Distal bile duct cholangiocarcinoma

Overview

Distal bile duct cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) is a malignant epithelial neoplasm arising from the cholangiocytes lining the extrahepatic bile duct, specifically the segment distal to the cystic duct insertion. It represents approximately 20–30% of all cholangiocarcinomas (the remainder being perihilar/hilar—Klatskin tumors—and intrahepatic). Unlike its proximal counterparts, dCCA arises in the portion of the bile duct that traverses the pancreas and duodenum before emptying into the ampulla of Vater.

Because of its anatomical location, dCCA frequently presents earlier than proximal tumors due to obstructive jaundice, offering a potential window for curative-intent surgical resection. However, it remains an aggressive disease with a propensity for perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis, and local recurrence. The standard of care for resectable disease is pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure), often complemented by adjuvant chemotherapy.

Anatomy and Classification: Defining “Distal”

To understand dCCA, one must understand the biliary anatomy. The common bile duct (CBD) is conventionally divided into thirds:

1. Supraduodenal (Proximal): Above the duodenum.
2. Retroduodenal (Middle): Behind the first part of the duodenum.
3. Infraduodenal/Pancreatic (Distal): Behind the duodenum, running through the head of the pancreas to the ampulla.

dCCA originates in the distal third (retroduodenal and pancreatic segments). The Bismuth-Corlette classification is used for hilar tumors; for distal tumors, the AJCC/UICC TNM Staging System (8th Edition) is the standard prognostic tool.

Tumors arising within 1–2 cm of the ampulla can be difficult to distinguish from ampullary adenocarcinoma, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or duodenal adenocarcinoma. This “peri-ampullary” region requires careful histopathological analysis (immunohistochemistry) to determine the primary site, as prognosis and treatment nuances differ.

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

Cholangiocarcinoma is rare, with an incidence of 1–2 per 100,000 in Western countries, though rates are significantly higher in Southeast Asia (e.g., Thailand, Korea) due to liver fluke infestation. Distal tumors account for roughly 20–30% of all CCA cases.

Established Risk Factors

Note: The majority of dCCA cases are sporadic** with no identifiable risk factor.

Pathophysiology and Molecular Biology

dCCA arises via a stepwise progression: Normal Epithelium → Biliary Intraepithelial Neoplasia (BilIN) → Invasive Carcinoma.

Molecular Landscape (Distal vs. Proximal/Intrahepatic)

While sharing common driver mutations, dCCA clusters molecularly closer to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) than to intrahepatic CCA (iCCA).

Clinical Takeaway: Broad Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) is recommended for all advanced/metastatic dCCA patients to identify actionable targets (HER2, MSI-H, NTRK, RET, BRAF V600E), as the “basket trial” approach has yielded approved therapies.

Clinical Presentation: Symptoms

The clinical presentation of dCCA is predominantly driven by mechanical obstruction of the common bile duct. Because the distal CBD has a larger diameter and distensibility compared to the hepatic ducts, significant obstruction (often >50-75% lumen occlusion) is usually required before symptoms manifest.

1. Obstructive Jaundice (The Hallmark Sign)

• Prevalence: > 90% of patients at diagnosis.
• Characteristics: Progressive, painless, deep yellow/orange discoloration of skin and sclera.
• Mechanism: Bilirubin reflux into systemic circulation due to blocked excretion.
• Associated Signs:
• Pruritus (Itching): Often severe, worse at night, due to bile salt deposition in skin and central opioid modulation. Can precede visible jaundice.
• Dark Urine (Coluria): Bilirubinuria (conjugated bilirubin is water-soluble).
• Pale Stools (Acholia): Lack of stercobilin (bilirubin metabolite) in the gut.

2. Abdominal Pain

• Prevalence: 30–50%.
• Characteristics: Often vague, dull, epigastric or right upper quadrant (RUQ). May radiate to the back (suggesting pancreatic invasion or celiac plexus involvement).
• Differentiation: Unlike acute choledocholithiasis (gallstones), the pain is usually constant and progressive, not colicky/intermittent.

