, K. T., Getrajdman, G. I., Herman, S. K., Fong, Y., et.al. Portal vein evaluation with US: comparison to angiography combined with CT arterial portography, Radiology, 1996. 201(1): p. 149-54., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8816536
[536] Wennmacker, S. Z., Lamberts, M. P., Di Martino, M., Drenth, J. P., Gurusamy, K. S., van Laarhoven, C. J., Transabdominal ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018. 8: p. CD012233., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30109701
[537] Zhang, Y., Uchida, M., Abe, T., Nishimura, H., Hayabuchi, N., Nakashima, Y., Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma: comparison of dynamic CT and dynamic MRI, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 1999. 23(5): p. 670-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10524843
[538] Johnson, P. T., Fishman, E. K., Routine use of precontrast and delayed acquisitions in abdominal CT: time for change, Abdom Imaging, 2013. 38(2): p. 215-23., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23132390
[539] Fabrega-Foster, K., Ghasabeh, M. A., Pawlik, T. M., Kamel, I. R., Multimodality imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr, 2017. 6(2): p. 67-78., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28503554
[540] Valls, C., Guma, A., Puig, I., Sanchez, A., Andia, E., Serrano, T., et.al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma: CT evaluation, Abdom Imaging, 2000. 25(5): p. 490-6., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10931983
[541] Kim, J. H., Won, H. J., Shin, Y. M., Kim, K. A., Kim, P. N., Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2011. 196(2): p. W205-9., https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2214/AJR.10.4937
[542] Bridgewater, J., Galle, P. R., Khan, S. A., Llovet, J. M., Park, J. W., Patel, T., et.al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, J Hepatol, 2014. 60(6): p. 1268-89., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24681130
[543] Jhaveri, K. S., Hosseini-Nik, H., MRI of cholangiocarcinoma, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015. 42(5): p. 1165-79., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25447417
[544] Murakami, T., Nakamura, H., Tsuda, K., Ishida, T., Tomoda, K., Hori, S., et.al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: pathologic correlation study, J Magn Reson Imaging, 1995. 5(2): p. 165-70., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7766977
[545] Hamrick-Turner, J., Abbitt, P. L., Ros, P. R., Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: MR appearance, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1992. 158(1): p. 77-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1309221
[546] Fan, Z. M., Yamashita, Y., Harada, M., Baba, Y., Yamamoto, H., Matsukawa, T., et.al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: spin-echo and contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1993. 161(2): p. 313-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8392787
[547] Sheng, R. F., Zeng, M. S., Rao, S. X., Ji, Y., Chen, L. L., MRI of small intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma and atypical small hepatocellular carcinoma (, Clin Imaging, 2014. 38(3): p. 265-72., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24559750
[548] Chung, Y. E., Kim, M. J., Park, Y. N., Choi, J. Y., Pyo, J. Y., Kim, Y. C., et.al. Varying appearances of cholangiocarcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation, Radiographics, 2009. 29(3): p. 683-700., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19448110
[549] Park, H. J., Kim, Y. K., Park, M. J., Lee, W. J., Small intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: target sign on diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiation from hepatocellular carcinoma, Abdom Imaging, 2013. 38(4): p. 793-801., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22829097
[550] Fattach, H. E., Dohan, A., Guerrache, Y., Dautry, R., Boudiaf, M., Hoeffel, C., et.al. Intrahepatic and hilar mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: Qualitative and quantitative evaluation with diffusion-weighted MR imaging, Eur J Radiol, 2015. 84(8): p. 1444-1451., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26022518
[551] Navaneethan, U., Njei, B., Venkatesh, P. G., Lourdusamy, V., Sanaka, M. R., Endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma as the etiology of biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf), 2015. 3(3): p. 209-15., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25169922
[552] Pahade, J. K., Juice, D., Staib, L., Israel, G., Cornfeld, D., Mitchell, K., et.al. Is there an added value of a hepatobiliary phase with gadoxetate disodium following conventional MRI with an extracellular gadolinium agent in a single imaging session for detection of primary hepatic malignancies?, Abdom Radiol (NY), 2016. 41(7): p. 1270-84., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00261-016-0635-9.pdf
[553] Park, H. J., Kim, S. H., Jang, K. M., Choi, S. Y., Lee, S. J., Choi, D., The role of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating benign from malignant bile duct strictures, Eur Radiol, 2014. 24(4): p. 947-58., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24487774
[554] Lee, J., Kim, S. H., Kang, T. W., Song, K. D., Choi, D., Jang, K. T., Mass-forming Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Diffusion-weighted Imaging as a Preoperative Prognostic Marker, Radiology, 2016. 281(1): p. 119-28., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27115053
[555] Rupp, C., Hippchen, T., Bruckner, T., Kloters-Plachky, P., Schaible, A., Koschny, R., et.al. Effect of scheduled endoscopic dilatation of dominant strictures on outcome in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis, Gut, 2019. 68(12): p. 2170-2178., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30910856
[556] Zhang, H., Zhu, J., Ke, F., Weng, M., Wu, X., Li, M., et.al. Radiological Imaging for Assessing the Respectability of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Biomed Res Int, 2015. 2015: p. 497942., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4569758/pdf/BMRI2015-497942.pdf
[557] Lamarca, A, Barriuso, J, Chander, A, McNamara, MG, Hubner, RA, ÓReilly, D, et.al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) for patients with biliary tract cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis, J Hepatol, 2019. 71 (1)(1): p. 115-129., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30797051/
[558] Feng, S. T., Wu, L., Cai, H., Chan, T., Luo, Y., Dong, Z., et.al. Cholangiocarcinoma: spectrum of appearances on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging and the effect of biliary function on signal intensity, BMC Cancer, 2015. 15: p. 38., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25655565
[559] Kim, S. H., Lee, C. H., Kim, B. H., Kim, W. B., Yeom, S. K., Kim, K. A., et.al. Typical and atypical imaging findings of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma using gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2012. 36(6): p. 704-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23192208
[560] Kiefer, Lena Sophie, Sekler, Julia, Gückel, Brigitte, Kraus, Mareen Sarah, la Fougère, Christian, Nikolaou, Konstantin, et.al. Impact of 18F-FDG-PET/CT on Clinical Management in Patients with Cholangiocellular CarcinomaThe British Institute of Radiology, BJR|Open, 2021. 3(1): p. 20210008., https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20210008
[561] De Moura, D. T. H., Moura, E. G. H., Bernardo, W. M., De Moura, E. T. H., Baraca, F. I., Kondo, A., et.al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Endosc Ultrasound, 2018. 7(1): p. 10-19., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5838722/pdf/EUS-7-10.pdf
[562] Heimbach, J. K., Sanchez, W., Rosen, C. B., Gores, G. J., Trans-peritoneal fine needle aspiration biopsy of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is associated with disease dissemination, HPB (Oxford), 2011. 13(5): p. 356-60., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492336
[563] El Chafic, A. H., Dewitt, J., Leblanc, J. K., El, Hajj, II, Cote, G., House, M. G., et.al. Impact of preoperative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration on postoperative recurrence and survival in cholangiocarcinoma patients, Endoscopy, 2013. 45(11): p. 883-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24165813
[564] Korc, P., Sherman, S., ERCP tissue sampling, Gastrointest Endosc, 2016. 84(4): p. 557-71., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27156656
[565] Fogel, E. L., deBellis, M., McHenry, L., Watkins, J. L., Chappo, J., Cramer, H., et.al. Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective study, Gastrointest Endosc, 2006. 63(1): p. 71-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16377319
