A review of current adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma
Abstract
Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare heterogenous group of malignancies, including gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Most patients are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, and survival outcomes remain poor. This is also the case in the relatively few who undergo curative surgery. Efforts to improve patient survival outcomes have focussed on adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Adjuvant trials investigating the efficacy of systemic chemotherapy have primarily been negative to date, with challenges including compliance, recruitment rate, percentage of node-positive and R1 resections, and tumor heterogenicity observed. As reported in BILCAP, adjuvant capecitabine is currently considered the standard of care in many countries and guidelines, while chemoradiotherapy improves R1 outcomes as observed in the phase II trial SWOG S0809. Trials are ongoing to elicit the ideal combination of adjuvant treatment. Evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy continues to be based on retrospective analysis and a few phase II trials, with observed downstaging to surgery and improved R1 resection rates documented. This review documents the current evidence for systemic chemotherapy in adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of biliary tract cancers and highlights the ongoing clinical trials.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Cancers of the biliary tract include intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and gallbladder cancer (GBC). Intrahepatic CCA arises from epithelial cells distal to the second-order bile ducts, hilar CCA arises from epithelial cells at either the right and/or left hepatic duct or their junction, while distal CCA arises from epithelial cells within the common bile duct[1,2]. CCA is the second most common primary liver cancer after hepatocellular carcinoma accounting for 3% of all gastrointestinal cancers and 2% of all yearly global cancer-related deaths[2,3]. GBC is the most common biliary tract malignancy accounting for 1.2% of global cancer diagnoses[4-7].
The incidence of CCA and GBC varies between geographical regions owing to differences in genotype predisposition, environmental and modifiable risk factors, with 85 cases per 100,000 in north-east Thailand, 3.6 per 100,000 in Western Europe, and 1.6 per 100,000 in the United States of America[8,9]. However, the incidence of biliary tract cancers is steadily increasing in most western countries[10].
Identified risk factors leading to the development of intrahepatic and perihilar/distal CCA differ, with a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results-Medicare dataset suggesting an association between intrahepatic CCA and hepatitis B and C infection, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, while reporting that such associations do not exist with perihilar/distal CCA[11,12]. Factors associated with GBC include obesity, female gender, chronic inflammation of the biliary tracts as occurs in primary sclerosing cholangitis, cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, gallbladder polyps, smoking, and Salmonella and Helicobacter infections[13]. Alterations in up to 32 genes have been identified in approximately 70% of biliary tract cancers, with TP53, KRAS, and SMAD4 the most common[14,15], while potentially targetable molecular mutations have been identified in approximately 39% of biliary tracts cancers. These include ERBB2 amplification, BRAF substitution, PIK3CA substitution, FGFR1-3 fusions, CDKN2A/B loss, IDH1/2 substitution, ARID1A alteration, MET and BAP1 mutations[16,17]. Molecular heterogenicity exists with IDH1/2 mutations and FGFR2 fusions predominately identified in intrahepatic CCA relative to perihilar and distal CCA and GBC[18]. A reported 8.6% of all biliary tract cancers exhibit high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression[19]. Biomarker selection and precision treatments are likely to play an increasingly important role in optimizing care for patients with biliary tract cancers, likely validated first in advanced disease and then studied in the earlier disease settings.
Most patients are diagnosed with advanced (unresectable/metastatic) biliary tract cancer, with only 20%-30% resectable at diagnosis[20-23]. The 5-year survival remains poor at approximately 10% for CCA and 19% for GBC[3,24]. Chemotherapy is the standard of care treatment for advanced disease, with the median overall survival (OS) of 11.7 months with first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine as demonstrated in phase III clinical trial ABC-02 (NCT00262769)[25]. This trial also reported an observed response rate (ORR) of 26.1% (CCA 19%; GBC 37.7%) with doublet chemotherapy. Comparable outcomes were observed in an Asian population in the BT22 clinical trial, with both ABC-02 and BT22 then analyzed in a metanalysis by Valle et al.[26], which demonstrated consistent outcomes[27]. Keynote-158 (NCT02628067) and Keynote-028 (NCT02054806) report an ORR with pembrolizumab of 6%-13%, with similar rates observed with nivolumab (NCT02829918) in chemotherapy-refractory disease, while an ORR of 24% has been reported with combination nivolumab and ipilimumab (NCT02923934)[28-32]. All of these were non-randomized trials. For the smaller subset presenting with the localized disease, the median OS following curative surgical resection is approximately 40 months[33]. Criteria for resectability include no local vascular invasion (hepatic artery, hepatic vein, or portal vein) or local vascular invasion amenable to reconstruction, an ability to reconstruct the bile duct or achieve an R0 resection, sufficient liver volume, and no distant metastases[34,35]. Outcomes are worse in lymph-node positive (N+) disease, while a negative resection margin (R0) achieves a significantly increased median OS compared to a positive microscopic margin (R1)[36,37].
The rationale for adjuvant therapy, whether it be chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, or radiation therapy alone, has been presented in a metanalysis by Horgan et al.[38], which reported a significant benefit with any adjuvant therapy in R1 and N+ disease, of which the majority received chemotherapy. Meanwhile, neoadjuvant therapy has the potential benefit of improving the R0 resection rate, increasing the rate of receipt of systemic chemotherapy given the potential challenges of adjuvant chemotherapy, enhancing patient selection for major surgery, and facilitating in vivo assessment of chemotherapy efficacy[20]. Preoperative or “downstaging” therapy can also potentially downstage locally advanced inoperable tumors to enable resection to occur.
This review aims to report on the current evidence for adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic therapy in biliary tract cancers and discuss ongoing clinical research.
ADJUVANT THERAPY
Due to the relative rarity of biliary tract cancers, most of the evidence regarding adjuvant therapy is from phase II clinical trials and retrospective analyses, which are detailed in Table 1 with just five phase III randomized-control clinical trials reported.
