Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a molecularly heterogeneous hepatobiliary neoplasm with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. The incidence of this neoplasm is growing globally. One third of iCCA tumors are amenable to surgical resection, but most cases are diagnosed at advanced stages with chemotherapy as the only established standard of practice. No molecular therapies are currently available for the treatment of this neoplasm. The poor understanding of the biology of iCCA and the lack of known oncogenic addiction loops has hindered the development of effective targeted therapies. Studies with sophisticated animal models defined IDH mutation as the first gatekeeper in the carcinogenic process and led to the discovery of striking alternative cellular origins. RNA- and exome-sequencing technologies revealed the presence of recurrent novel fusion events (FGFR2 and ROS1 fusions) and somatic mutations in metabolic (IDH1/2) and chromatin-remodeling genes (ARID1A, BAP1). These latest advancements along with known mutations in KRAS/BRAF/EGFR and 11q13 high-level amplification have contributed to a better understanding of the landscape of molecular alterations in iCCA. More than 100 clinical trials testing molecular therapies alone or in combination with chemotherapy including iCCA patients have not reported conclusive clinical benefits. Recent discoveries have shown that up to 70% of iCCA patients harbor potential actionable alterations that are amenable to therapeutic targeting in early clinical trials. Thus, the first biomarker-driven trials are currently underway. Clin Cancer Res; 22(2); 291–300. ©2015 AACR.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common liver cancer following hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), accounting for 5% to 10% of all primary liver malignancies with an annual incidence of 2 cases per 100,000 in Western countries (1, 2). At present, it is widely accepted that iCCA arises from the malignant transformation of the intrahepatic cholangiocytes and is anatomically distinguished from the extrahepatic biliary tract cancers (eCCA), which are known as perihilar (pCCA) and distal (dCCA), with the second-order bile ducts acting as the separation point (3).

During the past decade a growing interest has been expressed in iCCA due to a marked increase in both incidence and mortality rates (1, 4). Currently, surgical resection represents the sole curative treatment option in 30% to 40% of patients with 5-year survival of 20% to 40% (1, 5). The majority of iCCA patients have no underlying liver disease or known risk factors, which further hinders the development of screening strategies for early detection. In patients with advanced disease, the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin has been shown to confer a survival advantage over gemcitabine alone and is currently proposed as the standard of practice (6). As opposed to HCC, to date there is no approved targeted molecular therapy for iCCA, and the identification of a first-line conclusive treatment remains an unmet need. Recently, the use of next-generation sequencing technologies has enabled the identification of recurrent actionable molecular alterations that hold the promise of improving the management of advanced iCCA patients. Herein, we provide an overview of the recent discoveries of new molecular targets that should ultimately lead to the development of more personalized therapeutic approaches.

iCCA is a devastating disease with poor prognosis. Several studies have reported global trends of increasing incidence and mortality for iCCA in contrast with decreasing rates for eCCA (7–10). iCCA presents more commonly at older age with a slight predominance in men (male to female ratio 1.2–1.5:1; ref. 1). There is a considerable geographic and demographic variation in the epidemiology of iCCA, which likely reflects distinct environmental and genetic predispositions. The incidence of iCCA is the highest in Southeast Asia and more specifically in Thailand (>80 cases per 100,000) and can be as low as 0.2 per 100,000 in some Western countries (1, 11). Even though the vast majority of iCCAs are sporadic, several risk factors have been identified. Historically, most of these risk factors have been established for CCA without distinguishing between iCCA and eCCA, despite the fact that increasing evidence supports the hypothesis that they represent distinct entities with marked differences in their genomic features and epidemiology (Table 1; refs. 3, 12–15). The most prevalent risk factors for HCC have also been significantly associated with iCCA but not with eCCA (Table 1), including cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis B and C infections (1, 11, 16–23). Other risk factors for iCCA include primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), biliary duct cysts, hepatolithiasis, and hepatobiliary flukes. Hepatolithiasis has been defined as a well-known risk factor for iCCA (up to 20%) in Asian countries but not in Western countries (11). Less-established risk factors with modest associations include inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, and alcohol abuse (1, 11).

Table 1.