[566] Shieh, F. K., Luong-Player, A., Khara, H. S., Liu, H., Lin, F., Shellenberger, M. J., et.al. Improved endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography brush increases diagnostic yield of malignant biliary strictures, World J Gastrointest Endosc, 2014. 6(7): p. 312-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25031790
[567] Glasbrenner, B., Ardan, M., Boeck, W., Preclik, G., Moller, P., Adler, G., Prospective evaluation of brush cytology of biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopy, 1999. 31(9): p. 712-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10604612
[568] Macken, E., Drijkoningen, M., Van Aken, E., Van Steenbergen, W., Brush cytology of ductal strictures during ERCP, Acta Gastroenterol Belg, 2000. 63(3): p. 254-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11189981
[569] Mansfield, J. C., Griffin, S. M., Wadehra, V., Matthewson, K., A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary strictures, Gut, 1997. 40(5): p. 671-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9203949
[570] Trikudanathan, G., Navaneethan, U., Njei, B., Vargo, J. J., Parsi, M. A., Diagnostic yield of bile duct brushings for cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Gastrointest Endosc, 2014. 79(5): p. 783-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24140129
[571] Draganov, P. V., Chauhan, S., Wagh, M. S., Gupte, A. R., Lin, T., Hou, W., et.al. Diagnostic accuracy of conventional and cholangioscopy-guided sampling of indeterminate biliary lesions at the time of ERCP: a prospective, long-term follow-up study, Gastrointest Endosc, 2012. 75(2): p. 347-53., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22248602
[572] Sugiyama, M., Atomi, Y., Wada, N., Kuroda, A., Muto, T., Endoscopic transpapillary bile duct biopsy without sphincterotomy for diagnosing biliary strictures: a prospective comparative study with bile and brush cytology, Am J Gastroenterol, 1996. 91(3): p. 465-7., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8633492
[573] Jailwala, J., Fogel, E. L., Sherman, S., Gottlieb, K., Flueckiger, J., Bucksot, L. G., et.al. Triple-tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction, Gastrointest Endosc, 2000. 51(4 Pt 1): p. 383-90., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10744806
[574] Hartman, D. J., Slivka, A., Giusto, D. A., Krasinskas, A. M., Tissue yield and diagnostic efficacy of fluoroscopic and cholangioscopic techniques to assess indeterminate biliary strictures, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2012. 10(9): p. 1042-6., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677575
[575] Pugliese, V., Conio, M., Nicolo, G., Saccomanno, S., Gatteschi, B., Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: a prospective study, Gastrointest Endosc, 1995. 42(6): p. 520-6., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8674921
[576] Kitajima, Y., Ohara, H., Nakazawa, T., Ando, T., Hayashi, K., Takada, H., et.al. Usefulness of transpapillary bile duct brushing cytology and forceps biopsy for improved diagnosis in patients with biliary strictures, J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2007. 22(10): p. 1615-20., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17573833
[577] Navaneethan, U., Hasan, M. K., Lourdusamy, V., Njei, B., Varadarajulu, S., Hawes, R. H., Single-operator cholangioscopy and targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review, Gastrointest Endosc, 2015. 82(4): p. 608-14 e2., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26071061
[578] Gerges, C., Beyna, T., Tang, R. S. Y., Bahin, F., Lau, J. Y. W., van Geenen, E., et.al. Digital single-operator peroral cholangioscopy-guided biopsy versus ERCP-guided brushing for indeterminate biliary strictures: a prospective, randomized multicenter trial (with video), Gastrointest Endosc, 2019., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31778656
[579] Aabakken, L., Karlsen, T. H., Albert, J., Arvanitakis, M., Chazouilleres, O., Dumonceau, J. M., et.al. Role of endoscopy in primary sclerosing cholangitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Clinical Guideline, Endoscopy, 2017. 49(6): p. 588-608., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0043-107029.pdf
[580] Bagante, F., Spolverato, G., Weiss, M., Alexandrescu, S., Marques, H. P., Aldrighetti, L., et.al. Assessment of the Lymph Node Status in Patients Undergoing Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: the New Eighth Edition AJCC Staging System, J Gastrointest Surg, 2018. 22(1): p. 52-59., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-017-3426-x.pdf
[581] Bagante, F., Spolverato, G., Weiss, M., Alexandrescu, S., Marques, H. P., Aldrighetti, L., et.al. Surgical Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis: Impact of Lymphadenectomy on Peri-Operative Outcomes, World J Surg, 2018. 42(8): p. 2551-2560., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00268-017-4453-1.pdf
[582] Ebata, T., Mizuno, T., Yokoyama, Y., Igami, T., Sugawara, G., Nagino, M., Surgical resection for Bismuth type IV perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, Br J Surg, 2018. 105(7): p. 829-838., https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/bjs.10556?download=true
[583] El-Diwany, R., Pawlik, T. M., Ejaz, A., Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Surg Oncol Clin N Am, 2019. 28(4): p. 587-599., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055320719300444?via%3Dihub
[584] Lang, H., Sotiropoulos, G. C., Sgourakis, G., Schmitz, K. J., Paul, A., Hilgard, P., et.al. Operations for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: single-institution experience of 158 patients, J Am Coll Surg, 2009. 208(2): p. 218-28.
[585] Schnitzbauer, A. A., Eberhard, J., Bartsch, F., Brunner, S. M., Ceyhan, G. O., Walter, D., et.al. The MEGNA Score and Preoperative Anemia are Major Prognostic Factors After Resection in the German Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Cohort, Ann Surg Oncol, 2020. 27(4): p. 1147-1155., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-019-07968-7.pdf
[586] Zhang, X. F., Bagante, F., Chakedis, J., Moris, D., Beal, E. W., Weiss, M., et.al. Perioperative and Long-Term Outcome for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Impact of Major Versus Minor Hepatectomy, J Gastrointest Surg, 2017. 21(11): p. 1841-1850., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-017-3499-6.pdf
[587] Bartsch, F., Tripke, V., Baumgart, J., Hoppe-Lotichius, M., Heinrich, S., Lang, H., Extended resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective single-center cohort study, Int J Surg, 2019. 67: p. 62-69., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743919119301116?via%3Dihub
[588] Mizuno, T., Ebata, T., Nagino, M., Advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: An aggressive surgical approach for the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Perioperative management, extended procedures, and multidisciplinary approaches, Surg Oncol, 2020. 33: p. 201-206., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960740419302439?via%3Dihub
[589] Rassam, F., Roos, E., van Lienden, K. P., van Hooft, J. E., Klümpen, H. J., van Tienhoven, G., et.al. Modern work-up and extended resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: the AMC experience, Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2018. 403(3): p. 289-307., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986829/pdf/423_2018_Article_1649.pdf
[590] Primrose, J. N., Fox, R. P., Palmer, D. H., Malik, H. Z., Prasad, R., Mirza, D., et.al. Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study, Lancet Oncol, 2019. 20(5): p. 663-673., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S147020451830915X?via%3Dihub
[591] Le Roy, B., Gelli, M., Pittau, G., Allard, M. A., Pereira, B., Serji, B., et.al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Br J Surg, 2018. 105(7): p. 839-847., https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/bjs.10641?download=true
[592] Chang, Y., Li, Q., Wu, Q., Chi, L., Bi, X., Zeng, Q., et.al. Impact of surgical strategies on the survival of gallbladder cancer patients: analysis of 715 cases, World J Surg Oncol, 2020. 18(1): p. 142., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7320575/pdf/12957_2020_Article_1915.pdf
[593] Coimbra, F. J. F., Torres, O. J. M., Alikhanov, R., Agarwal, A., Pessaux, P., Fernandes, E. S. M., et.al. BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS ON INCIDENTAL GALLBLADDER CARCINOMA, Arq Bras Cir Dig, 2020. 33(1): p. e1496., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357549/pdf/0102-6720-abcd-33-01-e1496.pdf
[594] Sikora, S. S., Singh, R. K., Surgical strategies in patients with gallbladder cancer: nihilism to optimism, J Surg Oncol, 2006. 93(8): p. 670-81., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jso.20535?download=true