Select completed clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers
| Trial name/ID/author | Year | Trial type/name | Tumor site | No. of patients | Node positive n (%) | Margin positive n (%) | Study arms | Primary endpoint | DFS* | OS* |
| Takada et al.[39] | 2002 | Phase III | CCA GBC | 118/508 112/508 | 102 (86%) 105 (94%) | NR NR | MMC + fluorouracil vs. surveillance | OS OS | 5 year 20.7% vs. 15% (P = 0.8892) 5 year: 20.3% vs. 11.6% (P = 0.021) | 5 year: 26.7% vs. 24.1% 5 year: 26% vs. 14.4% (P = 0.0367) |
| ESPAC-3 Neoptolemos et al.[40] NCT00058201 | 2012 | Phase III | dCCA | 96 of 434 | 251/434 (57.8%) | 68/434 (15.7%) | Fluorouracil or gemcitabine vs. surveillance | OS | NR | 18.3 months vs. 19.5 months vs. 27.2 months (P > 0.05) |
| BCAT Ebata et al.[41] (UMIN000000820) | 2017 | Phase III | pCCA, dCCA | 225 | 78/225 (34.7%) | 25/225 (11.1%) | Gemcitabine vs. surveillance | OS | 36 months vs. 39.9 months (P = 0.69) | 62.3 months vs. 63.8 months (P = 0.96) |
| PRODIGE 12-ACCORD-18 Edeline at al.[42] (NCT01313377) | 2019 | Phase III | CCA, GBC | 194 | 71/194 (36.6%) | 25/194 (12.9%) | GEMOX vs. surveillance | DFS | 30.4 months vs. 18.5 months (P = 0.48) | 75.8 months vs. 50.8 months (P = 0.74) |
| BILCAP Primrose et al.[43] (NCT00363584) | 2019 | Phase III | CCA, GBC | 447 | 210/447 (47%) | 168/447 (37.6%) | Capecitabine vs. surveillance | OS | IIT: 24.4 months vs. 17.5 months (P = 0.693) PP: 25.9 months vs. 17.4 months (P = 0.0093) | IIT: 51.1 months vs. 36.4 months (P = 0.097) PP: 53.0 months vs. 36.0 months (P = 0.028) |
| Kobayashi et al.[62] (UMIN000001020) | 2011 | Phase II | pCCA, dCCA, GBC, PC | 27 | NR | NR | Gemcitabine: 4-weekly vs. 3-weekly | Completion rate | 53% vs. 55% at 2 year (P = 0.83) | 71% vs. 75% at 2 year (P = 0.59) |
| SWOG S0809 Ben-Josef et al.[45] (NCT00789958) | 2014 | Phase II | pCCA, dCCA, GBC | 79 | NR | 25/79 (31.6%) | Gemcitabine + capecitabine → CRT (capecitabine) | OS | 65% at 2 year | 52% at 2 year |
| Cho et al.[63] (NCT00660699) | 2014 | Phase II | CCA, GBC | 12 (of 50) | 15/21 (71.4%) | NR | Gemcitabine + docetaxel → CRT (fluorouracil) → gemcitabine + docetaxel | AEs | 16.3 months | 27.6 months |
| Kainuma et al.[64] (UMIN000001294) | 2015 | Phase II (Feasibility study) | CCA, GBC, PC | 29 | 14/29 (48.3%) | 9/29 (31%) | Cisplatin + gemcitabine | Completion rate, AEs | 37.4 months | 60% at 4 year |
| Woo et al.[65] (NCT01043172) | 2017 | Phase II | CCA, GBC | 72 | 32/72 (44.4%) | 0 | Gemcitabine | DFS | 17.6 months | 61.2 months |
| Siebenhüner et al.[66] (NCT01073839) | 2018 | Phase II | iCCA, pCCA, GBC | 30 | 10/30 (33.3%) | 2/30 (6.7%) | Cisplatin + gemcitabine | AEs | 14.9 months | 40.6 months |
| Nakachi et al.[67] (UMIN000004051) | 2018 | Phase II | CCA, GBC, PC | 33 | 17/33 (51.5%) | 3/33 (9.1%) | S-1 | Completion rate | 18.9 months | 54.5% at 3 year |
| KHBO1208[68] (NCT01815307) | 2019 | Phase II | CCA, GBC | 70 | 32/70 (45.7%) | 12/70 (17.1%) | S-1 vs. gemcitabine | DFS | 51.4% vs. 31.4% at 2 year (P = 0.094) | 80% vs. 60% at 2 year |
| TOSBIC01 Itano et al.[69] (UMIN000009029) | 2020 | Phase II | pCCA/dCCA GBC iCCA Ampullary | 19 10 8 9 (total 46) | 20/46 (46%) | 3/46 (7%) | S-1 for 1 year vs. surveillance | Completion rate | 2 year 77.2% | 2 year 80% |
One of the earliest studies by Takada et al.[39] (2002) compared adjuvant mitomycin C plus fluorouracil followed by oral fluorouracil until recurrence to surveillance. Patients with stage II-IV adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, gallbladder, biliary tract, or ampulla of Vater were included. The primary outcome was OS. One hundred and eighteen (of 508) patients with CCA were included in the analysis, with 58 randomized to adjuvant chemotherapy and 60 to surveillance. One hundred and twelve patients with GBC were included. Sixty-nine received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 43 were randomized to surveillance. Seventy-two (61%) patients with CCA and 51 (46%) with GBC underwent curative surgery. There was no observed 5-year OS benefit in CCA patients with chemotherapy (26.7% vs. 24.1%) or disease-free survival (DFS). The 5-year OS in GBC was 26.0% vs. 14.4% (P = 0.0367) and the 5-year DFS 20.3% vs. 11.6% (P = 0.021). When stratified for curative surgery, the 5-year OS in GBC was not improved with adjuvant chemotherapy. This suggests that the observed OS benefit may result from chemotherapy administration in patients with advanced disease. This study was not powered to determine the standard of care specifically in respect to biliary tract cancers.
ESPAC-3 (2012; NCT00058201) compared fluorouracil to gemcitabine and surveillance[40]. Ninety-six of 434 patients included in this study had distal CCA, in what was a predominantly pancreatic cancer adjuvant trial conducted in Europe. The median OS with surveillance (n = 31) was 27.2 months (95%CI: 15.4-31.9), 18.3 months (95%CI: 12.9-28.7) in those who received fluorouracil (n = 31), and 19.5 months (95%CI: 16.2-36.1) in those who received gemcitabine (n = 34). No biliary-specific DFS data was presented. Multivariate regression analysis indicated a survival benefit with chemotherapy (fluorouracil and gemcitabine combined) compared to surveillance [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.57-0.98, P = 0.03], although this did not differentiate based on tumor subtype. This trial was not powered to draw specific conclusions regarding survival benefits for biliary tract cancers alone and could not offer recommendations regarding the standard of care.