3. Constitutional / Systemic Symptoms

• Weight Loss: Unintentional, >10% body weight in 3–6 months (cachexia, anorexia, malabsorption).
• Anorexia / Early Satiety: Mechanical compression of stomach/duodenum or cytokine-driven cachexia.
• Fatigue: Multifactorial (anemia, renal impairment, cytokine release, biliary sepsis).

4. Cholangitis (Acute Biliary Infection)

• Prevalence: 10–20% at presentation (higher if prior biliary stenting/instrumentation).
• Charcot’s Triad: Fever/Rigors + Jaundice + RUQ Pain (~50-70% sensitive).
• Reynolds’ Pentad: Charcot’s Triad + Hypotension (Septic Shock) + Altered Mental Status.
• Risk: Prior ERCP/stenting alters biliary flora (Enterobacteriaceae, Enterococcus, Pseudomonas), making infections harder to treat.

5. Malabsorption Signs (Late/Advanced)

• Steatorrhea: Foul-smelling, floating, oily stools due to pancreatic enzyme insufficiency (tumor invading pancreatic duct/parenchyma) or bile acid deficiency.
• Fat-soluble Vitamin Deficiency: Vitamins A, D, E, K (especially Vitamin K → coagulopathy).

6. Rare / Paraneoplastic Presentations

• Troussseau’s Syndrome: Migratory thrombophlebitis / venous thromboembolism (VTE).
• Courvoisier’s Sign: Palpable, non-tender, distended gallbladder in the presence of jaundice. Pathognomonic for malignant obstruction (vs. stone disease where fibrosis prevents distension). Present in ~25-50% of dCCA.

“How Does It Look”: Imaging, Endoscopic, and Pathological Appearance

This section details the visual phenotype of dCCA across diagnostic modalities. Recognizing these patterns is critical for diagnosis, staging, and surgical planning.

1. Cross-Sectional Imaging (CT & MRI/MRCP)

Computed Tomography (CT) – Multiphasic Pancreatic Protocol

• Primary Tumor Appearance:
• Mass-forming (Nodular): Most common (~60-70%). Soft-tissue attenuation mass centered on the distal CBD, often invading the pancreatic head (“pancreatic head mass” mimic).
• Periductal Infiltrating (Sclerosing): Concentric or eccentric wall thickening of the CBD (>3-4mm) without a discrete mass. “Rind-like” enhancement. Harder to detect; look for abrupt duct caliber change.
• Intraductal Growth (Papillary): Rare. Polypoid lesion projecting into lumen; may cause ball-valve obstruction.
• Enhancement Pattern: Hypovascular (hypoenhancing) on arterial phase; progressive/delayed enhancement on portal venous/delayed phases due to dense desmoplastic stroma (fibrosis). This delayed enhancement helps differentiate from hypervascular metastases (e.g., RCC, Neuroendocrine) or PDAC (which enhances less).
• Key Local Invasion Signs (Unresectability Markers):
• Vascular: Encasement (>180°) or occlusion of Superior Mesenteric Vein (SMV), Portal Vein (PV), Hepatic Artery (HA), Celiac Axis, or Superior Mesenteric Artery (SMA).
• Ductal: Abrupt cutoff of CBD with proximal dilatation (Mild/Moderate/Marked). Note: Atrophy of the lateral segment of left lobe (segment II/III) with hypertrophy of right lobe suggests chronicity/proximal extension.
• Nodal: Peripancreatic, pericholedochal, hepatic artery, celiac, SMA nodes > 1 cm short axis.