Main epidemiologic and molecular differences between iCCA and extrahepatic subtypes (pCCA-dCCA)

Gene or moleculeiCCApCCA-dCAAReferences
Proportion of CCA cases 5%–20% pCCA (50%–70%), dCCA (15%–20%) (12–15) 
Incidence rate Increasing Stable or slightly decreasing (7–10) 
Anatomic location Intrahepatic biliary tract Extrahepatic biliary tract (3) 
  pCCA (near origin of cystic duct)  
  dCCA (lower half of large duct)  
Differenctial risk factors (n = positive cases/total, % casesa
 Biliary lithiasisb 377/1,539 (24%) 289/549 (52%) (17, 18, 20–23) 
 Cirrhosis 161/1,622 (10%) 23/712 (3%) (17–23) 
 HCV 61/1,522 (4%) 11/712 (1.5%) (17–21, 23) 
 HBV 129/1,411 (9%) 4/712 (0.6%) (17–22) 
 Alcoholc 158/1,524 (10%) 37/712 (5%) (17–22) 
Molecular alterations (n = positive cases/total, % casesa
 Somatic mutations 
  TP53 99/606 (16%) 36/137 (26%) (50–53, 56–62) 
  KRAS 165/885 (19%) 29/152 (19%) (50–53, 56–62) 
  IDH1/2 143/951 (15%) 3/164 (2%) (51–54, 56–62) 
  ARID1A 50/390 (13%) 20/137 (14%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  BAP1 45/443 (11%) 3/164 (2%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  BRAF 28/574 (5%) 0/137 (0%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
  EGFR 14/545 (3%) 3/151 (2%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
 Fusion proteins 
  FGFR2 fusions 71/307 (23%) 0/36 (0%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
 Chromosomal abberations (ampifications)d 
  17q11 (ERBB20/170 (0%) 10/55 (18%) (31, 66) 
  11q13 (FGF19, CCDN1, ORAOV15/128 (4%) NA (31) 
Gene or moleculeiCCApCCA-dCAAReferences
Proportion of CCA cases 5%–20% pCCA (50%–70%), dCCA (15%–20%) (12–15) 
Incidence rate Increasing Stable or slightly decreasing (7–10) 
Anatomic location Intrahepatic biliary tract Extrahepatic biliary tract (3) 
  pCCA (near origin of cystic duct)  
  dCCA (lower half of large duct)  
Differenctial risk factors (n = positive cases/total, % casesa
 Biliary lithiasisb 377/1,539 (24%) 289/549 (52%) (17, 18, 20–23) 
 Cirrhosis 161/1,622 (10%) 23/712 (3%) (17–23) 
 HCV 61/1,522 (4%) 11/712 (1.5%) (17–21, 23) 
 HBV 129/1,411 (9%) 4/712 (0.6%) (17–22) 
 Alcoholc 158/1,524 (10%) 37/712 (5%) (17–22) 
Molecular alterations (n = positive cases/total, % casesa
 Somatic mutations 
  TP53 99/606 (16%) 36/137 (26%) (50–53, 56–62) 
  KRAS 165/885 (19%) 29/152 (19%) (50–53, 56–62) 
  IDH1/2 143/951 (15%) 3/164 (2%) (51–54, 56–62) 
  ARID1A 50/390 (13%) 20/137 (14%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  BAP1 45/443 (11%) 3/164 (2%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  BRAF 28/574 (5%) 0/137 (0%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
  EGFR 14/545 (3%) 3/151 (2%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
 Fusion proteins 
  FGFR2 fusions 71/307 (23%) 0/36 (0%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
 Chromosomal abberations (ampifications)d 
  17q11 (ERBB20/170 (0%) 10/55 (18%) (31, 66) 
  11q13 (FGF19, CCDN1, ORAOV15/128 (4%) NA (31) 

NOTE: Frequencies in iCCA have been calculated only in non–liver fluke cases.

Abbreviations: dCCA, distal cholangiocarcinoma; HBV, hepatitis B virus infection; HCV, hepatitis C virus infection; iCCA, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; NA, not applicable; pCCA, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

aThe percentage of cases has been calculated by considering the number of samples presenting the molecular alteration over the total number of samples analyzed in all cohorts (discovery and validation set of samples).

bBiliary lithiasis includes patients with hepatolithiasis, cholelithiasis, and choledocholithiasis.

cPatients with heavy alcohol consumption or alcoholic liver disease.

dGenomic amplifications evaluated by FISH assay or copy number alteration by SNP array.

iCCA includes a group of histologically heterogeneous tumors with diverse cellular phenotypes and cell markers, which suggests the possible existence of multiple cells of origin (Fig. 1; ref. 24). In addition, the existence of mixed hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (HCC-iCCA) tumors (25), a subtype with predominance of stem cell features, points out the presence of a possible common cell of origin. Thus, iCCA is currently believed to derive from biliary epithelial cells (cholangiocytes) of the intrahepatic biliary tract, hepatic progenitor cells (HPC), or even mature hepatocytes.