[595] Søreide, K., Guest, R. V., Harrison, E. M., Kendall, T. J., Garden, O. J., Wigmore, S. J., Systematic review of management of incidental gallbladder cancer after cholecystectomy, Br J Surg, 2019. 106(1): p. 32-45., https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/bjs.11035?download=true
[596] Benson, A. B., 3rd, Abrams, T. A., Ben-Josef, E., Bloomston, P. M., Botha, J. F., Clary, B. M., et.al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: hepatobiliary cancers, J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2009. 7(4): p. 350-91., https://jnccn.org/downloadpdf/journals/jnccn/7/4/article-p350.pdf
[597] Yuza, K., Sakata, J., Prasoon, P., Hirose, Y., Ohashi, T., Toge, K., et.al. Long-term outcomes of surgical resection for T1b gallbladder cancer: an institutional evaluation, BMC Cancer, 2020. 20(1): p. 20., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6945689/pdf/12885_2019_Article_6507.pdf
[598] Lee, S. E., Jang, J. Y., Kim, S. W., Han, H. S., Kim, H. J., Yun, S. S., et.al. Surgical strategy for T1 gallbladder cancer: a nationwide multicenter survey in South Korea, Ann Surg Oncol, 2014. 21(11): p. 3654-60., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-014-3527-7.pdf
[599] Bartsch, F., Paschold, M., Baumgart, J., Hoppe-Lotichius, M., Heinrich, S., Lang, H., Surgical Resection for Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, World J Surg, 2019. 43(4): p. 1105-1116., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00268-018-04876-x.pdf
[600] Spolverato, G., Kim, Y., Alexandrescu, S., Marques, H. P., Lamelas, J., Aldrighetti, L., et.al. Management and Outcomes of Patients with Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Following Previous Curative-Intent Surgical Resection, Ann Surg Oncol, 2016. 23(1): p. 235-43., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-015-4642-9.pdf
[601] Seidensticker, R., Seidensticker, M., Doegen, K., Mohnike, K., Schütte, K., Stübs, P., et.al. Extensive Use of Interventional Therapies Improves Survival in Unresectable or Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2016. 2016: p. 8732521., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758109/pdf/GRP2016-8732521.pdf
[602] Xu, C., Li, L., Xu, W., Du, C., Yang, L., Tong, J., et.al. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation versus surgical resection for recurrent intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: intermediate-term results, Int J Hyperthermia, 2019. 36(1): p. 351-358., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02656736.2019.1571247?needAccess=true
[603] Zhang, S. J., Hu, P., Wang, N., Shen, Q., Sun, A. X., Kuang, M., et.al. Thermal ablation versus repeated hepatic resection for recurrent intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Ann Surg Oncol, 2013. 20(11): p. 3596-602., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-013-3035-1.pdf
[604] Amini, N., Ejaz, A., Spolverato, G., Kim, Y., Herman, J. M., Pawlik, T. M., Temporal trends in liver-directed therapy of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a population-based analysis, J Surg Oncol, 2014. 110(2): p. 163-70., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24676600
[605] Butros, S. R., Shenoy-Bhangle, A., Mueller, P. R., Arellano, R. S., Radiofrequency ablation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: feasability, local tumor control, and long-term outcome, Clin Imaging, 2014. 38(4): p. 490-494., https://www.clinicalimaging.org/article/S0899-7071(14)00040-0/fulltext
[606] Fu, Y., Yang, W., Wu, W., Yan, K., Xing, B. C., Chen, M. H., Radiofrequency ablation in the management of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2012. 23(5): p. 642-9., https://www.jvir.org/article/S1051-0443(12)00208-4/fulltext
[607] Han, K., Ko, H. K., Kim, K. W., Won, H. J., Shin, Y. M., Kim, P. N., Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis, J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2015. 26(7): p. 943-8., https://www.jvir.org/article/S1051-0443(15)00250-X/fulltext
[608] Kolarich, A. R., Shah, J. L., George, T. J., Jr., Hughes, S. J., Shaw, C. M., Geller, B. S., et.al. Non-surgical management of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States, 2004-2015: an NCDB analysis, J Gastrointest Oncol, 2018. 9(3): p. 536-545., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6006029/pdf/jgo-09-03-536.pdf
[609] Takahashi, E. A., Kinsman, K. A., Schmit, G. D., Atwell, T. D., Schmitz, J. J., Welch, B. T., et.al. Thermal ablation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Safety, efficacy, and factors affecting local tumor progression, Abdom Radiol (NY), 2018. 43(12): p. 3487-3492., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00261-018-1656-3.pdf
[610] Kim, J. H., Won, H. J., Shin, Y. M., Kim, P. N., Lee, S. G., Hwang, S., Radiofrequency ablation for recurrent intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after curative resection, Eur J Radiol, 2011. 80(3): p. e221-5., https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(10)00476-6/fulltext
[611] Goldaracena, N., Gorgen, A., Sapisochin, G., Current status of liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma, Liver Transpl, 2018. 24(2): p. 294-303.
[612] Facciuto, M. E., Singh, M. K., Lubezky, N., Selim, M. A., Robinson, D., Kim-Schluger, L., et.al. Tumors with intrahepatic bile duct differentiation in cirrhosis: implications on outcomes after liver transplantation, Transplantation, 2015. 99(1): p. 151-7.
[613] Vilchez, V., Shah, M. B., Daily, M. F., Pena, L., Tzeng, C. W., Davenport, D., et.al. Long-term outcome of patients undergoing liver transplantation for mixed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: an analysis of the UNOS database, HPB (Oxford), 2016. 18(1): p. 29-34., https://www.hpbonline.org/article/S1365-182X(15)00002-7/pdf
[614] Sapisochin, G., de Lope, C. R., Gastaca, M., de Urbina, J. O., López-Andujar, R., Palacios, F., et.al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or mixed hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in patients undergoing liver transplantation: a Spanish matched cohort multicenter study, Ann Surg, 2014. 259(5): p. 944-52.
[615] Sapisochin, G., Facciuto, M., Rubbia-Brandt, L., Marti, J., Mehta, N., Yao, F. Y., et.al. Liver transplantation for "very early" intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: International retrospective study supporting a prospective assessment, Hepatology, 2016. 64(4): p. 1178-88.
[616] Lunsford, K. E., Javle, M., Heyne, K., Shroff, R. T., Abdel-Wahab, R., Gupta, N., et.al. Liver transplantation for locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a prospective case-series, Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018. 3(5): p. 337-348., https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(18)30045-1/fulltext
[617] Becker, N. S., Rodriguez, J. A., Barshes, N. R., O'Mahony, C. A., Goss, J. A., Aloia, T. A., Outcomes analysis for 280 patients with cholangiocarcinoma treated with liver transplantation over an 18-year period, J Gastrointest Surg, 2008. 12(1): p. 117-22., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-007-0335-4.pdf
[618] Darwish Murad, S., Kim, W. R., Harnois, D. M., Douglas, D. D., Burton, J., Kulik, L. M., et.al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, followed by liver transplantation, for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at 12 US centers, Gastroenterology, 2012. 143(1): p. 88-98.e3; quiz e14., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846443/pdf/nihms507180.pdf
[619] Rosen, C. B., Heimbach, J. K., Gores, G. J., Surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: the role of liver transplantation, HPB (Oxford), 2008. 10(3): p. 186-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2504373/pdf/MHPB10-186.pdf
[620] Gulamhusein, A. F., Sanchez, W., Liver transplantation in the management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, Hepat Oncol, 2015. 2(4): p. 409-421., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095165/pdf/hep-02-409.pdf
[621] Ethun, C. G., Lopez-Aguiar, A. G., Anderson, D. J., Adams, A. B., Fields, R. C., Doyle, M. B., et.al. Transplantation Versus Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: An Argument for Shifting Treatment Paradigms for Resectable Disease, Ann Surg, 2018. 267(5): p. 797-805., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002861/pdf/nihms955692.pdf
[622] Mantel, H. T., Westerkamp, A. C., Adam, R., Bennet, W. F., Seehofer, D., Settmacher, U., et.al. Strict Selection Alone of Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma Is Associated with Improved Survival, PLoS One, 2016. 11(6): p. e0156127., https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/465540/799026/journal.pone.0156127.PDF
[623] Weber, S. M., Ribero, D., O'Reilly, E. M., Kokudo, N., Miyazaki, M., Pawlik, T. M., Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: expert consensus statement, HPB (Oxford), 2015. 17(8): p. 669-80.