MRI / MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography) – Gold Standard for Ductal Mapping

• Superiority: Non-invasive, no radiation, excellent soft tissue contrast, visualizes biliary tree fluid (T2 hyperintense) without contrast.
• “How it looks” on MRCP:
• Abrupt Stricture: Sharp transition from dilated proximal duct (>10-12mm CBD) to normal/collapsed distal duct.
• Irregular Margins: “Rat-tail” tapering vs. smooth tapering (benign stricture).
• Shouldering: Bulging of the duct wall at the tumor margins.
• Intraductal Signal: Tumor tissue is typically T2 hypointense (cellular/fibrotic) vs. bile (T2 bright). Papillary tumors may show T2 hyperintense fronds.
• Hepatobiliary Contrast Agents (Gd-EOB-DTPA/Gd-BOPTA): Tumors lack hepatocytes → no uptake (hypointense) on hepatobiliary phase (20 min), while background liver enhances. Improves detection of small liver metastases (<1cm).

2. Invasive Imaging & Endoscopy

ERCP (Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography)

• Role: Primarily therapeutic (stenting) + diagnostic (brushing/biopsy).
• Fluoroscopic Appearance:
• Stricture Morphology: Long (>1-2cm), irregular, ulcerated, “ragged” margins.
• Contrast Hold-up: Delayed drainage.
• Double Duct Sign: Simultaneous stricturing of CBD and Main Pancreatic Duct (MPD) at the ampulla. Highly suggestive of peri-ampullary malignancy (dCCA, Ampullary, or Pancreatic Head Ca).
• Intraductal Ultrasound (IDUS) / Probe-based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (pCLE):
• IDUS: High-frequency probe (12-20MHz) inside duct. Shows hypoechoic mass replacing duct wall, loss of normal 3-layer wall architecture (mucosa, fibromuscular, adventitia). Assesses depth of invasion (T-stage) and nodal status (accuracy >85% for T, ~70% for N).
• pCLE: Real-time cellular imaging. “Dark cells” (tumor) vs. organized vascular network (normal). Increases biopsy yield.

EUS (Endoscopic Ultrasound) – Best for T/N Staging & Tissue Acquisition

• Tumor Appearance: Hypoechoic, heterogeneous mass arising from the bile duct wall, distinct from pancreatic parenchyma (though often inseparable).
• Layer Assessment: EUS visualizes the 5-layer gut wall + bile duct wall. Loss of the hyperechoic submucosa/fibromuscular layer = T2/T3 invasion.
• Vascular Assessment: Direct visualization of SMA/SMV/PV/Hepatic Artery contact/encasement.
• FNA/FNB (Fine Needle Aspiration/Biopsy): Diagnostic yield 85-95% (core biopsy/FNB preferred for histology/architecture + NGS). Caution: Theoretical risk of needle-track seeding (rare, <1%), but generally accepted for unresectable/neoadjuvant candidates. Avoid if Whipple planned upfront without tissue dx if imaging is classic.

3. Gross Pathology (Macroscopic “How it looks”)

Cut Surface: Grey-white, firm/gritty (desmoplasia), gritty sound on sectioning. Necrosis/hemorrhage rare unless large/outgrown blood supply.

4. Microscopic Pathology (Histology & IHC)

• Histologic Type: >95% are Adenocarcinomas (mucin-producing glandular).
• Subtypes: Tubular, Papillary, Mucinous, Signet-ring cell (aggressive), Poorly differentiated.
• Precursor Lesions: BilIN (Biliary Intraepithelial Neoplasia) graded 1-3 (low/high grade dysplasia). Intraductal Papillary Neoplasm of Bile Duct (IPNB) for papillary type.
• Key Histologic Features of Malignancy:
• Glandular crowding, back-to-back glands.
• Perineural Invasion (PNI): >80-90%. Hallmark of CCA. Major route of spread/recurrence.
• Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI).
• Desmoplastic stroma (stellate cells).
• Atypical mitoses.
• Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Panel – Differentiating dCCA from Mimics:

Diagnostic Algorithm: If CK7+/CK20+/CDX2- → favors Pancreatobiliary origin (dCCA or PDAC). If SMAD4 Retained + PNI prominent → favors dCCA. If SMAD4 Lost → favors PDAC. If CK20+/CDX2+/CK7- → Ampullary Intestinal / Colorectal Met**. *Correlation with imaging epicenter is mandatory.

