Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40982790›Full record

ReviewHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2026

Evolving precision: Updates in targeted therapy for cholangiocarcinoma.

Giulia Tesini, Halima Ibrahim, Lorenza Rimassa, Chiara Braconi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Giulia TesiniSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8104-6585
Halima IbrahimBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Lorenza RimassaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9957-3615
Chiara BraconiSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4835-1259

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques for extended genomic profiling has led to the identification of actionable molecular alterations in approximately half of the patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC), with the highest incidences among those with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Targeted drugs have demonstrated the ability to confer clinical benefit while maintaining a manageable safety profile. As a result, despite the lack of a head-to-head comparison with standard second-line chemotherapy, they are now recommended for patients with advanced disease who are still fit after progression to first-line palliative systemic anti-cancer treatment. In this review, we will contextualize the results observed with targeted drugs in clinical trials within the framework of clinical practice. We will provide an overview of available single-gene analyses that should be considered in case of lack of access to NGS, defining testing priorities, differences in yields, and therapeutic implications. Lastly, we will discuss future perspectives in the field of precision medicine for BTC, focusing on new strategies to overcome treatment resistance, on the optimal collocation of targeted drugs in the treatment algorithm, and on newly identified actionable alterations for which compounds are currently under investigation.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaMolecular Targeted TherapyPrecision MedicineAntineoplastic AgentsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansAntineoplastic Agentsbiliary tract cancerdrug resistancemolecular diagnostic techniquesmolecular targeted therapynew actionable targets

Identifiers

PMID40982790
PMCPMC13585164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.