Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a highly lethal adenocarcinoma of the hepatobiliary system, which can be classified as intrahepatic, perihilar and distal. Each anatomic subtype has distinct genetic aberrations, clinical presentations and therapeutic approaches. In endemic regions, liver fluke infection is associated with CCA, owing to the oncogenic effect of the associated chronic biliary tract inflammation. In other regions, CCA can be associated with chronic biliary tract inflammation owing to choledocholithiasis, cholelithiasis, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, but most CCAs have no identifiable cause. Administration of the anthelmintic drug praziquantel decreases the risk of CCA from liver flukes, but reinfection is common and future vaccination strategies may be more effective. Some patients with CCA are eligible for potentially curative surgical options, such as resection or liver transplantation. Genetic studies have provided new insights into the pathogenesis of CCA, and two aberrations that drive the pathogenesis of non-fluke-associated intrahepatic CCA, fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 fusions and isocitrate dehydrogenase gain-of-function mutations, can be therapeutically targeted. CCA is a highly desmoplastic cancer and targeting the tumour immune microenvironment might be a promising therapeutic approach. CCA remains a highly lethal disease and further scientific and clinical insights are needed to improve patient outcomes.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a histologically and molecularly diverse group of malignancies arising from the gallbladder and the ductal epithelium of the biliary tree. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common primary liver malignancy in the United States. Surgical resection with negative margins is the only recognized curative treatment option for iCCA; however, most patients will present with advanced or unresectable disease. The clinical presentation is largely non-specific, with the characteristic symptoms of biliary malignancies being less frequent than extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Clinical management in iCCA is heavily influenced by the molecular profile of individual tumors. Hence, pathologists must exercise caution to prevent tissue exhaustion during the diagnostic workup of iCCA and ensure the availability of tissue samples for molecular testing. Establishing standardized procedures for obtaining adequate tissue and using molecular testing is vital. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a potential alternative to tissue-based analysis, especially in cases with insufficient tissue samples. Drugs targeting alterations in NTRK, IDH1, BRAF, FGFR2, and HER2 are commonly utilized. Targeting the MDM2–p53 pathway represents an avenue for future investigations in advanced BTCs. Liver transplantation and locoregional therapies are treatment modalities that may represent curative intent treatments for patients with unresectable disease, and larger explorations are warranted. Akin to HCC, a multidisciplinary team–based approach is essential for patients with BTCs. Through this narrative review of literature, we provide an overview of the current management of iCCA with perspectives regarding future directions in the clinical management of iCCA. We also present patient perspectives regarding the importance of patient advocacy and access to advances in clinical research for patients with BTCs.

Background: Engaging diverse populations in cancer genomics research is of critical importance and is a fundamental goal of the NCI Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. Established as part of the Cancer Moonshot, PE-CGS is a consortium of stakeholders including clinicians, scientists, genetic counselors, and representatives of potential study participants and their communities. Participant engagement is an ongoing, bidirectional, and mutually beneficial interaction between study participants and researchers. PE-CGS sought to set priorities in participant engagement for conducting the network's research. Methods: PE-CGS deliberatively engaged its stakeholders in the following four-phase process to set the network's research priorities in participant engagement: (i) a brainstorming exercise to elicit potential priorities; (ii) a 2-day virtual meeting to discuss priorities; (iii) recommendations from the PE-CGS External Advisory Panel to refine priorities; and (iv) a virtual meeting to set priorities. Results: Nearly 150 PE-CGS stakeholders engaged in the process. Five priorities were set: (i) tailor education and communication materials for participants throughout the research process; (ii) identify measures of participant engagement; (iii) identify optimal participant engagement strategies; (iv) understand cancer disparities in the context of cancer genomics research; and (v) personalize the return of genomics findings to participants. Conclusions: PE-CGS is pursuing these priorities to meaningfully engage diverse and underrepresented patients with cancer and posttreatment cancer survivors as participants in cancer genomics research and, subsequently, generate new discoveries. Impact: Data from PE-CGS will be shared with the broader scientific community in a manner consistent with participant informed consent and community agreement.

Background: Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, overly restrictive criteria can result in unrepresentative trial populations, leading to gaps in understanding real‐world treatment efficacy. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance trial accessibility and participation without compromising safety. Methods: The authors retrospectively analyzed screen‐failed patients with biliary tract cancer or pancreatic cancer between August 2019 and November 2024 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Screen‐failed patients were those who provided informed consent but did not participate for any reason. Clinical data were obtained from screening logs and electronic health records. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results: Of 585 screen‐failed patients from 18 trials, 509 were analyzed (367 with pancreatic cancer and 142 with biliary tract cancer) after excluding 76 because of incomplete data. Leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (19%), comorbidities (12%), suboptimal organ function (11%), absence of a biomarker (10%), and insufficient biospecimens (7%). Reasons for declining included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), and competing trials (5%). The authors identified 69 patients (13.6%) who had PMEs (primarily borderline laboratory abnormalities), including liver function (23%), kidney function (20%), platelet count (12%), hemoglobin (7%), and white blood cell count (6%) abnormalities. Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (9%) and viral hepatitis (4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Conclusions: Rigid eligibility criteria exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing criteria related to incidental or asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities could broaden trial accessibility and improve enrollment in populations that are more representative of real‐world use.