The Bile Duct Cancer Adjuvant Trial [BCAT (2017; UMIN000000820)] was a Japanese study comparing gemcitabine to surveillance[41]. Patients with stage I-III perihilar and distal CCA with either an R0 or R1 resection were included. The primary endpoint was OS. Two hundred and twenty-five patients were included in the analysis, with 117 patients randomized to gemcitabine and 108 to surveillance. Seventy-eight (34.7%) were N+ and only 25 (11.1%) R1. No difference in median OS (62.3 months vs. 63.8 months; HR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.70-1.45, P = 0.964) or DFS (36 months vs. 39.9 months; HR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.66-1.32, P = 0.693) was observed. Subgroup analysis of pN0 vs. pN1, R0 vs. R1, and tumor location (hilar vs. distal) did not demonstrate survival differences between adjuvant gemcitabine and surveillance.
PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 by Edeline et al.[42] (2018; EudraCT 2008-004560-39) compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) to surveillance in localized biliary tract cancers with either an R0 or R1 resection. Ampullary cancers were excluded. The primary endpoint was DFS. One hundred and ninety-five patients were included in the analysis, 95 of whom received GEMOX, with 99 randomized to surveillance. Fifteen percent were R1 and 37% N+, with numbers balanced between both arms. Approximately 45% of those included in this trial were intrahepatic CCA. There was no observed statistical difference in DFS between the two arms, with the median DFS 30.4 months (95%CI: 15.4-43.0) with GEMOX and 18.5 months with surveillance (95%CI: 12.6-38.2) (log-rank P = 0.47). No difference in DFS was observed between GEMOX and surveillance in both R0 (HR = 0.881, 95%CI: 0.599-1.296) and R1 (HR = 0.833, 95%CI: 0.352-1.972) subgroup analysis. The median OS was 75.8 months (95%CI: 34.4-not estimable) vs. 50.8 months (95%CI: 38.0-not estimable) (HR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.7-1.66, P = 0.74). The 2-year OS was 69% vs. 76%, respectively. No difference was observed regarding OS between GEMOX and surveillance in both R0 (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.635-1.671) and R1 (HR = 1.203, 95%CI: 0.446-3.244) subgroup analysis. Subgroup analysis did not suggest any anatomical site benefited from GEMOX, with DFS (HR = 2.559, 95%CI: 1.037-6.318, P = 0.034) and OS (HR = 3.39, 95%CI: 1.169-9.83, P = 0.017) worse in GBC. The number of metastatic recurrences recorded was 41 (75%) and 43 (71%), respectively. N+ (HR = 2.31, 95%CI: 1.53-3.5, P < 0.001) and R1 (HR = 1.99, 95%CI: 1.13-3.5, P = 0.017) were both identified as independent predictors of worse survival in a multi-variate analysis. Despite a numerical benefit, the authors argued that this was a negative trial rather than underpowered and that with an OS hazard ratio of 1.08, the results did not suggest a trend towards benefit.
BILCAP (2019; EudraCT 2005-003318-13) is the largest phase III study completed, registering 430 patients with CCA or muscle-invasive GBC[43]. Patients were randomized to either capecitabine (n = 210) or surveillance (n = 220). Seventeen patients were excluded after randomization. Thirty-eight percent of patients were R1 and 47% N+. In the intention-to-treat analysis the median OS was 51.1 months (capecitabine) vs. 36.4 months (HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.63-1.04, P = 0.097) while the median DFS was 24.4 months vs. 17.5 months (adjusted HR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.58-0.98, P = 0.033). The per-protocol analysis median OS was 53.0 (capecitabine) vs. 36.0 months (adjusted HR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.58-0.97, P = 0.028) and the median DFS 25.9 months vs. 17.4 months, respectively (adjusted HR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.54-0.92, P = 0.0093). No OS benefit was observed with adjuvant capecitabine compared to surveillance in patients with an R1 resection (HR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.63-1.29) in the intention-to-treat analysis, while R0 had an HR = 0.73 (95%CI: 0.51-1.04). Fifty-five percent of patients receiving capecitabine completed eight cycles, and 46% of those who commenced treatment had at least one dose reduction. It was argued that despite the intention-to-treat analysis not achieving statistical significance regarding OS, the secondary analyses suggested that capecitabine improved survival outcomes. Adjuvant capecitabine is today accepted as a standard of care in many countries and guidelines[44] and has become the control arm on most newer randomized trials.
The phase II trial SWOG S0809 investigated gemcitabine plus capecitabine followed by chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine, and while only a single arm has been influential[45]. Seventy-nine patients received chemotherapy, with 69 completing the subsequent chemoradiotherapy. The median OS was 34 months for R0 and 35 months for R1, with the 2-year OS 67% and 60%, respectively. Median DFS was 26 months for R0 and 23 months for R1, with the 2-year DFS 54% and 48%, respectively. Thus, this trial suggested that survival outcomes of the poor prognostic R1 disease group may be improved in-line with R0 survival outcomes with the addition of chemoradiotherapy. Unfortunately, a search of clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu using the search terms “cholangiocarcinoma” or “biliary” and “adjuvant” did not identify this specific trial design has progressed to an active or completed phase III clinical trial.
Ongoing adjuvant clinical trials
There are presently 15 ongoing clinical trials investigating adjuvant chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers [Table 2]. Four separate trials are comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine to capecitabine [NCT02778308 (India), NCT02548195 (China), NCT02170090/EudraCT 2012-005078-70 (ACTICCA-1) (global), and NCT03079427 (Korea)]. These trials compare cisplatin plus gemcitabine, the current standard-of-care treatment in advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancers, as per ABC-02 to capecitabine. ACTICCA-1also includes a second randomization in R1 patients whereby chemoradiation is introduced to the treatment, replacing the final two (of eight) cycles of chemotherapy. This design has the potential to answer the chemo-intensification question and whether more tailored treatment for R1 cases improves outcomes. It has the distinction of being the largest adjuvant trial planned in biliary cancers and should give us clear answers. Also ongoing is a single phase II study investigating gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (NCT04077983), a phase III study comparing gemcitabine plus capecitabine to single-agent capecitabine (NCT03779035), a Japanese trial is investigating adjuvant S-1 (UMIN000011688), and a trial investigating the benefit of adjuvant gemcitabine following liver transplantation is being performed in Germany (EudraCT 2010-020480-21). Additionally, following the observed results from SWOG S0809, a phase III clinical trial is proposed in China comparing adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine with or without chemoradiotherapy in perihilar/distal CCA and GBC (NCT02798510). However, it is unclear if this trial has proceeded to recruitment. Three trials are investigating the combination of an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody with chemotherapy(s) (NCT04333927, NCT04782804, and NCT04295317). Clarity on the best approach awaits the completion and review of several of these important trials.