Diagnostic Workup: Step-by-Step Algorithm

1. Clinical Suspicion: Painless jaundice ± weight loss ± Courvoisier’s sign.
2. Laboratory Baseline:

• LFTs: ↑ Direct Bilirubin, ↑ ALP, ↑ GGT (Cholestatic pattern). ALT/AST mildly ↑.
• Tumor Markers: CA 19-9 (Sensitivity ~70-80%, Specificity ~80% if bilirubin normal). CEA (Adjunct). Interpret CA 19-9 only after biliary drainage (bilirubin < 2-3 mg/dL) to avoid false highs from cholestasis. Lewis antigen negative patients (5-10%) cannot produce CA 19-9.
• Coagulation: PT/INR (Vit K deficiency correctable).
• CBC, Renal Function, Electrolytes.

1. Imaging (Staging):

• Contrast-enhanced Chest/Abdomen/Pelvis CT (Pancreatic Protocol): First line. Assess resectability (Vascular + Nodal + Mets).
• MRI/MRCP: If CT equivocal on ductal anatomy, vascular involvement, or liver mets.
• PET-CT: Not routine for initial staging (false neg in small/ mucinous tumors; false pos in cholangitis). Indicated: Equivocal nodes/mets on CT, pre-op for borderline resectable, restaging post-neoadjuvant.

1. Biliary Drainage (Pre-operative):

• Routine pre-op drainage is CONTROVERSIAL.
• Current Guidelines (ESMO/NCCN/ASCO): Avoid routine drainage if surgery planned within 1-2 weeks and bilirubin < 15-20 mg/dL (no sepsis, no neoadjuvant planned).
• Indications for Drainage: Cholangitis, bilirubin > 15-20 mg/dL (risk of renal/hepatic dysfunction), neoadjuvant therapy planned (>4-6 weeks), severe pruritus/malnutrition, delayed surgery.
• Method: ERCP with plastic stent(s) preferred (metal stents complicate surgery/tissue planes). Single 10Fr stent usually sufficient.

1. Tissue Diagnosis:

• Resectable + No Neoadjuvant: Surgery first (no biopsy needed) if imaging classic. Avoids seeding/delay.
• Borderline/Unresectable / Neoadjuvant Planned / Diagnostic Uncertainty: EUS-FNA/FNB (Preferred) or ERCP Brushing/Biopsy (Lower yield ~30-50% for brushing).

1. Genomic Profiling (NGS): Mandatory for Advanced/Metastatic disease (Tissue or Liquid Biopsy/ctDNA).

Staging: AJCC 8th Edition (Distal Bile Duct)

Staging applies only to the distal extrahepatic bile duct (below cystic duct insertion).

T Category (Primary Tumor)

N Category (Regional Lymph Nodes)

Regional Nodes: Pericholedochal, hepatic artery, portal vein, pancreaticoduodenal, common hepatic artery, celiac, superior mesenteric artery.

M Category (Distant Metastasis)

Stage Grouping (Prognostic)

Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Treatment decisions are made in a Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (MDT).

1. Resectable Disease (Upfront Surgery)

Standard Procedure: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD / Whipple Procedure).

• Extent: En-bloc resection of: Distal CBD, Head of Pancreas, Duodenum (1st/2nd part), Gallbladder, Distal Stomach (antrectomy – classic) or Pylorus-Preserving (PPPD – standard now), Proximal Jejunum.
• Lymphadenectomy: Standard (D2-equivalent): Stations 12a, 12b, 12p, 13a, 13b, 14a, 14b, 17a, 17b. Minimum 12-15 nodes for accurate staging.
• Reconstruction: Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy (biliary), Pancreaticojejunostomy (pancreatic), Gastrojejunostomy (gastric).