[624] NCCN Guidelines® for Hepatobiliary Cancers Version 3, 2019.
[625] Ray, C. E., Jr., Edwards, A., Smith, M. T., Leong, S., Kondo, K., Gipson, M., et.al. Metaanalysis of survival, complications, and imaging response following chemotherapy-based transarterial therapy in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2013. 24(8): p. 1218-26.
[626] Koch, C., Franzke, C., Bechstein, W. O., Schnitzbauer, A. A., Filmann, N., Vogl, T., et.al. Poor Prognosis of Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma: Real-World Data from a Tertiary Referral Center, Digestion, 2019. p. 1-8.
[627] Gusani, N. J., Balaa, F. K., Steel, J. L., Geller, D. A., Marsh, J. W., Zajko, A. B., et.al. Treatment of unresectable cholangiocarcinoma with gemcitabine-based transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE): a single-institution experience, J Gastrointest Surg, 2008. 12(1): p. 129-37., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-007-0312-y.pdf
[628] Boehm, L. M., Jayakrishnan, T. T., Miura, J. T., Zacharias, A. J., Johnston, F. M., Turaga, K. K., et.al. Comparative effectiveness of hepatic artery based therapies for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, J Surg Oncol, 2015. 111(2): p. 213-20., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jso.23781
[629] Kiefer, M. V., Albert, M., McNally, M., Robertson, M., Sun, W., Fraker, D., et.al. Chemoembolization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with cisplatinum, doxorubicin, mitomycin C, ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol: a 2-center study, Cancer, 2011. 117(7): p. 1498-505., https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.25625
[630] Vogl, T. J., Naguib, N. N., Nour-Eldin, N. E., Bechstein, W. O., Zeuzem, S., Trojan, J., et.al. Transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma: Results and prognostic factors governing treatment success, Int J Cancer, 2012. 131(3): p. 733-40., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.26407
[631] Cucchetti, A., Cappelli, A., Mosconi, C., Zhong, J. H., Cescon, M., Pinna, A. D., et.al. Improving patient selection for selective internal radiation therapy of intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-regression study, Liver Int, 2017. 37(7): p. 1056-1064., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/liv.13382
[632] Gangi, A., Shah, J., Hatfield, N., Smith, J., Sweeney, J., Choi, J., et.al. Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Treated with Transarterial Yttrium-90 Glass Microsphere Radioembolization: Results of a Single Institution Retrospective Study, J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2018. 29(8): p. 1101-1108., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051044318310868?via%3Dihub
[633] Manceau, V., Palard, X., Rolland, Y., Pracht, M., Le Sourd, S., Laffont, S., et.al. A MAA-based dosimetric study in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with a combination of chemotherapy and (90)Y-loaded glass microsphere selective internal radiation therapy, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2018. 45(10): p. 1731-1741., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00259-018-3990-7.pdf
[634] Reimer, P., Virarkar, M. K., Binnenhei, M., Justinger, M., Schön, M. R., Tatsch, K., Prognostic Factors in Overall Survival of Patients with Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Treated by Means of Yttrium-90 Radioembolization: Results in Therapy-Naïve Patients, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2018. 41(5): p. 744-752., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00270-017-1871-2.pdf
[635] Yang, L., Shan, J., Shan, L., Saxena, A., Bester, L., Morris, D. L., Trans-arterial embolisation therapies for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review, J Gastrointest Oncol, 2015. 6(5): p. 570-88., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4570915/pdf/jgo-06-05-570.pdf
[636] Zhen, Y, Liu, B, Chang, Z, Ren, H, Liu, Z, Zheng, J, A pooled analysis of transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres for the treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma., Onco Targets Ther, 2019. 12 (): p. 4489-4498., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31239717/
[637] Mosconi, C, Solaini, L, Vara, G, Brandi, N, Cappelli, A, Modestino, F, et.al. Transarterial Chemoembolization and Radioembolization for Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma-a Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis., Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2021. 44 (5)(5): p. 728-738., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33709272/
[638] Hyder, O., Marsh, J. W., Salem, R., Petre, E. N., Kalva, S., Liapi, E., et.al. Intra-arterial therapy for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis, Ann Surg Oncol, 2013. 20(12): p. 3779-86., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1245/s10434-013-3127-y.pdf
[639] Marquardt, S., Kirstein, M. M., Brüning, R., Zeile, M., Ferrucci, P. F., Prevoo, W., et.al. Percutaneous hepatic perfusion (chemosaturation) with melphalan in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: European multicentre study on safety, short-term effects and survival, Eur Radiol, 2019. 29(4): p. 1882-1892., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-018-5729-z.pdf
[640] Edeline, J., Touchefeu, Y., Guiu, B., Farge, O., Tougeron, D., Baumgaertner, I., et.al. Radioembolization Plus Chemotherapy for First-line Treatment of Locally Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial, JAMA Oncol, 2019. 6(1): p. 51-9., https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/articlepdf/2753557/jamaoncology_edeline_2019_oi_190074.pdf
[641] Konstantinidis, I. T., Groot Koerkamp, B., Do, R. K., Gönen, M., Fong, Y., Allen, P. J., et.al. Unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Systemic plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy is associated with longer survival in comparison with systemic chemotherapy alone, Cancer, 2016. 122(5): p. 758-65., https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/cncr.29824?download=true
[642] Al-Adra, D. P., Gill, R. S., Axford, S. J., Shi, X., Kneteman, N., Liau, S. S., Treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with yttrium-90 radioembolization: a systematic review and pooled analysis, Eur J Surg Oncol, 2015. 41(1): p. 120-7.
[643] Wronka, K. M., Grąt, M., Stypułkowski, J., Bik, E., Patkowski, W., Krawczyk, M., et.al. Relevance of Preoperative Hyperbilirubinemia in Patients Undergoing Hepatobiliary Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma, J Clin Med, 2019. 8(4):, https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/jcm/jcm-08-00458/article_deploy/jcm-08-00458.pdf
[644] Al Mahjoub, A., Menahem, B., Fohlen, A., Dupont, B., Alves, A., Launoy, G., et.al. Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients with Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Is Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage Safer and More Effective than Endoscopic Biliary Drainage? A Meta-Analysis, J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2017. 28(4): p. 576-582.
