No abstract

Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) variations occur in up to approximately 20% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In the ClarIDHy trial, progression-free survival as determined by central review was significantly improved with ivosidenib vs placebo.OBJECTIVE To report the final overall survival (OS) results from the ClarIDHy trial, which aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1-vs placebo for patients with unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical phase 3 trial was conducted from February 20, 2017, to May 31, 2020, at 49 hospitals across 6 countries among patients aged 18 years or older with cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation whose disease progressed with prior therapy.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ivosidenib, 500 mg, once daily or matched placebo. Crossover from placebo to ivosidenib was permitted if patients had disease progression as determined by radiographic findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was progression-free survival as determined by blinded independent radiology center (reported previously). Overall survival was a key secondary end point. The primary analysis of OS followed the intent-to-treat principle. Other secondary end points included objective response rate, safety and tolerability, and quality of life.RESULTS Overall, 187 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 33-83 years]) were randomly assigned to receive ivosidenib (n = 126; 82 women [65%]; median age, 61 years [range, 33-80 years]) or placebo (n = 61; 37 women [61%]; median age, 63 years [range, 40-83 years]); 43 patients crossed over from placebo to ivosidenib. The primary end point of progression-free survival was reported elsewhere. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.4 months) with ivosidenib vs 7.5 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.1 months) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.56-1.12]; 1-sided P = .09). When adjusted for crossover, median OS with placebo was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.8-7.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.70]; 1-sided P < .001). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event (Ն5%) reported in both groups was ascites (11 patients [9%] receiving ivosidenib and 4 patients [7%] receiving placebo). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events considered ivosidenib related were reported in 3 patients (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Patients receiving ivosidenib reported no apparent decline in quality of life compared with placebo.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that ivosidenib was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS benefit vs placebo, despite a high rate of crossover. These data, coupled with supportive quality of life data and a tolerable safety profile, demonstrate the clinical benefit of ivosidenib for patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation.

No abstract

Most of the patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) present with advanced (inoperable or metastatic) disease, and relapse rates are high in those undergoing potentially curative resection. Previous treatment nihilism of patients with advanced disease has been replaced by active clinical research with the advent of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a much greater effort at understanding molecular mechanisms underpinning CCA. Three RCTs have recently been reported evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy following curative resection; only one of these has the potential to change practice. The BILCAP study failed to meet its primary endpoint by intention‐to‐treat analysis; however, a survival benefit was seen in a preplanned sensitivity analysis (predominantly adjusting for lymph nodes status). This, along with the numerical difference in median overall survival has led to the uptake of adjuvant capecitabine by many clinicians. In patients with advanced disease, the only level 1 data available supports the use of cisplatin and gemcitabine for the first‐line treatment of patients with advanced disease; there is no established second‐line chemotherapy. Previous forays into targeted therapy have proven unfruitful (namely targeting the epithelial growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor pathways). An increasing number of genomic subtypes are being defined; for some of these on‐target therapeutic options are under active investigation. The most developed are studies targeting IDH‐1 (isocitrate dehydrogenase) mutations and FGFR‐2 (fibroblast growth factor receptor) fusions, with promising early results. Several other pathways are under evaluation, along with early studies targeting the immune environment; these are too premature to change practice to date. These emerging treatments are discussed.

No abstract