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of multiple cells of origin in primary liver cancers. Hepatic progenitor cells (HPC) are located at canals of Hering (CoH) near the portal triads and are thought to have the potential to differentiate into hepatocytes and cholangiocytes. There is evidence that the differentiated hepatocytes can give rise to such cells. HCC and iCCA can develop from the neoplastic transformation of mature hepatocytes and cholangiocytes, respectively. In addition, HPC and its intermediate states are thought to be the common cell of origin for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), and mixed HCC-iCCA tumors [i.e., cholangiolocellular carcinoma (CLC)]. Furthermore, recent evidence supports the hypothesis that mature hepatocytes can transdifferentiate to cholangiocytes, leading to the development of iCCA.

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of multiple cells of origin in primary liver cancers. Hepatic progenitor cells (HPC) are located at canals of Hering (CoH) near the portal triads and are thought to have the potential to differentiate into hepatocytes and cholangiocytes. There is evidence that the differentiated hepatocytes can give rise to such cells. HCC and iCCA can develop from the neoplastic transformation of mature hepatocytes and cholangiocytes, respectively. In addition, HPC and its intermediate states are thought to be the common cell of origin for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), and mixed HCC-iCCA tumors [i.e., cholangiolocellular carcinoma (CLC)]. Furthermore, recent evidence supports the hypothesis that mature hepatocytes can transdifferentiate to cholangiocytes, leading to the development of iCCA.

Close modal

All liver cells share a common embryonic origin, arising from bipotential progenitors known as hepatoblasts (26). However, in the adult liver, normal tissue turnover is mainly sustained by differentiated hepatocytes and cholangiocytes. Nevertheless, upon major injury, there is an expansion of cells in the region of the canals of Hering that have been proposed to be bipotent HPCs capable of differentiating into hepatocyte or cholangiocyte lineages (Fig. 1; ref. 27). Alternatively, hepatocytes can dedifferentiate into progenitor-like cells in response to acute injury (28, 29).

With this backdrop, the hypothesis that iCCA and HCC may share a common ancestor such as the HPCs has been an important subject of discussion during the past decade. Notably, emerging data point to an overlapping molecular profile between specific subclasses of iCCA and HCC tumors. Two independent studies (30, 31) have demonstrated that a subset of iCCA tumors are enriched with liver-specific stem cell gene signatures (30, 32, 33) and molecular subclasses of poor prognosis and aggressive phenotype of HCC (proliferation; ref. 34; and S2 subclass; ref. 35). Reciprocally, a subset of HCC samples expressing biliary cell markers (i.e., CK19 and CK7; ref. 36) or enriched by iCCA-like gene expression signatures (37) show overall survival rates similar to those for iCCA patients. In addition, cholangiolocellular carcinoma (CLC), a stem cell featured mixed HCC-iCCA tumor, shares similar histopathologic features with iCCA and CK19-positive HCC (12, 38). These data suggest HPC as a possible common ancestor for a subset of primary liver cancers. Alternatively, the mutations associated with these tumors may “reprogram” differentiated liver cells toward a progenitor-like state.

Recently, several studies using genetically engineered mouse models (GEMM) and primary progenitor cell models have shed light on the link between cell differentiation and iCCA pathogenesis. The expression of gain-of-function IDH mutations, commonly reported in iCCA, led to the inhibition of hepatocyte differentiation both in vitro and in vivo and caused the expansion of HPCs (39). In turn, combined IDH and KRAS mutations in GEMMs showed pronounced oncogenic cooperation, leading to the development of premalignant biliary lesions and subsequent progression to iCCA. These data implicate mutant IDH in the subversion of liver differentiation states and in the persistence of HPCs that are susceptible to the accumulation of additional oncogenic hits (Fig. 1). While these studies did not directly determine the origin of HPCs, they did point to expansion of progenitor-like cells as a key mechanism contributing to liver carcinogenesis. Similarly, mice with genetic alterations in Hippo pathway components in the liver (i.e., YAP, SAV1, MST1/2) show expansion of progenitor-like cells, followed by the development of both HCC and iCCA (40–42). In parallel, two independent studies demonstrated that differentiated hepatocytes have the potential to give rise to iCCA through the activation of NOTCH signaling (43, 44). Aberrant activation of NOTCH signaling has been described in both iCCA (60%) and HCC (30%) tumors (45, 46). Interestingly, in a GEMM with constitutive overexpression of NOTCH1, a subset of the HCC tumors presented progenitor-like cell features with a mixed biliary and hepatocytic phenotype (45). In contrast, a recent study revealed that iCCA originates from the transformation of biliary epithelial cells in the context of chronic injury and p53 inactivation (47). Collectively, it appears that iCCA can emerge from different liver cell types depending on the initial triggering mutation and/or environmental insult. Future studies are needed to fully define these routes to iCCA, and to understand their molecular underpinnings as well their relevance to different iCCA subtypes.

