Comparison of neoadjuvant treatment modalities for locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Esteban Garita,Muhammad Mohid Tahir,Santiago Sucre,Juan Jose Juarez,Mary Linton Bounetheau Peters,Ammar Sarwar,Andrea J. Bullock
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.510
IF: 45.3
2024-01-20
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:510 Background: The only curative therapy available for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) is resection. Nonetheless, most patients (pts) are diagnosed at a more advanced stage. In this population, using neoadjuvant treatment—locoregional therapies, systemic chemotherapy, or a combination—may improve survival outcomes and downstage them to resectable. We present data comparing survival outcomes (median overall survival [mOS], median progression-free survival [mPFS]) and resection rate (RR) among pts with locally advanced IHCC who received chemotherapy (CT-only), Y90-TARE with chemotherapy (Y90+CT) or Y90-TARE alone (Y90-only) as neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all pts from October 2015 to December 2022 with biopsy-proven IHCC was completed. Exclusion criteria included ECOG ≥ 2, stage IV extrahepatic disease, and having received previous treatment for IHCC. We defined the Y90+CT arm as pts who received ≤ 4 cycles before Y90 or chemotherapy < 8 weeks after Y90. Statistical analysis was performed with Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival calculations and a Log-rank test to compare the arms. Survival is reported as median and 95% confidence interval [CI]. Results: A total of 56 pts were included: 23 pts in the CT-only arm, 15 in the Y90+CT arm, and 18 in the Y90-only arm. The median age at diagnosis was 69 years (IQR 59-74), and 54% were male. There was no statistically significant difference in age at diagnosis or sex between the three arms. RR was 1/23 (4%), 5/10 (50%), and 7/11 (64%) in the CT-only, Y90+CT, and Y90-only arms, respectively (CT-only vs. Y90+CT, p<0.03; CT-only vs. Y90-only, p=0.01). mOS and mPFS for the cohort were 16.3 months [15.3–17.3] and 7.4 months [5.1–9.6]. Per arm, the mOS were 12.4 months [10.1—14.6], 24.3 months [23.3—25.3], and 24.3 months [23.0—25.6] for CT-only, Y90+CT, and Y90-only arms, respectively (CT-only vs. Y90+CT, p<0.03; CT-only vs. Y90-only, p<0.01). The mPFS were 3.5 months [1.1—5.9], 6.2 months [3.8—8.6], and 10.5 months [8.3—12.6], respectively (CT-only vs. Y90-only, p<0.01; Y90+CT vs. Y90-only, p<0.02). Conclusions: In the neoadjuvant setting, including Y90 as a treatment modality may improve survival outcomes and resection rates compared to using chemotherapy alone. Further analysis will include running the Cox multivariate regression model to control for factors that may affect treatment selection in this population.
oncology