Adjuvant chemotherapy clinical trials in progress
| Trial ID/name | Location | Trial type | Tumor site | No. of patients | Intervention | Primary outcome | Status |
| NCT02170090; EudraCT 2012-005078-70 (ACTICCA-1) | Germany | Phase III | CCA, GBC | 781 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine + vs. capecitabine | DFS at 2 year | Recruiting |
| NCT03779035 | China | Phase III | CCA, GBC | 460 | Gemcitabine + capecitabine vs. capecitabine | DFS at 2 year | Recruiting |
| UMIN000011688 (JCOG1202: ASCOT)[70] | Japan | Phase III | CCA, GBC, ampulla of Vater | 440 | S-1 24 weeks vs. surveillance | OS | Recruiting |
| NCT02548195 | China | Phase III | iCCA | 286 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine vs. capecitabine | DFS | Unknown |
| NCT02798510 | China | Phase III | GBC, pCCA, dCCA | 140 | Gemcitabine/capecitabine → CRT (capecitabine) → gemcitabine/capecitabine vs. gemcitabine/capecitabine | OS at 2 year | Unknown |
| NCT03079427 | Korea | Phase II | pCCA + dCCA with regional LN metastases | 100 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine vs. capecitabine | 2 year DFS | Recruiting |
| EudraCT 2010-020480-21 | Germany | Phase II | iCCA | 45 | Gemcitabine post liver transplantation | Completion rate | Recruiting |
| NCT04333927 | China | Phase II | CCA, GBC | 92 | Camrelizumab + CRT(capecitabine) vs. surveillance | OS 2 year | Active, not recruiting |
| NCT04295317 | China | Phase II | iCCA | 65 | Anti-PD-L1 (SHR-1210) + capecitabine | DFS 2 year | Recruiting |
| NCT04077983 | China | Phase II | iCCA | 40 | Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel | DFS | Not yet recruiting |
| NCT04782804 | China | Phase I-II | iCCA | 30 | Tislelizumab + capecitabine | DFS | Recruiting |
| NCT02778308 | India | N/A | GBC | 100 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine vs. surveillance | DFS | Completed, not reported |
NEOADJUVANT AND DOWNSTAGING THERAPY
There has been a steady shift to neoadjuvant and perioperative chemotherapy in some gastrointestinal malignancies, including gastric[46] and locally advanced rectal carcinoma[47]. While improved OS is yet to be determined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, an improved R0 rate, DFS, and locoregional failure-free interval have been observed with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer[48]. Evidence supporting neoadjuvant chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy is detailed in a retrospective series of 72 patients with resected intrahepatic CCA that indicated that as few as 35% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy[49]. Furthermore, a review of 1450 patients with stage I-III CCA in the United States National Cancer Database by Yadav et al.[50] indicated that those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to attain an R0 resection compared to those who had upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (71.2% vs. 61.6%, P = 0.02).
There are no completed phase III randomized-control trials determining the survival benefit of neoadjuvant or downstaging chemotherapy, with evidence predominately obtained from retrospective analyses [Table 3]. All but two analyses assessed outcomes in patients with CCA considered unresectable at diagnosis. In addition, there are three reported non-randomized prospective studies. McMasters et al.[51] (1997) reported 9 patients who received external-beam radiation (EBRT) concurrently with fluorouracil prior to resection. An R0 resection was achieved in all patients, with a pathological complete response (pCR) reported in three[51], while Katayose et al.[52] (2015) reported on 24 patients with perihilar/distal CCA who received EBRT plus gemcitabine. An R0 resection was achieved in 80.9%. No survival outcomes were reported. The largest cohort is reported by Chaudhari et al.[53] (2018), who analyzed 160 patients with GBC treated at Tata Memorial Hospital in India between 2010 and 2016. All patients had locally advanced or borderline-resectable GBC and were treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin or GEMOX. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (2-12) with an ORR of 52.5% (pCR 10.6%). Sixty-six (41.2%) patients were offered surgery, with an R0 resection achieved in 63. The remaining 94 patients either declined surgery or their tumors progressed. The median OS was 49 months, and median DFS 25 months in those who underwent curative surgery. In addition, 61 patients (92%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, with details regarding which chemotherapy prescribed was not provided.