[645] Hameed, A., Pang, T., Chiou, J., Pleass, H., Lam, V., Hollands, M., et.al. Percutaneous vs. endoscopic pre-operative biliary drainage in hilar cholangiocarcinoma - a systematic review and meta-analysis, HPB (Oxford), 2016. 18(5): p. 400-10., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4857062/pdf/main.pdf
[646] Coelen, R. J. S., Roos, E., Wiggers, J. K., Besselink, M. G., Buis, C. I., Busch, O. R. C., et.al. Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018. 3(10): p. 681-690., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468125318302346?via%3Dihub
[647] Ba, Y., Yue, P., Leung, J. W., Wang, H., Lin, Y., Bai, B., et.al. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage may be the preferred preoperative drainage method in hilar cholangiocarcinoma, Endosc Int Open, 2020. 8(2): p. E203-e210., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/a-0990-9114.pdf
[648] Maeda, T., Ebata, T., Yokoyama, Y., Mizuno, T., Yamaguchi, J., Onoe, S., et.al. Preoperative course of patients undergoing endoscopic nasobiliary drainage during the management of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2019. 26(8): p. 341-347., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jhbp.640?download=true
[649] Nakai, Y., Yamamoto, R., Matsuyama, M., Sakai, Y., Takayama, Y., Ushio, J., et.al. Multicenter study of endoscopic preoperative biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: E-POD hilar study, J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018. 33(5): p. 1146-1153., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/jgh.14050?download=true
[650] Komaya, K., Ebata, T., Yokoyama, Y., Igami, T., Sugawara, G., Mizuno, T., et.al. Verification of the oncologic inferiority of percutaneous biliary drainage to endoscopic drainage: A propensity score matching analysis of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, Surgery, 2017. 161(2): p. 394-404.
[651] Kim, K. M., Park, J. W., Lee, J. K., Lee, K. H., Lee, K. T., Shim, S. G., A Comparison of Preoperative Biliary Drainage Methods for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Endoscopic versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage, Gut Liver, 2015. 9(6): p. 791-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4625710/pdf/gnl-09-791.pdf
[652] Kennedy, T. J., Yopp, A., Qin, Y., Zhao, B., Guo, P., Liu, F., et.al. Role of preoperative biliary drainage of liver remnant prior to extended liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, HPB (Oxford), 2009. 11(5): p. 445-51., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742615/pdf/hpb0011-0445.pdf
[653] Miura, S., Kanno, A., Fukase, K., Tanaka, Y., Matsumoto, R., Nabeshima, T., et.al. Preoperative biliary drainage of the hepatic lobe to be resected does not affect liver hypertrophy after percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization, Surg Endosc, 2020. 34(2): p. 667-674., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-019-06813-y.pdf
[654] Hintze, R. E., Abou-Rebyeh, H., Adler, A., Veltzke-Schlieker, W., Felix, R., Wiedenmann, B., Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography-guided unilateral endoscopic stent placement for Klatskin tumors, Gastrointest Endosc, 2001. 53(1): p. 40-6.
[655] Abraham, N. S., Barkun, J. S., Barkun, A. N., Palliation of malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective trial examining impact on quality of life, Gastrointest Endosc, 2002. 56(6): p. 835-41.
[656] Paik, W. H., Park, Y. S., Hwang, J. H., Lee, S. H., Yoon, C. J., Kang, S. G., et.al. Palliative treatment with self-expandable metallic stents in patients with advanced type III or IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a percutaneous versus endoscopic approach, Gastrointest Endosc, 2009. 69(1): p. 55-62.
[657] Saluja, S. S., Gulati, M., Garg, P. K., Pal, H., Pal, S., Sahni, P., et.al. Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drainage for gallbladder cancer: a randomized trial and quality of life assessment, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2008. 6(8): p. 944-950.e3., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1542356508003418?via%3Dihub
[658] Schima, W., Prokesch, R., Osterreicher, C., Thurnher, S., Függer, R., Schöfl, R., et.al. Biliary Wallstent endoprosthesis in malignant hilar obstruction: long-term results with regard to the type of obstruction, Clin Radiol, 1997. 52(3): p. 213-9.
[659] Uberoi, R., Das, N., Moss, J., Robertson, I., British Society of Interventional Radiology: Biliary Drainage and Stenting Registry (BDSR), Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2012. 35(1): p. 127-38., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00270-011-0103-4.pdf
[660] Smith, A. C., Dowsett, J. F., Russell, R. C., Hatfield, A. R., Cotton, P. B., Randomised trial of endoscopic stenting versus surgical bypass in malignant low bileduct obstruction, Lancet, 1994. 344(8938): p. 1655-60.
[661] Speer, A. G., Cotton, P. B., Russell, R. C., Mason, R. R., Hatfield, A. R., Leung, J. W., et.al. Randomised trial of endoscopic versus percutaneous stent insertion in malignant obstructive jaundice, Lancet, 1987. 2(8550): p. 57-62.
[662] Almadi, M. A., Barkun, A., Martel, M., Plastic vs. Self-Expandable Metal Stents for Palliation in Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Series of Meta-Analyses, Am J Gastroenterol, 2017. 112(2): p. 260-273.
[663] Lee, T. H., Moon, J. H., Choi, J. H., Lee, S. H., Lee, Y. N., Paik, W. H., et.al. Prospective comparison of endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent versus stent-by-stent deployment for inoperable advanced malignant hilar biliary stricture, Gastrointest Endosc, 2019. 90(2): p. 222-230., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016510719301737?via%3Dihub
[664] Sharaiha, R. Z., Kumta, N. A., Desai, A. P., DeFilippis, E. M., Gabr, M., Sarkisian, A. M., et.al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Surg Endosc, 2016. 30(12): p. 5500-5505., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-016-4913-y.pdf
[665] Paik, W. H., Lee, T. H., Park, D. H., Choi, J. H., Kim, S. O., Jang, S., et.al. EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage Versus ERCP for the Primary Palliation of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial, Am J Gastroenterol, 2018. 113(7): p. 987-997.
[666] Bang, J. Y., Navaneethan, U., Hasan, M., Hawes, R., Varadarajulu, S., Stent placement by EUS or ERCP for primary biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial (with videos), Gastrointest Endosc, 2018. 88(1): p. 9-17.
[667] Dumonceau, J. M., Tringali, A., Papanikolaou, I. S., Blero, D., Mangiavillano, B., Schmidt, A., et.al. Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated October 2017, Endoscopy, 2018. 50(9): p. 910-930., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/a-0659-9864.pdf
[668] Moole, H., Dharmapuri, S., Duvvuri, A., Dharmapuri, S., Boddireddy, R., Moole, V., et.al. Endoscopic versus Percutaneous Biliary Drainage in Palliation of Advanced Malignant Hilar Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review, Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016. 2016: p. 4726078., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5014937/pdf/CJGH2016-4726078.pdf
[669] Zhao, X. Q., Dong, J. H., Jiang, K., Huang, X. Q., Zhang, W. Z., Comparison of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic biliary drainage in the management of malignant biliary tract obstruction: a meta-analysis, Dig Endosc, 2015. 27(1): p. 137-45., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/den.12320?download=true
[670] Born, P., Rösch, T., Triptrap, A., Frimberger, E., Allescher, H. D., Ott, R., et.al. Long-term results of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for benign and malignant bile duct strictures, Scand J Gastroenterol, 1998. 33(5): p. 544-9., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00365529850172142?needAccess=true
[671] De Palma, G. D., Galloro, G., Siciliano, S., Iovino, P., Catanzano, C., Unilateral versus bilateral endoscopic hepatic duct drainage in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, randomized, and controlled study, Gastrointest Endosc, 2001. 53(6): p. 547-53.
[672] Chang, W. H., Kortan, P., Haber, G. B., Outcome in patients with bifurcation tumors who undergo unilateral versus bilateral hepatic duct drainage, Gastrointest Endosc, 1998. 47(5): p. 354-62.
[673] Bulajic, M., Panic, N., Radunovic, M., Scepanovic, R., Perunovic, R., Stevanovic, P., et.al. Clinical outcome in patients with hilar malignant strictures type II Bismuth-Corlette treated by minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral endoscopic biliary drainage, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2012. 11(2): p. 209-14.
[674] Cheng, J. L., Bruno, M. J., Bergman, J. J., Rauws, E. A., Tytgat, G. N., Huibregtse, K., Endoscopic palliation of patients with biliary obstruction caused by nonresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: efficacy of self-expandable metallic Wallstents, Gastrointest Endosc, 2002. 56(1): p. 33-9.