Surgical Quality Metrics:

• R0 Resection (Microscopic negative margin > 1mm): Goal. R1 (margin ≤ 1mm) occurs in 20-40% (PNI, periductal growth). R1 is strongest predictor of local recurrence.
• Margin Assessment: Perpendicular sectioning of the bile duct margin (proximal) and pancreatic neck/uncinate margin is critical. “Shave margins” inadequate.
• Vascular Resection: Portal/SMV resection with primary anastomosis or interposition graft (vein graft/Dacron) is acceptable for T4 venous involvement if arterial (SMA/HA/Celiac) is clear. Arterial resection = high morbidity/mortality, generally not standard.

Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS): Laparoscopic/Robotic PD is non-inferior to open in high-volume centers for selected patients (less blood loss, faster recovery, similar oncologic outcomes).

2. Borderline Resectable / Locally Advanced (Neoadjuvant Therapy)

• Definition: Venous involvement (SMV/PV) reconstructible, or limited arterial contact (<180°), or N2 nodes.
• Strategy: Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (± Radiotherapy) → Restaging → Surgery.
• Regimens:
• FOLFIRINOX (5-FU/Leucovorin/Oxaliplatin/Irinotecan): Preferred for fit patients (ECOG 0-1). High response/conversion rates (~30-50%).
• Gemcitabine + Nab-Paclitaxel: Alternative for less fit/older patients.
• Gemcitabine/Cisplatin: Standard for biliary tract (ABC-02), but FOLFIRINOX shows better pathologic response in periampullary/dCCA.
• Radiotherapy: Controversial. Used for margin sterilization in locally advanced (ChemoRT: Capecitabine/5-FU based).

3. Adjuvant Therapy (Post-Resection)

Standard of Care: Adjuvant Capecitabine (CAPOX or single agent) for 6 months.

• Evidence: BILCAP Trial (NEJM 2017/2019): Capecitabine 1250 mg/m² BID Days 1-14 q21d x 8 cycles significantly improved median OS (53 vs 36 mo) vs observation. Now global standard.
• Alternative: Gemcitabine + Cisplatin (ABC-02/Prodige-12/ACCORD-18 data extrapolated), or mFOLFOX (if capecitabine intolerant).
• Adjuvant Chemoradiation: Not standard (SWOG S0809/ESPAC-3 negative). Consider only for R1 resection + Node Positive in clinical trial context.

4. Unresectable / Metastatic Disease (Palliative Systemic Therapy)

First-Line (Standard)

Second-Line and Beyond (Biomarker Driven)

5. Palliative Biliary Drainage

• Goal: Relieve jaundice, pruritus, cholangitis, enable chemo.
• Method: Endoscopic (ERCP) > Percutaneous (PTBD). Metal stents (SEMS) preferred for life expectancy > 3-4 months (patency ~6-9 mo vs 3-4 mo plastic). Uncovered vs Covered (covered prevent tumor ingrowth but migrate more).
• Dual Stenting: If both CBD and MPD obstructed (Double Duct Sign), place both stents.

Post-Operative Complications (Specific to Whipple for dCCA)

Surveillance and Follow-Up

Goal: Early detection of recurrence (local, nodal, liver, lung, peritoneum) and management of long-term sequelae.

Rising CA 19-9: Precedes radiologic recurrence by 3-6 months. Confirm with imaging before changing management.

Prognosis and Survival Statistics

Data reflects modern series (post-2010) with modern staging, pathology (R0 focus), and adjuvant capecitabine.

Prognostic Factors (Multivariate):

1. Margin Status (R0 vs R1) – Strongest.
2. Lymph Node Status (N0 vs N1 vs N2).
3. Perineural Invasion (PNI).
4. Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI).
5. Tumor Grade (Poor vs Well/Mod).
6. CA 19-9 Normalization Post-Op / Pre-Chemo.
7. Lymph Node Ratio (Positive/Examined) > 0.2 poor prognosis.