Selected completed clinical trials of neoadjuvant or downstaging chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers
| Study author | Year | Study type | Study arms | Tumor site | No. of patients | Resectability status presentation | Results | |||
| % R0 | ORR | DFS | OS | |||||||
| McMasters et al.[51] | 1997 | Prospective (non-randomized) | EBRT (fluorouracil) | dCCA pCCA | 4 5 (total 9) | Unresectable | 100% | 3 pCR | NA | NA |
| Nelson et al.[71] | 2009 | Retrospective | EBRT (fluorouracil) +/- brachytherapy | pCCA, dCCA | 12 | Unresectable | 91.7% | 3 pCR | NA | 34 months |
| Jung et al.[72] | 2017 | Retrospective | Fluorouracil/gemcitabine + EBRT | pCCa | 12 | Unresectable | 83.3% | NA | NA | NA |
| Katayose et al.[52] | 2015 | Prospective (non-randomized) | Gemcitabine + EBRT | dCCA, pCCA | 24 | Resectable | 80.9% | NA | NA | NA |
| Kobayashi et al.[73] | 2017 | Retrospective | EBRT (gemcitabine) → surgery v surgery | pCCA, dCCA, GBC | 106 (27 neoadjuvant CRT) | Resectable | NA | 70% | 3 year DFS 78% vs. 57% | 3 year OS 85% vs. 69% |
| Kato et al.[35] | 2013 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine | iCCA | 22 | Unresectable | 18% | 37% | NA | 45 months (resected) |
| Kato et al.[74] | 2015 | Retrospective | Cisplatin + gemcitabine | iCCA | 39 | Unresectable | 26% | 23% | NA | NA |
| Le Roy et al.[75] | 2018 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin | iCCA | 74 (39 received surgery) | Unresectable | 31% | 24% | NA | 24.1 months |
| Lunsford et al.[76] | 2018 | Prospective case series | Gemcitabine → liver transplant | iCCA | 6 | Unresectable | NA | NA | 1 year 50% | 5 year 83.3% |
| Chaudhari et al.[53] | 2018 | Prospective (non-randomized) | Cisplatin + gemcitabine OR gemcitabine + oxaliplatin | GBC | 160 | Unresectable | 95% (63/66) | 52.5% | 25 months | 49 months |
| Sumiyoshi et al.[34] | 2018 | Retrospective | IMRT (S-1) | iCCA pCCA | 7 8 | Unresectable | 9/11 (both) (82%) | 57% 37% | mDFS 21.5 months (4-40) | mOS 37 months (surgical pt) |
The “Mayo protocol” included highly selected patients with unresectable perihilar CCA. Patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by an orthotropic liver transplant. Chemoradiotherapy involved 45-55 Gy with concurrent fluorouracil for five weeks with maintenance capecitabine until transplant[54]. Analyses indicate improved locoregional control and a 5-year DFS of 60%-70% and OS of 82%[55].
Ongoing neoadjuvant and downstaging clinical trials
Currently, there are ten ongoing clinical trials identified investigating neoadjuvant and downstaging chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers, with these listed in Table 4. Four trials investigate outcomes in resectable intrahepatic CCA. NCT04546828 is a phase II study investigating cisplatin plus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, with the primary outcome the R0 rate. NCT04669496 is a phase II-III trial investigating GEMOX plus lenvatinib plus toripalimab, a PD-1 monoclonal antibody, with all patients receiving adjuvant capecitabine following resection. This is yet to commence recruitment. NCT04727541 is a phase II study investigating bintrafusp-alfa, a bivalent PD-L1/TGFβ trap fusion protein, with the primary outcome pathological response rate. NCT04523402 is a phase II study investigating GEMOX in intrahepatic CCA with high-risk lymph node metastases, with the primary outcome DFS. NCT03603834 is investigating modified FOLFOXIRI in resectable or potentially resectable CCA with ORR as the primary outcome.
Neoadjuvant and downstaging clinical trials in progress
| Trial ID/name | Location | Trial type | Tumor site | Resectability status | No. of patients | Intervention | Primary outcomes | Status |
| NCT03673072; EudraCT 2017-004444-38 (GAIN)[56] | Germany | Phase III | GBC, CCA | Incidental diagnosis post cholecystectomy | 300 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine v nil (×3 cycles) → surgery → +/- adjuvant cisplatin + gemcitabine | OS | Recruiting |
| CTRI/2016/08/007199; NCT02867865 (POLCAGB)[57] | India | Phase II-III | GBC | Unresectable without evidence of distant metastases | 314 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine v CRT (gemcitabine) → cisplatin + gemcitabine | OS | Recruiting |
| NCT03603834 | Thailand | Phase II | CCA | Resectable OR potentially resectable | 25 | mFOLFOXIRI | ORR | Recruiting |
| NCT04308174 (DEBATE) | Korea | Phase II | CCA, GBC | Resectable | 45 | Durvalumab + cisplatin + gemcitabine v cisplatin + gemcitabine | R0 rate | Recruiting |
| NCT04546828 | Korea | Phase II | iCCA with high risk recurrence features | Resectable | 34 | Cisplatin + gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel | RO rate | Not yet recruiting |
| NCT04669496 | China | iCCA with high risk recurrence features | Resectable | 178 | Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin + lenvatinib + toripalimab → surgery → adjuvant capecitabine | Event-free survival | Recruiting | |
| NCT04559139 | USA | Phase II-III | Incidental GBC | Incidental diagnosis post cholecystectomy | 186 | +/- neoadjuvant cisplatin + gemcitabine → revision surgery → adjuvant cisplatin + gemcitabine | OS (5 year) | Recruiting |
| NCT04727541 | Germany | Phase II | CCA, GBC | Resectable | 24 | Bintrafusp-alfa ×2 doses | Pathologic response rate | Not yet recruiting |
| NCT04378023 | Spain | Phase IV | pCCA | Unresectable | 34 | EBRT + capecitabine → cisplatin + gemcitabine until transplant | OS at 1, 3 and 5 year | Recruiting |
| NCT04523402 | China | Phase II | iCCA with high-risk LN metastases | Resectable | 100 | Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin | Event-free survival (24 months) | Not yet recruiting |
There are three phase III trials currently underway. NCT04559139 is a global trial comparing neoadjuvant cisplatin plus gemcitabine prior to re-resection in patients with an incidentally identified GBC following cholecystectomy to adjuvant cisplatin plus gemcitabine. GAIN (NCT03673072/EudraCT 2017-004444-38) is a phase III trial comparing perioperative cisplatin plus gemcitabine prior to re-resection of incidentally diagnosed GBC following cholecystectomy or in patients with CCA, to surgery, with all patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (investigators choice)[56].
There are two clinical trials underway investigating downstaging chemoradiotherapy in upfront unresectable disease. POLCAGB (CTRI/2016/08/007199/NCT02867865) is a phase II-III clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant cisplatin plus gemcitabine to five weeks of chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy EBRT plus gemcitabine) followed by two cycles of cisplatin plus gemcitabine[57]. In addition, NCT04378023 is investigating chemoradiotherapy (50-54 Gy EBRT plus capecitabine) followed by cisplatin plus gemcitabine until liver transplant in unresectable hilar CCA.
There is currently one phase II trial (NCT04308174) investigating the addition of durvalumab, a PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, to cisplatin plus gemcitabine in patients with localized CCA or GBC.