Over the past 15 years, major scientific breakthroughs that have significantly changed the management of human cancers have been driven by the discovery and successful therapeutic targeting of the so-called “oncogenic addiction loops.” The term “oncogene addiction” is used to define the dependency status of cancer cells on the activation or loss of specific genes. Several examples exist of the striking survival benefits obtained in BRAF-mutated melanomas treated with vemurafenib (48) or in lung cancer harboring ALK rearrangements and treated with crizotinib (49). Unfortunately, to date, no oncogene addiction loop has been reported in iCCA.

The molecular pathogenesis of iCCA is a complex process involving multiple genomic alterations and signaling pathway deregulations. Before the implementation of next-generation sequencing technologies, our knowledge of the role of mutations in iCCA was limited, encompassing recurrent activating mutations in KRAS (19%), low frequency mutations in BRAF (5%), and EGFR (3%), and widely varying reports of loss-of-function mutations in the tumor suppressor TP53 (16%, range 1%–38%; Tables 1 and 2; refs. 31, 50–64). While KRAS and TP53 mutations are relatively common in all CCA, mutations in IDH1/2 and BRAF are considerably more prevalent in iCCA (Table 1). Epigenetic alterations through promoter hypermethylation have also been described, and the most recurrent (>25%) affects p16INK4A/CDKN2, p14ARF, RASSF1A, APC, GSTP, and SOCS-3 (58). Inflammation-related signaling pathways, such as JAK–STAT3, and proliferation-related pathways, such as EGFR and HGF–MET signaling, show profound deregulation in iCCA (58). In addition, recent studies have proposed emerging roles for NOTCH and WNT signaling in iCCA pathogenesis. Furthermore, two independent whole-transcriptome analyses discerned the existence of two distinct molecular subclasses of iCCA (31, 50). Both studies identified a proliferation molecular subclass that defines tumors with activation of oncogenic signaling pathways, including RAS–MAPK, MET, and EGFR, and poor prognosis. In addition, approximately 40% of patients belong to the Inflammation subclass, characterized by enrichment of cytokine related pathways, constitutive activation of STAT3, and better prognosis (31).

Table 2.

Potential molecular alterations amenable for targeted therapies in iCCA

Gene or moleculeType of alterationNo. of positive/total samples (frequency)aReferences
Somatic mutations 
 Metabolic enzymes 
  IDH1/2 Activating mutations 143/951 (15%) (51–54, 56–62) 
 Tyrosine kinase signaling 
  KRAS Activating mutations 165/885 (19%) (50–53, 56–62) 
  BRAF Activating mutations 28/574 (5%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
  EGFR Activating mutations 14/545 (3%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
 Chromatin-remodeling genes 
  ARID1A Inactivating mutations 50/390 (13%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  BAP1 Inactivating mutations 45/443 (11%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  PBRM1 Inactivating mutations 34/443 (8%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61) 
Tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion proteins 
FGFR2 fusions 
  FGFR2–BICC1 TK fusion protein 46/211 (22%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–PPHLN1 TK fusion protein 17/153 (11%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–AHCYL1 TK fusion protein 7/111 (6%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–MGEA5 TK fusion protein 1/53 (2%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–TACC3 TK fusion protein 2/53 (4%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–KIAA1598 TK fusion protein 1/53 (2%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
ROS fusions 
  ROS1 fusions TK fusion protein 2/23 (9%) (77) 
Chromosomal aberrations 
 11q13 (FGF19, CCND1, ORAOV1High-level amplification 5/128 (4%) (32) 
Gene or moleculeType of alterationNo. of positive/total samples (frequency)aReferences
Somatic mutations 
 Metabolic enzymes 
  IDH1/2 Activating mutations 143/951 (15%) (51–54, 56–62) 
 Tyrosine kinase signaling 
  KRAS Activating mutations 165/885 (19%) (50–53, 56–62) 
  BRAF Activating mutations 28/574 (5%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
  EGFR Activating mutations 14/545 (3%) (50–51, 53–54, 55–59, 61) 
 Chromatin-remodeling genes 
  ARID1A Inactivating mutations 50/390 (13%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  BAP1 Inactivating mutations 45/443 (11%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61–62) 
  PBRM1 Inactivating mutations 34/443 (8%) (51–54, 56–57, 59, 61) 
Tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion proteins 
FGFR2 fusions 
  FGFR2–BICC1 TK fusion protein 46/211 (22%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–PPHLN1 TK fusion protein 17/153 (11%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–AHCYL1 TK fusion protein 7/111 (6%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–MGEA5 TK fusion protein 1/53 (2%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–TACC3 TK fusion protein 2/53 (4%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
  FGFR2–KIAA1598 TK fusion protein 1/53 (2%) (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75) 
ROS fusions 
  ROS1 fusions TK fusion protein 2/23 (9%) (77) 
Chromosomal aberrations 
 11q13 (FGF19, CCND1, ORAOV1High-level amplification 5/128 (4%) (32) 

aThe frequency in iCCA has been calculated by considering the number of samples presenting the molecular alteration over the total number of samples for which the specific alteration has been evaluated (discovery and validation set of samples) in different studies. Frequencies in iCCA have been calculated only in non–liver fluke cases.