Prevention and Screening

• General Population: No screening recommended (low incidence).
• High-Risk Groups (Surveillance Recommended):
• PSC: Annual MRI/MRCP + CA 19-9 (± yearly ERCP with brushing in dominant stricture). Controversial survival benefit, but detects earlier stage.
• Choledochal Cyst (Post-excision): Lifelong surveillance of remnant biliary tree (intrahepatic/pancreatic duct) via MRI/MRCP annually. Risk persists in anastomosis/liver.
• Caroli Disease / Congenital Hepatic Fibrosis: Regular imaging.
• Liver Fluke Endemic Areas: Mass treatment (Praziquantel) + Surveillance ultrasound/CA 19-9.

Patient Support and Quality of Life

• Nutrition: Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy (PERT) is mandatory post-Whipple (25,000–50,000 U lipase/meal). Fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) supplementation.
• Diabetes Management: “Type 3c Diabetes” (Pancreatogenic). Often brittle. Insulin often required. Avoid sulfonylureas (beta cell loss). GLP-1 agonists/GIP agonists (Tirzepatide) emerging but caution post-Whipple (gastric emptying).
• Psychosocial: High distress (rare cancer, major surgery, uncertainty). Early palliative care integration improves QoL and mood.
• Genetic Counseling: Offered if family history suggestive (Lynch syndrome, BRCA, FAP) or young onset (<50). Germline testing implications for family + therapy (PARP inhibitors for BRCA, Immunotherapy for Lynch).

Key Takeaways for the Patient

1. Jaundice is the alarm bell: Painless jaundice + weight loss in an adult = Urgent imaging (CT/MRCP).
2. Surgery is the only cure: Whipple procedure (PD) by a high-volume surgeon (>15-20/yr) at a high-volume center (>20/yr) offers best outcomes.
3. Adjuvant Capecitabine is standard: 6 months post-surgery improves survival significantly.
4. Biomarkers matter in advanced disease: Ask for NGS testing (HER2, MSI, NTRK, FGFR, IDH) – it opens doors to targeted therapies.
5. Biliary drainage is a tool, not a treatment: Stents relieve symptoms but do not treat cancer. Avoid unnecessary pre-op stenting if surgery is imminent.
6. Life after Whipple is manageable: Enzymes, vitamins, and dietary adjustments allow good quality of life.

Glossary of Terms

• BilIN: Biliary Intraepithelial Neoplasia (Precancerous dysplasia).
• CA 19-9: Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 (Tumor marker).
• CBD: Common Bile Duct.
• CCA: Cholangiocarcinoma.
• CT: Computed Tomography.
• dCCA: Distal Cholangiocarcinoma.
• dMMR/MSI-H: Mismatch Repair Deficient / Microsatellite Instability High.
• ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.
• ERCP: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.
• EUS: Endoscopic Ultrasound.
• FNA/FNB: Fine Needle Aspiration / Biopsy.
• FOLFIRINOX: 5-FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan.
• GemCis: Gemcitabine + Cisplatin.
• Hepaticojejunostomy: Surgical connection of hepatic duct to jejunum.
• IDUS: Intraductal Ultrasound.
• IPNB: Intraductal Papillary Neoplasm of the Bile Duct.
• MIS: Minimally Invasive Surgery (Laparoscopic/Robotic).
• MRCP: Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography.
• NGS: Next-Generation Sequencing.
• PD / Whipple: Pancreaticoduodenectomy.
• PERT: Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy.
• PNI: Perineural Invasion.
• PPPD: Pylorus-Preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy.
• PSC: Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.
• PTBD: Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage.
• R0/R1/R2: Microscopic margin status (Negative / Positive <1mm / Macroscopic residual).
• SEMS: Self-Expanding Metal Stent.
• TNM: Tumor, Node, Metastasis Staging System.