DISCUSSION
Cancers of the biliary tract are relatively rare, and consequently, it has been a challenge to perform phase III clinical trials investigating adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy. Of the five phase III trials assessing the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy, four were considered negative. Both ESPAC-3 and the early phase III clinical trial by Takada et al.[39] investigating mitomycin C and fluorouracil were underpowered to draw significant conclusions regarding adjuvant therapy, specifically in biliary tract cancers. BCAT did not demonstrate a benefit with adjuvant gemcitabine in perihilar or distal CCA despite efficacy in metastatic biliary tract cancers. One explanation is that treatment completion was approximately 50%, with an average dose-intensity of 80%. Additionally, despite retrospective analyses and metanalyses suggesting a definite benefit in R1 and N+ cancers, this was not observed in BCAT, although the trial was not powered to demonstrate significance in this subgroup analysis. PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 has been the only phase III clinical trial to investigate a combination of gemcitabine and platinum chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment. With ABC-02 and BT22 demonstrating that combination gemcitabine and cisplatin improved ORR, progression-free survival, and OS in metastatic disease, the theory was that GEMOX would result in improved outcomes. Despite a numerically improved DFS and OS of 12 and 25 months, respectively, neither met statistical significance. The calculated HR for DFS was 0.88, well above the pre-planned 0.6, and the OS HR was greater than 1. This supports the argument that this was a truly negative trial as opposed to being underpowered. It is concerning that this randomized trial evaluating a chemotherapy dose intensity strategy was negative. Significant clinical and genetic heterogenicity exists between tumors of the biliary tract[15,24]. The results of PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 may reflect this heterogenicity across biliary tract cancer subsites with differing benefits to systemic therapies not appreciated in the subgroup analysis of this smaller trial.
BILCAP, while not achieving its primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, did demonstrate an improved OS effect size of 14.7 months and statistically significantly improved survival in the per-protocol analysis. Like BCAT, treatment compliance was a challenge, with only 55% of patients completing the proposed eight cycles and 46% requiring at least one dose reduction. This completion rate is significantly lower than that observed in adjuvant colorectal trials highlighting the potential changed pharmacokinetics and chemotherapy tolerance following partial hepatectomy[58]. BILCAP included all biliary tract cancers except ampullary carcinomas and mucosal GBC, with this heterogenicity again potentially blunting the observed effect of adjuvant capecitabine. While there was an equal distribution between treatment arms, there are relative differences in biliary subtypes compared to some other trials, as detailed in Table 1 that may be important. Pending further data, adjuvant capecitabine has been adopted as the standard of care in many guidelines. With the current standard of care in metastatic biliary tract cancers cisplatin plus gemcitabine, the outcomes of large trials comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine to capecitabine are eagerly awaited.
In all described adjuvant trials, anatomical subtypes were combined for analysis. BILCAP and BCAT had a relatively even distribution amongst all eligible anatomical subtypes, whereas PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 was predominately intrahepatic CCA, with 20% GBC. Subgroup analysis in these trials demonstrated differences in survival relative to anatomical subtype, particularly in PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18, in which GBC exhibited a poorer survival with chemotherapy than surveillance. Therefore, it is likely that the mixing of distinctly different histological and genetic subtypes limits the interpretation of survival benefits with adjuvant chemotherapy.
Consistently across all trials, patients with R1 resections were observed to have poorer survival outcomes. In PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18, the DFS and OS hazard ratios for R1 patients who received GEMOX were similar to that of surveillance, an observation reiterated for OS in BILCAP. SWOG S0809 demonstrated that with the addition of chemoradiotherapy, R1 tumors could potentially achieve comparable DFS and OS to that in R0 tumors. This suggests that R1 tumors specifically may benefit from adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy. The ACTICCA-1 trial, which is currently recruiting with an estimated study completion early 2023, may go some way to answer this.
In respect to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, current evidence is sourced from retrospective analyses and three phase II trials. The population is highly selected in these analyses and is generally considered unresectable at diagnosis. With satisfactory R0 resection rates reported, there is a suggestion that systemic chemotherapy may have a role in downstaging a tumor to enable an attempt at curative resection. However, completion of the neoadjuvant trials currently underway is required to draw any further conclusions. The benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival outcomes in those considered resectable at diagnoses remains less clear.
The survival benefits of anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies in both adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment remain unanswered. While there is minimal evidence of a significant ORR in metastatic biliary tract cancers, particularly with single agent treatment, the IMbrave150 clinical trial demonstrated a significantly improved OS in hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, offering hope that immunotherapy, particularly in combination with other targeted agents or chemotherapy may improve outcomes[59,60]. Furthermore, at this point, while targeted therapies such as FGFR inhibitors show promise in metastatic intrahepatic CCA[61], evidence is lacking to support their use in either adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. Targeted treatment is attractive but establishing the optimal standard of care with chemotherapy remains an unanswered and more pertinent question. Chemotherapy should then also serve as the backbone on which to add or compare with targeted agents.
CONCLUSION
Biliary tract cancers are a heterogenous group of cancers. Few phase III adjuvant trials have been completed, with only BILCAP suggesting a survival benefit with capecitabine. Several trials are ongoing, including ACTICCA-1 comparing capecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin, the current standard of care in advanced and metastatic disease. This trial has the added possibility of demonstrating benefit with chemoradiotherapy in R1 disease. While evidence exists suggesting systemic chemotherapy, either alone or in combination with radiotherapy, may downstage unresectable biliary tracts cancers resulting in surgery, the benefit of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable tumors is less clear. What is evident in reviewing the literature is that significant improvements in the management of potentially curable biliary tract cancers have not been eventuated and that more work needs to be done. Given the rarity and difficulty in performing large, statistically powered clinical trials, collaborations between research groups around the world are necessary to drive an improvement in patient outcomes.
DECLARATIONS
AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to acknowledge Kelly D for her review and input regarding the final draft.
Authors’ contributionsResearch and manuscript design: Allen MJ
Drafted the manuscript: Allen MJ
Draft edits and final manuscript preparation: Allen MJ, Knox JJ
Availability of data and materialsNot applicable.
Financial support and sponsorshipNone.
Conflicts of interestBoth authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participateNot applicable.
Consent for publicationNot applicable.
Copyright© The Author(s) 2021.
REFERENCES
1. Lee DH, Lee JM. Primary malignant tumours in the non-cirrhotic liver. Eur J Radiol 2017;95:349-61.
2. Banales JM, Marin JJG, Lamarca A, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;17:557-88.
3. Bergquist A, von Seth E. Epidemiology of cholangiocarcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2015;29:221-32.