Emerging signaling pathways

NOTCH signaling.

The NOTCH signaling pathway is known to play an important role during embryonic development and is essential for a proper maturation of the liver architecture. Recently, NOTCH pathway deregulation has been implicated in induction of inflammation (65) and the development and progression of iCCA (66, 67). In human CCAs, upregulation of NOTCH1 and NOTCH4 has been reported in 82.9% and 56.1%, respectively, (46). In preclinical studies, liver-induced expression of NOTCH1 intracellular domain in mice resulted in the formation of iCCAs (67). Considering that a number of NOTCH inhibitors are currently under development, the NOTCH pathway may represent a novel amenable target in iCCA (Fig. 2). However, a recent study reported different effects of targeting NOTCH receptors in a mouse model of primary liver cancer driven by v-akt viral oncogene homolog (AKT) and neuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homolog (NRAS; ref. 68). Interestingly, while the inhibition of NOTCH2 reduced tumor burden, NOTCH1 inhibition altered the relative proportion of tumor types, reducing HCC-like tumors but dramatically increasing CCA-like tumors (68). Thus, further studies are needed to understand the complex role of NOTCH signaling in primary liver cancer.

Figure 2.

Current and potential targeted therapies in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Tyrosine kinase receptor signaling: several growth factor signaling pathways (i.e., EGF/EGFR) have been reported to be aberrantly activated in iCCA. The specify binding of growth factors results in oligomerization and autophosphorylation of their receptors, followed by signaling through the RAS–MAPK and PI3K–AKT effector cascades. FGFR2 fusions: The presence of fusion partners in the cytoplasmic domain of FGFR2 results in constitutively active receptors that induce signaling through downstream signaling pathways. NOTCH signaling: Binding of ligands on the surface of neighboring cells to the extracellular domain of NOTCH receptors (NOTCH-R) induces proteolytic cleavage of the receptor, releasing its intracellular domain (NICD), which then translocates to the nucleus and regulates expression of target genes. WNT/β-catenin signaling: activation of frizzled (FZD) receptors by WNT ligands triggers the displacement of the regulatory APC/Axin/GSK3-complex, accumulation of β-catenin and induction of target genes. IDH signaling: Mutated IDH enzymes acquire the capacity to synthesize 2-hydroxygluterate (2-HG) from α-ketoglutarate (α-KG). 2-HG alters the activity of α-KG–dependent dioxygenase enzymes involved in multiple cellular processes, including cell differentiation, survival, and DNA methylation. Molecular targeted therapies have also been highlighted; drugs currently assessed in phase II clinical trials (red) and those evaluated in early clinical trials or preclinical studies (brown) are shown.

Figure 2.

Current and potential targeted therapies in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Tyrosine kinase receptor signaling: several growth factor signaling pathways (i.e., EGF/EGFR) have been reported to be aberrantly activated in iCCA. The specify binding of growth factors results in oligomerization and autophosphorylation of their receptors, followed by signaling through the RAS–MAPK and PI3K–AKT effector cascades. FGFR2 fusions: The presence of fusion partners in the cytoplasmic domain of FGFR2 results in constitutively active receptors that induce signaling through downstream signaling pathways. NOTCH signaling: Binding of ligands on the surface of neighboring cells to the extracellular domain of NOTCH receptors (NOTCH-R) induces proteolytic cleavage of the receptor, releasing its intracellular domain (NICD), which then translocates to the nucleus and regulates expression of target genes. WNT/β-catenin signaling: activation of frizzled (FZD) receptors by WNT ligands triggers the displacement of the regulatory APC/Axin/GSK3-complex, accumulation of β-catenin and induction of target genes. IDH signaling: Mutated IDH enzymes acquire the capacity to synthesize 2-hydroxygluterate (2-HG) from α-ketoglutarate (α-KG). 2-HG alters the activity of α-KG–dependent dioxygenase enzymes involved in multiple cellular processes, including cell differentiation, survival, and DNA methylation. Molecular targeted therapies have also been highlighted; drugs currently assessed in phase II clinical trials (red) and those evaluated in early clinical trials or preclinical studies (brown) are shown.

Close modal

WNT signaling.