References

1. Amin, M.B., Edge, S.B., Greene, F.L., Byrd, D.R., Brookland, R.K., Washington, M.K., Gershenwald, J.E., Compton, C.C., Hess, K.R., Sullivan, D.C., Jessup, J.M., Brierley, J.D., Gaspar, L.E., Schilsky, R.L., Balch, C.M., Winchester, D.P., Asare, E.A., Madera, M., Gress, D.M. and Meyer, L.R. (2017) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th edn. Chicago: Springer.
2. Bridgewater, J., Lopes, A., Wasan, H., Malka, D., Calais, G., Jensen, L., Okusaka, T., Van Laethem, J.L., Coxon, F., Wadsley, J., Tharayil, M., Goldstein, D., Gebski, V., Shannon, J., Anthoney, A., O’Reilly, D., Valle, J. and ABC-02 Trial Investigators (2014) ‘Gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials’, Annals of Oncology, 25(4), pp. 832–837.
3. Neoptolemos, J.P., Palmer, D.H., Ghaneh, P., Psarelli, E.E., Valle, J.W., Halloran, C.M., Faluyi, O., O’Reilly, D.A., Cunningham, D., Wadsley, J., Darby, S., Meyer, T., Gillmore, R., Anthoney, A., Lind, P., Glimelius, B., Falk, S., Pedrazzoli, S., Mukherjee, S., Fernando, T., Wasan, H., Ross, P., Corrie, P., Oien, K., McDonald, A.C., Fo, K., Campbell, F., Humphreys, M., Stocken, D.D., BILCAP Study Group (2019) ‘Adjuvant capecitabine for biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study’, The Lancet Oncology, 20(5), pp. 681–692.
4. Oh, D.Y., He, A.R., Qin, S., Chen, L.T., Okusaka, T., Petersen, M., Muro, K., Cheng, A.L., Hong, S., Kim, S.Y., Park, J.O., Kim, T.Y., Zhu, A.X., Oh, S.C., Toh, H.C., Oh, B.H., Hong, H., Kim, H., Ha, S., Lee, J.L., Kim, J.H., Lee, J., Lee, M.A., Bang, Y.J., TOPAZ-1 Investigators (2022) ‘Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study’, The Lancet Oncology, 23(11), pp. 1361–1372.
5. Valle, J.W., Lamarca, A., Goyal, L., Barriuso, J., Zhu, A.X. (2023) ‘New horizons in the treatment of biliary tract cancer’, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 20(2), pp. 103–120.
6. Razumilava, N. and Gores, G.J. (2014) ‘Cholangiocarcinoma’, The Lancet, 383(9935), pp. 2168–2179.
7. Banales, J.M., Marin, J.J.G., Lamarca, A., Rodrigues, P.M., Khan, S.A., Roberts, L.R., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Andersen, J.B., Braconi, C., Fabregat, I., Fouassier, L., Gores, G.J.,Gradilone, S.A., Holmes, M.A., Hytiroglou, P., Izquierdo-Sanchez, L., Kaewkhang, J., Karasawa, Y., Knight, B., Labib, P.L., Lazaro, C.A., Lee, J.S., Masiello, L., Mertens, J.C., Newell, P., Omenetti, A., Oseini, A., Perugorria, M.J., Safaee, A., Sanford, D.E., Santoro, A., Schmitt-Graeff, A., Sirica, A.E., Sutti, S., Thompson, M., Tosti, E., Urbani, L., Valle, J.W., Villa, E., Wiemann, S.U., Yuan, Y., Zaydfudim, V., Zhou, Y., Alvaro, D. (2020) ‘Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management’, Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 17(9), pp. 557–588.
8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (2023) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Hepatobiliary Cancers. Version 3.2023. Plymouth Meeting, PA: NCCN. Available at: https://www.nccn.org (Accessed: 15 October 2023).
9. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (2023) ‘Biliary tract cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up’, Annals of Oncology, 34(2), pp. 127–140.
10. Nakamura, H., Ebata, T., Yokoyama, Y., Igami, T., Sugawara, G., Takahashi, Y., Nagino, M. (2017) ‘Long-term outcomes after resection for distal cholangiocarcinoma’, Annals of Surgical Oncology, 24(10), pp. 2947–2954.