[675] Vienne, A., Hobeika, E., Gouya, H., Lapidus, N., Fritsch, J., Choury, A. D., et.al. Prediction of drainage effectiveness during endoscopic stenting of malignant hilar strictures: the role of liver volume assessment, Gastrointest Endosc, 2010. 72(4): p. 728-35.
[676] Rees, J., Mytton, J., Evison, F., Mangat, K. S., Patel, P., Trudgill, N., The outcomes of biliary drainage by percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction in England between 2001 and 2014: a retrospective cohort study, BMJ Open, 2020. 10(1): p. e033576., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045186/pdf/bmjopen-2019-033576.pdf
[677] Harvey, P. R., Baldwin, S., Mytton, J., Dosanjh, A., Evison, F., Patel, P., et.al. Higher volume providers are associated with improved outcomes following ERCP for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction, EClinicalMedicine, 2020. 18: p. 100212., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6948226/pdf/main.pdf
[678] Tal, A. O., Vermehren, J., Friedrich-Rust, M., Bojunga, J., Sarrazin, C., Zeuzem, S., et.al. Intraductal endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of hilar non-resectable malignant bile duct obstruction, World J Gastrointest Endosc, 2014. 6(1): p. 13-9., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921441/pdf/WJGE-6-13.pdf
[679] Moole, H., Tathireddy, H., Dharmapuri, S., Moole, V., Boddireddy, R., Yedama, P., et.al. Success of photodynamic therapy in palliating patients with nonresectable cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis, World J Gastroenterol, 2017. 23(7): p. 1278-1288., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5323453/pdf/WJG-23-1278.pdf
[680] Zoepf, T., Jakobs, R., Rosenbaum, A., Apel, D., Arnold, J. C., Riemann, J. F., Photodynamic therapy with 5-aminolevulinic acid is not effective in bile duct cancer, Gastrointest Endosc, 2001. 54(6): p. 763-6.
[317] Yang, J., Wang, J., Zhou, H., Zhou, Y., Wang, Y., Jin, H., et.al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for unresectable extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a randomized trial, Endoscopy, 2018. 50(8): p. 751-760., https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0043-124870.pdf
[681] Ortner, M. E., Caca, K., Berr, F., Liebetruth, J., Mansmann, U., Huster, D., et.al. Successful photodynamic therapy for nonresectable cholangiocarcinoma: a randomized prospective study, Gastroenterology, 2003. 125(5): p. 1355-63., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016508503013623?via%3Dihub
[682] Zoepf, T., Jakobs, R., Arnold, J. C., Apel, D., Riemann, J. F., Palliation of nonresectable bile duct cancer: improved survival after photodynamic therapy, Am J Gastroenterol, 2005. 100(11): p. 2426-30.
[683] Pereira, S. P., Jitlal, M., Duggan, M., Lawrie, E., Beare, S., O'Donoghue, P., et.al. PHOTOSTENT-02: porfimer sodium photodynamic therapy plus stenting versus stenting alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, ESMO Open, 2018. 3(5): p. e000379., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069917/pdf/esmoopen-2018-000379.pdf
[684] Gonzalez-Carmona, M. A., Bolch, M., Jansen, C., Vogt, A., Sampels, M., Mohr, R. U., et.al. Combined photodynamic therapy with systemic chemotherapy for unresectable cholangiocarcinoma, Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2019. 49(4): p. 437-447., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/apt.15050?download=true
[685] Wentrup, R., Winkelmann, N., Mitroshkin, A., Prager, M., Voderholzer, W., Schachschal, G., et.al. Photodynamic Therapy Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Photodynamic Therapy Alone in Hilar Nonresectable Cholangiocarcinoma, Gut Liver, 2016. 10(3): p. 470-5., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849702/pdf/gnl-10-470.pdf
[686] Strand, D. S., Cosgrove, N. D., Patrie, J. T., Cox, D. G., Bauer, T. W., Adams, R. B., et.al. ERCP-directed radiofrequency ablation and photodynamic therapy are associated with comparable survival in the treatment of unresectable cholangiocarcinoma, Gastrointest Endosc, 2014. 80(5): p. 794-804.
[687] Dolak, W., Schwaighofer, H., Hellmich, B., Stadler, B., Spaun, G., Plieschnegger, W., et.al. Photodynamic therapy with polyhematoporphyrin for malignant biliary obstruction: A nationwide retrospective study of 150 consecutive applications, United European Gastroenterol J, 2017. 5(1): p. 104-110., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384559/pdf/10.1177_2050640616654037.pdf
[688] Kahaleh, M., Mishra, R., Shami, V. M., Northup, P. G., Berg, C. L., Bashlor, P., et.al. Unresectable cholangiocarcinoma: comparison of survival in biliary stenting alone versus stenting with photodynamic therapy, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2008. 6(3): p. 290-7., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1542356507011469?via%3Dihub
[689] Ben-Josef, E., Normolle, D., Ensminger, W. D., Walker, S., Tatro, D., Ten Haken, R. K., et.al. Phase II trial of high-dose conformal radiation therapy with concurrent hepatic artery floxuridine for unresectable intrahepatic malignancies, J Clin Oncol, 2005. 23(34): p. 8739-47.
[690] Brunner, T. B., Blanck, O., Lewitzki, V., Abbasi-Senger, N., Momm, F., Riesterer, O., et.al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy dose and its impact on local control and overall survival of patients for locally advanced intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Radiother Oncol, 2019. 132: p. 42-47., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167814018336089?via%3Dihub
[691] Tao, R., Krishnan, S., Bhosale, P. R., Javle, M. M., Aloia, T. A., Shroff, R. T., et.al. Ablative Radiotherapy Doses Lead to a Substantial Prolongation of Survival in Patients With Inoperable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Retrospective Dose Response Analysis, J Clin Oncol, 2016. 34(3): p. 219-26., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4980564/pdf/JCO613778.pdf
[692] Lee, J., Yoon, W. S., Koom, W. S., Rim, C. H., Efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy for unresectable or recurrent cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review, Strahlenther Onkol, 2019. 195(2): p. 93-102., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00066-018-1367-2.pdf
[693] Frakulli, R., Buwenge, M., Macchia, G., Cammelli, S., Deodato, F., Cilla, S., et.al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy in cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review, Br J Radiol, 2019. 92(1097): p. 20180688., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6580923/pdf/bjr.20180688.pdf
[694] Barney, B. M., Olivier, K. R., Miller, R. C., Haddock, M. G., Clinical outcomes and toxicity using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for advanced cholangiocarcinoma, Radiat Oncol, 2012. 7: p. 67., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464963/pdf/1748-717X-7-67.pdf
[695] Tse, R. V., Hawkins, M., Lockwood, G., Kim, J. J., Cummings, B., Knox, J., et.al. Phase I study of individualized stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, J Clin Oncol, 2008. 26(4): p. 657-64.
[696] Weiner, A. A., Olsen, J., Ma, D., Dyk, P., DeWees, T., Myerson, R. J., et.al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for primary hepatic malignancies - Report of a phase I/II institutional study, Radiother Oncol, 2016. 121(1): p. 79-85., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5543719/pdf/nihms872134.pdf
[697] Kopek, N., Holt, M. I., Hansen, A. T., Høyer, M., Stereotactic body radiotherapy for unresectable cholangiocarcinoma, Radiother Oncol, 2010. 94(1): p. 47-52.