The WNT pathway is highly activated in the tumor epithelium of human CCAs and is often characterized by overexpression of the ligands WNT7B and WNT10A along with several target genes (69, 70). It has been demonstrated that inflammatory macrophages in the stroma surrounding the tumor are required for the maintenance of this highly activated WNT signaling status (69, 71). As recently demonstrated in two rodent models mimicking human iCCA, the WNT pathway was progressively activated during the course of iCCA development, and treatment in vitro and in vivo with WNT inhibitors (ICG001 and C59) successfully inhibited tumor growth (69). Considering the recent development of several pharmacologic WNT inhibitors and the absence of APC and CTNNB1 mutations in iCCA, the WNT pathway may represent another important clinical opportunity (Fig. 2).

Recent technological advancements have led to a better understanding of the genetic and molecular forces that drive human cancers. Significant progress has been made also in iCCA, where deep-sequencing studies have unveiled novel mutations (i.e., IDH1/2, ARID1A) and oncogenic fusion genes (ROS1 and FGFR2 fusions). In the following section, we highlight the most promising discoveries, with particular emphasis on those potentially amenable to targeted therapies (Table 2; Fig. 2).

Tyrosine kinase fusion genes

FGFR2 is a tyrosine kinase (TK) protein that acts as cell-surface receptor for fibroblast growth factors and plays an essential role in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, migration, and apoptosis. Recently, several FGFR2 chromosomal fusions with multiple genomic partners have been identified in several cancers, including iCCA (Table 2; refs. 51, 56, 57, 72–75). All of these fusions contain the same portion of the FGFR2 receptor (exons 1–19) and are fused to different partners through genomic breakpoints within the same intronic region (e.g., BICC1, PPHLN1, CCDC6, MGEA5, TACC3). The oncogenic activation of these FGFR2 fusion proteins relies on the activation of the TK included in the rearrangement and involves enforced dimerization, subsequent transautophosphorylation, and activation of downstream signaling pathways (57, 72, 73). Transforming and oncogenic potential of FGFR2 fusions (FGFR2–BICC1, FGFR2–PPHLN1, FGFR2–AHCYL1, FGFR2–TACC3) has been proven in vitro (57, 72, 73, 76) and in vivo (72). Furthermore, the presence of FGFR2 fusions seems to predict higher sensitivity to selective FGFR2 inhibitors (57, 72, 73, 76). However, the relative oncogenic potential of the different FGFR2 fusions or their sensitivity to specific FGFR2 inhibitors remains unknown and should be extensively investigated in future studies. Screening of FGFR2 fusions in multiple studies by massive parallel sequencing technologies or FISH-based assay has revealed striking differences in the incidence of the FGFR2 fusion events with a range between 3% and 50% of iCCA patients (51, 56, 57, 72, 73, 75). FGFR2 fusions were found to be rare in mixed HCC-iCCA and mostly absent in HCC and eCCA (Table 1; refs. 57, 72). Thus, FGFR2 fusions are a novel hallmark of iCCA.

A significant association has been observed between the presence of FGFR2 fusions (FGFR2–PPHLN1, FGFR2–BICC1) and KRAS mutations and signaling pathway activation, suggesting a possible cooperative role in driving iCCA pathogenesis (57). Even though no clear association between presence of FGFR2 fusions and clinicopathologic parameters (e.g., gender, age, stage, and prognosis) has been identified across the multiple datasets, a large study conducted in Japan has suggested a significant association with viral hepatitis (72), and a female predominance was observed in a North American cohort (75). Larger epidemiologic studies need to be conducted to clarify such discrepancies.

Besides FGFR2 fusions, ROS1 kinase fusion proteins have been identified in 8.7% (2/23) of CCAs (77). Expression of FIG–ROS1 in NIH3T3 cells conferred transforming ability both in vitro and in vivo, which could be inhibited by specific targeting (77). Furthermore, the oncogenic potential of FIG–ROS has been recently validated in an orthotopic allograft mouse iCCA model harboring KRAS and TP53 mutations (78). FIG–ROS alone was also able to promote tumorigenesis, although with reduced penetrance and longer latency. Notably, preliminary data support the efficacy of therapeutic targeting of ROS1 kinase in vitro and in vivo with small ATP-competitive inhibitors (e.g., foretinib, crizotinib). Further investigation will be required to establish the frequency of ROS fusions across different iCCA patient populations and to evaluate the potential benefit of such therapies for patients with these translocated alleles.

