Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2019: The 3rd English edition

The genomes of cancers deficient in mismatch repair contain exceptionally high numbers of somatic mutations. In a proof-of-concept study, we previously showed that colorectal cancers with mismatch repair deficiency were sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade with antibodies to programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1). We have now expanded this study to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in patients with advanced mismatch repair-deficient cancers across 12 different tumor types. Objective radiographic responses were observed in 53% of patients, and complete responses were achieved in 21% of patients. Responses were durable, with median progression-free survival and overall survival still not reached. Functional analysis in a responding patient demonstrated rapid in vivo expansion of neoantigen-specific T cell clones that were reactive to mutant neopeptides found in the tumor. These data support the hypothesis that the large proportion of mutant neoantigens in mismatch repair-deficient cancers make them sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade, regardless of the cancers' tissue of origin.

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

There is no established standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. We initially conducted a randomized, phase 2 study involving 86 patients to compare cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine alone. After we found an improvement in progression-free survival, the trial was extended to the phase 3 trial reported here. We randomly assigned 410 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary cancer to receive either cisplatin (25 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles) or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks for six cycles) for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months and 327 deaths, the median overall survival was 11.7 months among the 204 patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 8.1 months among the 206 patients in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 5.0 months in the gemcitabine-only group (P<0.001). In addition, the rate of tumor control among patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group was significantly increased (81.4% vs. 71.8%, P=0.049). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, with the exception of more neutropenia in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group; the number of neutropenia-associated infections was similar in the two groups. As compared with gemcitabine alone, cisplatin plus gemcitabine was associated with a significant survival advantage without the addition of substantial toxicity. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is an appropriate option for the treatment of patients with advanced biliary cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262769.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society