11. Wang, Y., Li, J., Xia, Y., Gong, R., Wang, K., Yan, Z., Wan, X., Liu, G., Wu, D., Shi, L., Zhang, S., Liang, C., Xu, Y., He, J., Chen, J., Zhai, E., Shao, Q., Ji, J., Liu, Q., Yu, J., Jin, L., Li, Y., Yu, X., Zhu, Y., Pancreatic Cancer Study Group (2019) ‘Effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine vs upfront resection on survival in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A randomized clinical trial’, JAMA Surgery, 154(7), pp. e191027.
12. Lowery, M.A., Abou-Alfa, G.K. (2022) ‘Molecularly targeted therapies for cholangiocarcinoma’, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 40(16), pp. 1790–1802.
13. Lamarca, A., Palmer, D.H., Wasan, H.S., Ross, P.J., Ma, Y.T., Arora, A., Falk, S., Gillmore, R., Wadsley, J., Patel, K., Bhogal, R., Mohan, H., Falk, S., Iveson, T., Leach, J., Maughan, T., Mielgo-Rubio, X., Plummer, R., Rintoul, R., Ross, P., Sirohi, B., Thurairajah, P., Valle, J.W., ABC-06 Trial Investigators (2021) ‘FOLFOX chemotherapy after gemcitabine and cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial’, The Lancet Oncology, 22(5), pp. 690–701.
14. Kobayashi, S., Shimizu, Y., Kato, K., Nakata, B., Oki, E., Muro, K., Boku, N., Tsuji, A., Satoh, T., Yasui, H., Denda, T., Yamanaka, T., Shirao, K., Morita, S., NIFTY Study Group (2022) ‘Nanoliposomal irinotecan with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid for previously treated advanced biliary tract cancer (NIFTY): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b trial’, The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 7(5), pp. 401–410.
15. Varadhachary, G.R., Raber, M.N., Mathews, T., Ahn, J., Wang, H., Varadhachary, A., Fleming, J.B., Lee, J.E., Pisters, P.W., Evans, D.B., Wolff, R.A., Crane, C.H. (2011) ‘Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: definitions, management, and future directions’, Annals of Surgical Oncology, 18(7), pp. 1828–1837.
16. Silversmith, W.M., Rosen, J.E., Han, S., Liu, J., Sacks, G.D., Hines, O.J., Reber, H.A., Tomlinson, J.S. (2016) ‘Impact of hospital volume on outcomes for pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma’, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 20(10), pp. 1745–1753.
17. Rizvi, S., Gores, G.J. (2020) ‘Cholangiocarcinoma: Molecular pathogenesis and targeted therapies’, Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 17(10), pp. 621–636.
18. Goeppert, B., Frauenschuh, L., Wittel, U.A., Zellweger, T., Werner, M., Kriegsmann, M., Renner, M., Mehrabi, A., Weitz, J., Schirmacher, P., Fend, F. (2019) ‘Immunohistochemical subtyping of biliary tract cancer reveals distinct phenotypes with prognostic relevance’, Modern Pathology, 32(11), pp. 1539–1552.
19. Dumitra, S.C., Weinberg, J., Berman, R.S., El-Khoueiry, A.B. (2022) ‘Emerging targeted therapies in cholangiocarcinoma’, American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 42, pp. 1–12.
20. Wiggers, J.K., Groot Koerkamp, B., Besselink, M.G., van Gulik, T.M., de Wit, L.T., Busch, O.R., Gouma, D.J., van Eijck, C.H., Klompmaker, S., de Hingh, I.H., de Jong, K.P., Nuyttens, J.J., de Jong, M.C., van der Tweel, I., van der Harst, E., Bonsing, B.A., Erdmann, J.I., van Ramshorst, B., Molenaar, I.Q., Polak, W.G., de Reuver, P.R., de Hingh, I.H., Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (2016) ‘Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours (LEOPARD-2): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled phase 2/3 trial’, The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 1(4), pp. 285–292.