[355] Hong, T. S., Wo, J. Y., Yeap, B. Y., Ben-Josef, E., McDonnell, E. I., Blaszkowsky, L. S., et.al. Multi-Institutional Phase II Study of High-Dose Hypofractionated Proton Beam Therapy in Patients With Localized, Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, J Clin Oncol, 2016. 34(5): p. 460-8., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872014/pdf/JCO642710.pdf
[698] Schnapauff, D., Denecke, T., Grieser, C., Collettini, F., Seehofer, D., Sinn, M., et.al. Computed tomography-guided interstitial HDR brachytherapy (CT-HDRBT) of the liver in patients with irresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2012. 35(3): p. 581-7., https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00270-011-0249-0.pdf
[699] Jeong, H, Kim, KP, Jeong, JH, Hwang, DW, Lee, JH, Kim, KH, et.al. Adjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine in node-positive extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the STAMP randomized trial., Hepatology, 2023. 77 (5)(5): p. 1540-1549., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37070950/
[700] Vogel, A., Wege, H., Caca, K., Nashan, B., Neumann, U., The diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2014. 111(44): p. 748-54., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239580/pdf/Dtsch_Arztebl_Int-111-0748.pdf
[701] Horgan, A. M., Amir, E., Walter, T., Knox, J. J., Adjuvant therapy in the treatment of biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Clin Oncol, 2012. 30(16): p. 1934-40.
[702] Bridgewater, J, Fletcher, P, Palmer, DH, Malik, HZ, Prasad, R, Mirza, D, et.al. Long-Term Outcomes and Exploratory Analyses of the Randomized Phase III BILCAP Study., J Clin Oncol, 2022. 40 (18)(18): p. 2048-2057., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35316080/
[703] Edeline, Julien, Bonnetain, Franck, Phelip, Jean Marc, Watelet, Jérôme, Hammel, Pascal, Joly, Jean-Paul, et.al. Gemox versus surveillance following surgery of localized biliary tract cancer: Results of the PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 (UNICANCER GI) phase III trial, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2017. 35(4_suppl): p. 225-225., http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2017.35.4_suppl.225
[704] Edeline, J, Hirano, S, Bertaut, A, Konishi, M, Benabdelghani, M, Uesaka, K, et.al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer: combined analysis of the BCAT and PRODIGE-12 studies., Eur J Cancer, 2022. 164 (): p. 80-87., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35182925/
[705] Luvira, V, Satitkarnmanee, E, Pugkhem, A, Kietpeerakool, C, Lumbiganon, P, Pattanittum, P, Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable cholangiocarcinoma., Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2021. 9 (9)(9): p. CD012814., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34515993/
[706] Oh, Do-Youn, Ruth He, Aiwu, Qin, Shukui, Chen, Li-Tzong, Okusaka, Takuji, Vogel, Arndt, et.al. Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer, NEJM Evidence, 2022. 1(8): p. EVIDoa2200015., https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2200015
[707] Valle, J., Wasan, H., Palmer, D. H., Cunningham, D., Anthoney, A., Maraveyas, A., et.al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer, N Engl J Med, 2010. 362(14): p. 1273-81., https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa0908721?articleTools=true
[708] Okusaka, T., Nakachi, K., Fukutomi, A., Mizuno, N., Ohkawa, S., Funakoshi, A., et.al. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer: a comparative multicentre study in Japan, Br J Cancer, 2010. 103(4): p. 469-74., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939781/pdf/6605779a.pdf
[709] Valle, J. W., Furuse, J., Jitlal, M., Beare, S., Mizuno, N., Wasan, H., et.al. Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials, Ann Oncol, 2014. 25(2): p. 391-8.
[710] Park, J. O., Oh, D. Y., Hsu, C., Chen, J. S., Chen, L. T., Orlando, M., et.al. Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review, Cancer Res Treat, 2015. 47(3): p. 343-61., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4509359/pdf/crt-2014-308.pdf
[711] Markussen, A, Jensen, LH, Diness, LV, Larsen, FO, Treatment of Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer with Either Oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine, and Capecitabine or Cisplatin and Gemcitabine-A Randomized Phase II Trial., Cancers (Basel), 2020. 12 (7)(7):, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32698410/
[712] Valle, J. W., Borbath, I., Khan, S. A., Huguet, F., Gruenberger, T., Arnold, D., et.al. Biliary cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, Ann Oncol, 2016. 27(suppl 5): p. v28-v37., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27664259
[713] Kelley, RK, Ueno, M, Yoo, C, Finn, RS, Furuse, J, Ren, Z, et.al. Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial., Lancet, 2023. ():, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37075781/
[714] Abou-Alfa, Ghassan K., Macarulla, Teresa, Javle, Milind M., Kelley, Robin K., Lubner, Sam J., Adeva, Jorge, et.al. Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, The Lancet Oncology, 2020. 21(6): p. 796-807.
[715] Abou-Alfa, Ghassan K., Sahai, Vaibhav, Hollebecque, Antoine, Vaccaro, Gina, Melisi, Davide, Al-Rajabi, Raed, et.al. Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study, The Lancet Oncology, 2020. 21(5): p. 671-684.
[1] Lamarca, Angela, Palmer, Daniel H., Wasan, Harpreet Singh, Ross, Paul J., Ma, Yuk Ting, Arora, Arvind, 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, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2019. 37(15_suppl): p. 4003-4003., https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.4003
[716] Goyal, L, Meric-Bernstam, F, Hollebecque, A, Valle, JW, Morizane, C, Karasic, TB, et.al. Futibatinib for , N Engl J Med, 2023. 388 (3)(3): p. 228-239., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36652354/
[717] Valle, J. W., Lamarca, A., Goyal, L., Barriuso, J., Zhu, A. X., New Horizons for Precision Medicine in Biliary Tract Cancers, Cancer Discov, 2017. 7(9): p. 943-962., https://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/candisc/7/9/943.full.pdf
[718] Cocco, E., Scaltriti, M., Drilon, A., NTRK fusion-positive cancers and TRK inhibitor therapy, Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2018. 15(12): p. 731-747., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6419506/pdf/nihms-1016874.pdf
[719] Solomon, J. P., Linkov, I., Rosado, A., Mullaney, K., Rosen, E. Y., Frosina, D., et.al. NTRK fusion detection across multiple assays and 33,997 cases: diagnostic implications and pitfalls, Mod Pathol, 2019., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31375766
[720] Ross, J. S., Wang, K., Gay, L., Al-Rohil, R., Rand, J. V., Jones, D. M., et.al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing, Oncologist, 2014. 19(3): p. 235-42., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3958461/pdf/theoncologist_13352.pdf
[721] Drilon, A., Laetsch, T. W., Kummar, S., DuBois, S. G., Lassen, U. N., Demetri, G. D., et.al. Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers in Adults and Children, N Engl J Med, 2018. 378(8): p. 731-739., https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1714448?articleTools=true
[722] Oh, D. Y., Bang, Y. J., HER2-targeted therapies - a role beyond breast cancer, Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2019., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31548601
[723] Javle, M, Borad, MJ, Azad, NS, Kurzrock, R, Abou-Alfa, GK, George, B, et.al. Pertuzumab and trastuzumab for HER2-positive, metastatic biliary tract cancer (MyPathway): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2a, multiple basket study., Lancet Oncol, 2021. 22 (9)(9): p. 1290-1300., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34339623/
[725] Meric-Bernstam, F, Makker, V, Oaknin, A, Oh, DY, Banerjee, S, González-Martín, A, et.al. Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients With HER2-Expressing Solid Tumors: Primary Results From the DESTINY-PanTumor02 Phase II Trial., J Clin Oncol, 2024. 42 (1)(1): p. 47-58., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37870536/
[726] Harding, JJ, Piha-Paul, SA, Shah, RH, Murphy, JJ, Cleary, JM, Shapiro, GI, et.al. Antitumour activity of neratinib in patients with HER2-mutant advanced biliary tract cancers., Nat Commun, 2023. 14 (1)(1): p. 630., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36746967/