New somatic alterations

The application of exome-sequencing technologies has led to the discovery of novel somatic mutations in the protein-coding region of several genes and has defined a mutational landscape of the disease. Interestingly, emerging data supports a different genetic profile between liver fluke–related and non–liver fluke related CCAs in terms of gene expression (79) and mutation profiles (80). Exome sequencing of 8 cases of liver fluke-related CCAs identified 10 novel mutated genes involved in histone modification, genomic instability, and G protein signaling (e.g., KMT2C, ROBO2, PEG3, and GNAS) and confirmed mutations in already known genes (TP53 and KRAS; ref. 80). A follow-up study was later conducted by the same group and profiled 209 CCAs collected from Asia and Europe, associated with Opisthorchis viverrini (n = 108) and non–O. viverrini–related etiologies (n = 101; ref. 52). In summary, these studies reveal that (i) TP53, SMAD4, KMT2C, and GNAS are more commonly mutated in O. viverrini–infected CCA cases; (ii) IDH1/IDH2 mutations are almost exclusive for non–O. viverrini–related iCCA; and (iii) fluke-related CCAs present a mean of 26 somatic mutations per tumor, compared with a mean of 16 mutations per tumor in CCA with other etiologies. In addition, whole-exome sequencing (WES) studies have led to the identification of somatic mutations in chromatin-remodeling genes, BAP1, ARID1A, and PBRM1—in iCCA (52, 54). Functional studies have revealed tumor-suppressive activity of BAP1 and ARID1A, further supporting the potential role of chromatin modulators in iCCA development (52). In particular, ARID1A encodes an accessory subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex and mutations in this gene have recently been identified in a wide variety of cancers. Silencing of ARID1A in CCA cell lines (including non–O. viverrini–associated and O. viverrini–associated) resulted in a significant increase of cell proliferation. Conversely, overexpression of wild-type ARID1A led to retarded cell proliferation confirming the tumor-suppressive role of this gene (52). The possibility that iCCA patients harboring mutations in these genes may benefit from treatment with histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, such as vorinostat or panobinostat, remains unclear and needs to be further explored.

IDH1 and IDH2 mutations have been reported in approximately 14% of iCCAs (Table 2). In a large cohort of iCCA cases (n = 326), IDH1/2 mutations were associated with better overall survival (60). In contrast, in a recent WES-based study, patients with IDH1 or IDH2 mutations had shorter survival compared with patients with wild-type IDH genes (3-year survival of 33% in IDH mutants vs. 81% in IDH wild-type; ref. 54). IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in iCCA and other cancer types cluster at the hotspots codons 132 and 172, respectively. IDH1 and IDH2 encode metabolic enzymes whose normal function is to interconvert the metabolic intermediate isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate (α-KG) in conjunction with the generation of NADPH. Mutations in IDH1 and IDH2 are always present in a heterozygous state with the wild-type allele and they result in the acquisition of an abnormal enzymatic activity, the reduction of α-KG to 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG). 2-HG has been designated as an “oncometabolite” that contributes to cancer formation by inhibiting multiple dioxygenase enzymes that require α-KG for their activity, resulting in altered cell differentiation, survival, and extracellular matrix maturation (Fig. 2). Abnormal DNA methylation and increased protein levels of TP53 are common features of tumors with IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (60). Furthermore, using in vitro stem cell systems and GEMMs, it has been demonstrated that mutant IDH mutations are able to promote iCCA formation by blocking hepatocyte differentiation and inducing proliferation of hepatic progenitors (39).

At present, the treatment of choice for iCCA when feasible is surgical resection (1), whereas liver transplantation remains controversial. Upon resection, the median overall survival is of around 3 years and recurrence occurs in up to 60% of patients, depending on several prognostic factors, among which tumor burden and lymphonodal status appear to be the most relevant (1, 16). The prognosis for patients diagnosed with unresectable disease is even more dismal, with a life expectancy around 1 year and actuarial probability of survival of 5% at 5 years (1, 58).

The lack of clinical trials conducted specifically in iCCA patients as opposed to all biliary tract cancers (BTC) and the limited number of patients studied are among the challenges that preclude clinical practice guidelines in establishing a standard of care for patients with advanced iCCA (1). Among the 112 clinical trials reported in advanced BTCs testing systemic therapies (81), the majority are single-arm phase II studies with low statistical power and unclear impact on overall survival. The current standard of practice for advanced-stage iCCA is represented by systemic chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin (6). Survival benefits favoring the combination arm as opposed to gemcitabine alone (11.7 vs. 8 months; ref. 6) were demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of patients with iCCA (n = 80) included in a large randomized phase III trial (n = 410, ABC-02) of patients with advanced and metastatic BTCs.

