ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2026
Clinical practice and implications of biomarker testing in biliary tract cancer: An observational study.
Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 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.
- Pemigatinib for Unresectable or Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor-2 Rearrangement: Results From the Phase III FIGHT-302 Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026Trial
- Molecular and Clinical Determinants of Targeted Therapy Treatment in Biliary Tract Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
- Spatial immune profiling complements genomic sequencing in biliary tract cancer: hypothesis-generating use cases.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Aims: Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are aggressive malignancies with limited treatment options. Owing to the high frequency of actionable genomic alterations (GA) and the availability of targeted therapies, molecular testing has become increasingly important; however, its clinical implementation remains inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate real-world molecular testing practices, characterize the BTC molecular landscape, and assess the prognostic and predictive relevance of selected GA. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed genomic and clinical data from 1,521 patients treated at 18 centers in Germany and Austria. A side-by-side comparison of clinical grade reports generated on two different sequencing platforms was performed for 90 patients. Results: Twenty-four different NGS panels were used across 18 centers. A comparative analysis highlighted the significant variability in reports used to inform therapeutic decisions in clinical practice. Although there were substantial differences in the number of GA covered, the broader panels identified a similar number of actionable GA, indicating that key therapeutic targets are sufficiently represented. Integration with clinical data suggested that certain GA, such as Conclusion: Standardized biomarker testing is crucial for effective integration of targeted therapies in the management of BTC. Our findings reinforce the value of targeted treatments and underscore the predictive and prognostic significance of selected GA. Impact and implications: Genomic profiling is recommended in patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) but lacks harmonization across platforms and centers. By retrospectively analyzing genomic and clinical information from 1,521 patients with BTC diagnosed and treated at 18 centers in Germany and Austria, we provide real-world insights into the implementation of molecular profiling in BTC, highlighting variability in next generation sequencing-based testing and its impact on the detection of genomic alterations. Standardized molecular testing strategies will be key to enable the integration of more consistent and comparable genomic datasets across studies. Further, by elucidating the prognostic relevance of individual genomic alterations, our insights carry significant implications for interpreting single-arm clinical trials within genomically stratified patient cohorts and underscore the importance of randomized studies to delineate the benefit of targeted therapies.
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.