[727] Hyman, D. M., Puzanov, I., Subbiah, V., Faris, J. E., Chau, I., Blay, J. Y., et.al. Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations, N Engl J Med, 2015. 373(8): p. 726-36., https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1502309?articleTools=true
[728] Salama, A. K. S., Li, S. L., Macrae, E. R., Park, J. I., Mitchell, E. P., Zwiebel, J. A., et.al. Dabrafenib and trametinib in patients with tumors with BRAF V600E/K mutations: Results from the molecular analysis for therapy choice (MATCH) Arm H., Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2019. 37(15):, , to, ISI>://WOS:000487345804592
[729] 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): p. E98-e102., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5177579/pdf/jgo-07-06-E98.pdf
[730] Kocsis, J., Árokszállási, A., András, C., Balogh, I., Béres, E., Déri, J., et.al. Combined dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in a case of chemotherapy-refractory extrahepatic BRAF V600E mutant cholangiocarcinoma: dramatic clinical and radiological response with a confusing synchronic new liver lesion, J Gastrointest Oncol, 2017. 8(2): p. E32-e38., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401859/pdf/jgo-08-02-E32.pdf
[731] Bunyatov, T., Zhao, A., Kovalenko, J., Gurmikov, B., Vishnevsky, V., Personalised approach in combined treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: a case report of healing from cholangiocellular carcinoma at stage IV, J Gastrointest Oncol, 2019. 10(4): p. 815-820., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657318/pdf/jgo-10-04-815.pdf
[732] Subbiah, V, Lassen, U, Élez, E, Italiano, A, Curigliano, G, Javle, M, et.al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF, Lancet Oncol, 2020. 21 (9)(9): p. 1234-1243., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32818466/
[733] Abou-Alfa, GK, Sahai, V, Hollebecque, A, Vaccaro, G, Melisi, D, Al-Rajabi, R, et.al. Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study., Lancet Oncol, 2020. 21 (5)(5): p. 671-684., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32203698/
[734] Wu, Q, Ellis, H, Siravegna, G, Michel, AG, Norden, BL, Fece de la Cruz, F, et.al. Landscape of Clinical Resistance Mechanisms to FGFR Inhibitors in FGFR2-Altered Cholangiocarcinoma., Clin Cancer Res, 2024. 30 (1)(1): p. 198-208., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37843855/
[735] Rengan, AK, Denlinger, CS, Robust Response to Futibatinib in a Patient With Metastatic FGFR-Addicted Cholangiocarcinoma Previously Treated Using Pemigatinib., J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2022. 20 (5)(5): p. 430-435., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35378504/
[736] Meric-Bernstam, F, Bahleda, R, Hierro, C, Sanson, M, Bridgewater, J, Arkenau, HT, et.al. Futibatinib, an Irreversible FGFR1-4 Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors Harboring , Cancer Discov, 2022. 12 (2)(2): p. 402-415., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551969/
[737] Mazzaferro, V., El-Rayes, B. F., Droz Dit Busset, M., Cotsoglou, C., Harris, W. P., Damjanov, N., et.al. Derazantinib (ARQ 087) in advanced or inoperable FGFR2 gene fusion-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Br J Cancer, 2019. 120(2): p. 165-171., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6342954/pdf/41416_2018_Article_334.pdf
[738] Bahleda, R., Italiano, A., Hierro, C., Mita, A., Cervantes, A., Chan, N., et.al. Multicenter Phase I Study of Erdafitinib (JNJ-42756493), Oral Pan-Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced or Refractory Solid Tumors, Clin Cancer Res, 2019. 25(16): p. 4888-4897., https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/clincanres/25/16/4888.full.pdf
[740] Cleary, JM, Raghavan, S, Wu, Q, Li, YY, Spurr, LF, Gupta, HV, et.al. None, Cancer Discov, 2021. 11 (10)(10): p. 2488-2505., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33926920/
[741] Katoh, M., Fibroblast growth factor receptors as treatment targets in clinical oncology, Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2018., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30367139
[742] Maio, M, Ascierto, PA, Manzyuk, L, Motola-Kuba, D, Penel, N, Cassier, PA, et.al. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study., Ann Oncol, 2022. 33 (9)(9): p. 929-938., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35680043/
[743] Lamarca, A, Palmer, DH, Wasan, HS, Ross, PJ, Ma, YT, Arora, A, et.al. Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial., Lancet Oncol, 2021. 22 (5)(5): p. 690-701., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33798493/
[744] Marabelle, Aurelien, Le, Dung T., Ascierto, Paolo A., Giacomo, Anna Maria Di, Jesus-Acosta, Ana De, Delord, Jean-Pierre, et.al. Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Noncolorectal High Microsatellite Instability/Mismatch Repair–Deficient Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study, Journal of Clinical Oncology 0(0): p. JCO.19.02105., https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.19.02105
[745] Le, D. T., Durham, J. N., Smith, K. N., Wang, H., Bartlett, B. R., Aulakh, L. K., et.al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade, Science, 2017. 357(6349): p. 409-413., https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/357/6349/409.full.pdf
[746] Le, D. T., Uram, J. N., Wang, H., Bartlett, B. R., Kemberling, H., Eyring, A. D., et.al. PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency, N Engl J Med, 2015. 372(26): p. 2509-20., https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1500596?articleTools=true
[747] Goeppert, B., Roessler, S., Renner, M., Singer, S., Mehrabi, A., Vogel, M. N., et.al. Mismatch repair deficiency is a rare but putative therapeutically relevant finding in non-liver fluke associated cholangiocarcinoma, Br J Cancer, 2019. 120(1): p. 109-114., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6325153/pdf/41416_2018_Article_199.pdf
[748] Cloyd, JM, Chun, YS, Ikoma, N, Vauthey, JN, Aloia, TA, Cuddy, A, et.al. Clinical and Genetic Implications of DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Biliary Tract Cancers Associated with Lynch Syndrome., J Gastrointest Cancer, 2018. 49 (1)(1): p. 93-96., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29238914/
[749] Zhu, AX, Macarulla, T, Javle, MM, Kelley, RK, Lubner, SJ, Adeva, J, et.al. Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial., JAMA Oncol, 2021. 7 (11)(11): p. 1669-1677., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34554208/
[750] Choi, IS, Kim, KH, Lee, JH, Suh, KJ, Kim, JW, Park, JH, et.al. A randomised phase II study of oxaliplatin/5-FU (mFOLFOX) versus irinotecan/5-FU (mFOLFIRI) chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer refractory to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy., Eur J Cancer, 2021. 154 (): p. 288-295., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34303267/
[751] Yoo, C, Kim, KP, Jeong, JH, Kim, I, Kang, MJ, Cheon, J, et.al. Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic biliary tract cancer after progression on gemcitabine plus cisplatin (NIFTY): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b study., Lancet Oncol, 2021. ():, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34656226/
[752] Zheng, Y, Tu, X, Zhao, P, Jiang, W, Liu, L, Tong, Z, et.al. A randomised phase II study of second-line XELIRI regimen versus irinotecan monotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer patients progressed on gemcitabine and cisplatin., Br J Cancer, 2018. 119 (3)(3): p. 291-295., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29955136/
[753] Vogel, A., Wenzel, P., Folprecht, G., Schütt, P., Wege, H., Kretzschmar, A., et.al. 53MO Nal-IRI and 5-FU/LV compared to 5-FU/LV in patients with cholangio- and gallbladder carcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies (NALIRICC – AIO-HEP-0116)Elsevier, Annals of Oncology, 2022. 33: p. S563 - S564., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.081
[754] Ramaswamy, A, Ostwal, V, Sharma, A, Bhargava, P, Srinivas, S, Goel, M, et.al. Efficacy of Capecitabine Plus Irinotecan vs Irinotecan Monotherapy as Second-line Treatment in Patients With Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: A Multicenter Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial (GB-SELECT)., JAMA Oncol, 2021. 7 (3)(3): p. 436-439., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33270098/