4. Rawla P, Sunkara T, Thandra KC, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of gallbladder cancer. Clin Exp Hepatol 2019;5:93-102.
5. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Miquel JF, Muñoz N, et al. Epidemiology and molecular pathology of gallbladder cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2001;51:349-64.
6. Oneda E, Abu Hilal M, Zaniboni A. Biliary tract cancer: current medical treatment strategies. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:1237.
7. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424.
9. Khan SA, Tavolari S, Brandi G. Cholangiocarcinoma: epidemiology and risk factors. Liver Int 2019;39 Suppl 1:19-31.
10. Saha SK, Zhu AX, Fuchs CS, Brooks GA. Forty-year trends in cholangiocarcinoma incidence in the U.S.: intrahepatic disease on the rise. Oncologist 2016;21:594-9.
11. Bertuccio P, Malvezzi M, Carioli G, et al. Global trends in mortality from intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 2019;71:104-14.
12. Petrick JL, Yang B, Altekruse SF, et al. Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a population-based study in SEER-medicare. PLoS One 2017;12:e0186643.
13. Kanthan R, Senger JL, Ahmed S, Kanthan SC. Gallbladder cancer in the 21st century. J Oncol 2015;2015:967472.
14. Tewari M, Agarwal A, Mishra RR, Meena RN, Shukla HS. Epigenetic changes in carcinogenesis of gallbladder. Indian J Surg Oncol 2013;4:356-61.
15. Wardell CP, Fujita M, Yamada T, et al. Genomic characterization of biliary tract cancers identifies driver genes and predisposing mutations. J Hepatol 2018;68:959-69.
16. Bridgewater JA, Goodman KA, Kalyan A, Mulcahy MF. Biliary tract cancer: epidemiology, radiotherapy, and molecular profiling. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016;35:e194-203.
17. Goldstein D, Lemech C, Valle J. New molecular and immunotherapeutic approaches in biliary cancer. ESMO Open 2017;2:e000152.
18. Crispo F, Pietrafesa M, Condelli V, et al. IDH1 targeting as a new potential option for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treatment-current state and future perspectives. Molecules 2020;25:3754.
19. Ahn S, Lee JC, Shin DW, Kim J, Hwang JH. High PD-L1 expression is associated with therapeutic response to pembrolizumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Sci Rep 2020;10:12348.
20. Akateh C, Ejaz AM, Pawlik TM, Cloyd JM. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Hepatol 2020;12:693-708.
21. Rizzo A, Brandi G. Neoadjuvant therapy for cholangiocarcinoma: a comprehensive literature review. Cancer Treat Res Commun 2021;27:100354.
22. Valle JW, Lamarca A, Goyal L, Barriuso J, Zhu AX. New horizons for precision medicine in biliary tract cancers. Cancer Discov 2017;7:943-62.
23. Belkouz A, Wilmink JW, Haj Mohammad N, et al. Advances in adjuvant therapy of biliary tract cancer: an overview of current clinical evidence based on phase II and III trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2020;151:102975.
24. Personeni N, Lleo A, Pressiani T, et al. Biliary tract cancers: molecular heterogeneity and new treatment options. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:3370.
25. Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. ABC-02 Trial Investigators. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1273-81.
26. Valle JW, Furuse J, Jitlal M, et al. Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials. Ann Oncol 2014;25:391-8.
27. Okusaka T, Nakachi K, Fukutomi 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;103:469-74.
28. Kim RD, Chung V, Alese OB, et al. A phase 2 multi-institutional study of nivolumab for patients with advanced refractory biliary tract cancer. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:888-94.
29. Kang J, Jeong JH, Hwang HS, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with refractory advanced biliary tract cancer: tumor proportion score as a potential biomarker for response. Cancer Res Treat 2020;52:594-603.
30. Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, et al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:1-10.
31. Piha-Paul SA, Oh DY, Ueno M, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced biliary cancer: results from the KEYNOTE-158 and KEYNOTE-028 studies. Int J Cancer 2020;147:2190-8.
32. Klein O, Kee D, Nagrial A, et al. Evaluation of combination nivolumab and ipilimumab immunotherapy in patients with advanced biliary tract cancers: subgroup analysis of a phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:1405-9.
33. van Vugt JLA, Gaspersz MP, Coelen RJS, et al. The prognostic value of portal vein and hepatic artery involvement in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2018;20:83-92.
34. Sumiyoshi T, Shima Y, Okabayashi T, et al. Chemoradiotherapy for initially unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg 2018;42:2910-8.
35. Kato A, Shimizu H, Ohtsuka M, et al. Surgical resection after downsizing chemotherapy for initially unresectable locally advanced biliary tract cancer: a retrospective single-center study. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:318-24.
36. Le VH, O'Connor VV, Li D, Melstrom LG, Fong Y, DiFronzo AL. Outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy for cholangiocarcinoma: a review of existing evidence assessing treatment response and R0 resection rate. J Surg Oncol 2021;123:164-71.
37. Yeh CN, Hsieh FJ, Chiang KC, et al. Clinical effect of a positive surgical margin after hepatectomy on survival of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Drug Des Devel Ther 2015;9:163-74.
38. Horgan AM, Amir E, Walter T, Knox JJ. Adjuvant therapy in the treatment of biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1934-40.
39. Takada T, Amano H, Yasuda H, et al. Study Group of Surgical Adjuvant Therapy for Carcinomas of the Pancreas and Biliary Tract. Is postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy useful for gallbladder carcinoma? Cancer 2002;95:1685-95.
40. Neoptolemos JP, Moore MJ, Cox TF, et al. European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer. Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial. JAMA 2012;308:147-56.
41. Ebata T, Hirano S, Konishi M, et al. Bile Duct Cancer Adjuvant Trial (BCAT) Study Group. Randomized clinical trial of adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy versus observation in resected bile duct cancer. Br J Surg 2018;105:192-202.
42. Edeline J, Benabdelghani M, Bertaut A, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy or surveillance in resected biliary tract cancer (PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18-UNICANCER GI): a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:658-67.
43. Primrose JN, Fox RP, Palmer DH, et al. Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:663-73.
44. Shroff RT, Kennedy EB, Bachini M, et al. Adjuvant therapy for resected biliary tract cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:1015-27.
