ReviewJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Molecular Testing for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: What, When, How?
Review in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic, Predictive, and Clinical Relevance of DNA Damage Repair Alterations in Biliary Tract Cancers.Cancers · 2026Review
- Case Report: Response to ivosidenib in patients with cholangiocarcinoma: a clinical perspective with illustrative cases.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Multi-Omics Biomarker Signatures for Precision Diagnosis and Prognosis in Primary Liver Cancer: A Literature Review.BioFactors (Oxford, England)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) represents a biologically heterogeneous subgroup of biliary tract cancer (BTC) with a 5-year survival below 20%. Delayed diagnosis, intrinsic aggressiveness, and extensive intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity at the clinical, histopathological, and genomic level all contribute to this dismal outcome. Increasingly, treatment decisions in advanced iCCA depend on the identification of actionable molecular alterations, including FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, IDH1 mutations, HER2 amplifications, NTRK fusions, and microsatellite instability (MSI-high) and/or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR).
methodsA narrative review of the current literature was conducted, focusing on (i) what molecular alterations are clinically relevant today, (ii) when molecular profiling should be performed, and (iii) how testing should be technically implemented in routine clinical practice. Results iCCA, particularly the small-duct subtype, harbors a high prevalence of therapeutically actionable molecular alterations, in contrast to extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Early and comprehensive molecular profiling enables access to approved targeted therapies, molecularly stratified second-line treatments, and clinical trials. Combined DNA- and RNA-based next-generation sequencing, complemented by immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization, provides the most reliable diagnostic framework.
conclusionMolecular testing has become an essential component of modern iCCA management. Broad, early, and technically integrated molecular profiling-ideally performed at initial diagnosis and interpreted in an interdisciplinary (molecular) tumor board-is critical to fully realize the potential of precision oncology in BTC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.