45. Ben-Josef E, Guthrie KA, El-Khoueiry AB, et al. SWOG S0809: a phase II intergroup trial of adjuvant capecitabine and gemcitabine followed by radiotherapy and concurrent capecitabine in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2617-22.
46. Al-batran S, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019;393:1948-57.
47. Kasi A, Abbasi S, Handa S, et al. Total neoadjuvant therapy vs standard therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2030097.
48. Versteijne E, Suker M, Groothuis K, et al. Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: results of the dutch randomized phase III PREOPANC trial. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:1763-73.
49. Ercolani G, Vetrone G, Grazi GL, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: primary liver resection and aggressive multimodal treatment of recurrence significantly prolong survival. Ann Surg 2010;252:107-14.
50. Yadav S, Xie H, Bin-Riaz I, et al. Neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019;45:1432-8.
51. Mcmasters KM, Tuttle TM, Leach SD, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Surg 1997;174:605-9.
52. Katayose Y, Nakagawa K, Yoshida H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for cholangiocarcinoma to improve R0 resection rate: the first report of phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:402-402.
53. Chaudhari VA, Ostwal V, Patkar S, et al. Outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in "locally advanced/borderline resectable" gallbladder cancer: the need to define indications. HPB (Oxford) 2018;20:841-7.
54. De Vreede I, Steers JL, Burch PA, et al. Prolonged disease-free survival after orthotopic liver transplantation plus adjuvant chemoirradiation for cholangiocarcinoma. Liver Transpl 2000;6:309-16.
55. Zaborowski A, Heneghan HM, Fiore B, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and liver transplantation for unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: the irish experience of the mayo protocol. Transplantation 2020;104:2097-104.
56. Goetze TO, Bechstein WO, Bankstahl US, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin followed by radical liver resection versus immediate radical liver resection alone with or without adjuvant chemotherapy in incidentally detected gallbladder carcinoma after simple cholecystectomy or in front of radical resection of BTC (ICC/ECC) - a phase III study of the German registry of incidental gallbladder carcinoma platform (GR) - the AIO/CALGP/ACO-GAIN-trial. BMC Cancer 2020;20:122.
57. Engineer R, Patkar S, Lewis SC, et al. A phase III randomised clinical trial of perioperative therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy) in locally advanced gallbladder cancers (POLCAGB): study protocol. BMJ Open 2019;9:e028147.
58. Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP, et al. Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2696-704.
59. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. IMbrave150 Investigators. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1894-905.
60. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. IMbrave150: Updated overall survival (OS) data from a global, randomized, open-label phase III study of atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) versus sorafenib (sor) in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). J Clin Oncol 2021;39:267.
61. Goyal L, Kongpetch S, Crolley VE, Bridgewater J. Targeting FGFR inhibition in cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev 2021;95:102170.
62. Kobayashi S, Miyamoto A, Shimizu J, et al. Comparison of 4-weekly vs 3-weekly gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy following curative resection for biliary tract cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Journal of Cancer Therapy 2011;02:703-9.
63. Cho M, Wang-Gillam A, Myerson R, et al. A phase II study of adjuvant gemcitabine plus docetaxel followed by concurrent chemoradation in resected pancreaticobiliary carcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:587-93.
64. Kainuma O, Miura F, Furukawa D, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination therapy after curative resection for biliary tract cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015;22:789-94.
65. Woo SM, Yoon K, Hong EK, et al. DCK expression, a potential predictive biomarker in the adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer after surgical resection: results from a phase II study. Oncotarget 2017;8:81394-404.
66. Siebenhüner AR, Seifert H, Bachmann H, et al. Adjuvant treatment of resectable biliary tract cancer with cisplatin plus gemcitabine: a prospective single center phase II study. BMC Cancer 2018;18:72.
67. Nakachi K, Konishi M, Ikeda M, et al. Feasibility study of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 in patients with biliary tract cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2018;23:894-9.
68. Kobayashi S, Nagano H, Tomokuni A, et al. Kansai Hepato-Biliary Oncology (KHBO) Group. A prospective, randomized phase II study of adjuvant gemcitabine versus S-1 after major hepatectomy for biliary tract cancer (KHBO 1208): kansai hepato-biliary oncology group. Ann Surg 2019;270:230-7.
69. Itano O, Takemura Y, Kishida N, et al. A prospective feasibility study of one-year administration of adjuvant S-1 therapy for resected biliary tract cancer in a multi-institutional trial (Tokyo Study Group for Biliary Cancer: TOSBIC01). BMC Cancer 2020;20:688.
70. Nakachi K, Konishi M, Ikeda M, et al. Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. A randomized phase III trial of adjuvant S-1 therapy vs. observation alone in resected biliary tract cancer: Japan clinical oncology group study (JCOG1202, ASCOT). Jpn J Clin Oncol 2018;48:392-5.
71. Nelson JW, Ghafoori AP, Willett CG, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in resected extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:148-53.
72. Jung JH, Lee HJ, Lee HS, et al. Benefit of neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23:3301-8.
73. Kobayashi S, Tomokuni A, Gotoh K, et al. A retrospective analysis of the clinical effects of neoadjuvant combination therapy with full-dose gemcitabine and radiation therapy in patients with biliary tract cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43:763-71.
74. Kato A, Shimizu H, Ohtsuka M, et al. Downsizing chemotherapy for initially unresectable locally advanced biliary tract cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination therapy followed by radical surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22 Suppl 3:S1093-9.
75. Le Roy B, Gelli M, Pittau G, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2018;105:839-47.
Cite This Article
Export citation file: BibTeX | RIS
OAE Style
Allen MJ, Knox JJ. A review of current adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Hepatoma Res 2021;7:73. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2021.98
AMA Style
Allen MJ, Knox JJ. A review of current adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Hepatoma Research. 2021; 7: 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2021.98
Chicago/Turabian Style
Allen, Michael J., Jennifer J. Knox. 2021. "A review of current adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma" Hepatoma Research. 7: 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2021.98
ACS Style
Allen, MJ.; Knox JJ. A review of current adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Hepatoma. Res. 2021, 7, 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2021.98
About This Article
Special Issue
Copyright
Data & Comments
Data
Cite This Article 22 clicks
Like This Article 22
likes
Comments
Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.