On the other hand, so far no molecular targeted therapy has been proven effective for iCCA or other biliary tract cancers. The results of few trials with targeted therapies as monotherapy (i.e., selumitinib) or in combination with chemotherapy (i.e., sorafenib plus gemcitabine, cetuximab plus gemcitabine–oxaliplatin) have been discouraging with limited effects on overall survival (1). In this sense, patient stratification based on molecular biomarkers (Table 2) may be essential for clinical success in treating iCCA patients. Toward this direction, the first clinical trials driven by biomarkers (e.g., FGFR2 aberrations and IDH1/2 mutations) in BTCs, including iCCA, are currently ongoing and their results are anxiously awaited (Fig. 2, Table 3). BGJ398, a selective FGFR inhibitor, has shown efficacy in vitro by blocking the neoplastic transformation and growth of cell lines expressing FGFR2 fusions (57). Clinical efficacy of BGJ398 is currently being investigated in a phase II multicenter single-arm study in adult patients with advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 gene fusions or other FGFR genetic alterations who have failed chemotherapy (NCT02150967). Furthermore, promising preliminary data have been reported following treatment with ponatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, in 2 iCCA patients harboring FGFR2 fusions (FGFR2–TACC3, FGFR2–MGEA5), resulting in tumor size reduction (51). Currently, a pilot study with ponatinib is ongoing in BTC patients with FGFR2 fusions (NCT02265341). At the same time, based on demonstrated efficacy in preclinical studies, specific inhibitors for IDH1 (AG-120) and IDH2 (AG-221) are currently being investigated in phase I (NCT02073994) and phase I/II (NCT02273739) clinical trials, respectively (Table 3). In parallel, considering the emerging roles of NOTCH and WNT pathway activation in the pathogenesis of iCCA, the first clinical trials targeting these pathways using available specific inhibitors are expected to move forward (Fig. 2).

Table 3.

Ongoing clinical trials using targeted therapiesa

TreatmentTargetsClinical trial phaseNumber of trials
Biomarker driven 
 BGJ398 FGFR, ABL, FYN, KIT, LCK, LYN, YES II 
 Ponatinib hydrocloride BCR-ABL, VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR, EPH, SRC, KIT, RET, TIE2, FLT3 II 
 AG-221 Mutated IDH2 I/II 
 AG-120 Mutated IDH1 
Monotherapy 
 Cabozantinib (XL-184) MET, VEGFR2, RET, c-KIT, FLT1/3/4, TIE2 II 
 Everolimus mTOR II 
 Sunitinib VEGFR, PDGFR, KIT, FLT3, RET II 
 Regorafenib RET, RAF-1, VEGFR, KIT, BRAF (V600E), PDGFRB, FGFR1, TIE2 II 
 Celecoxib COX IV 1c 
 Trastuzumab HER2-neu II 
 LY2801653 c-MET, MST1R, FLT3, AXL, MERTK, TEK, ROS1, DDR1/2 
 BKM120 VPS34/mTOR/DNAPK/PI4Kβ II 
 Lapatinib ErbB2-4/EGFR/SRC II 
 Selumetinib MEK1/2 II 
 MK2206 AKT1-3 II 
 RAV12 RAAG12 
 PLX8394 BRAF I/II 
Combination 
 Selumetinib + MK-2206 MEK1 + AKT1-3 II 
 Bosutinib + capecitabine ABL/SRC/c-KIT 
 AZD2171 + AZD0530 VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR1/c-KIT + SRC/ABL/LCK/YES/EGFR/LYN 
 Pazopanib + GSK1120212 VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR/KIT + MEK1/2 
 Cetuximab + erlotinib EGFR I/II 2c 
 Trastuzumab + tipifarnib HER2-neu + FTI 
 Erlotinib + bevacizumab EGFR + VEGFA II 
Combination with chemotherapy 
 Radiotherapy + bevacizumab VEGFA 
 Chemotherapyb + veliparib PARP1/2 
 Chemotherapy + bevacizumab VEGFA II 2c 
 Chemotherapy ± panitumumab EGFR II 5c 
 Chemotherapy ± vandetanib (ZD6474) VEGFR, EGFR I, II 2c 
 Chemotherapy + cediranib VEGFR II 
 Chemotherpy ± sorafenib BRAF, VEGFR, PDGFR I/II 
 Chemotherapyb ± cetuximab EGFR II 2c 
 Chemotherpyb + selumetinib MEK1/2 I/II 
 Chemotherpy ± trametinib MEK1/2 II 
 Chemotherapyb + sirolimus mTOR 
 Chemotherapy + pazopanib VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR/KIT II 
 Chemotherapy + AZD2171 VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR1/c-KIT II 
 Chemotherapyb ± CX-4945 CX2 I/II 1c 
 Chemotherapy + erlotinib EGFR I/II 
TreatmentTargetsClinical trial phaseNumber of trials
Biomarker driven 
 BGJ398 FGFR, ABL, FYN, KIT, LCK, LYN, YES II 
 Ponatinib hydrocloride BCR-ABL, VEGFR, PDGFR, FGFR, EPH, SRC, KIT, RET, TIE2, FLT3 II 
 AG-221 Mutated IDH2 I/II 
 AG-120 Mutated IDH1 
Monotherapy 
 Cabozantinib (XL-184) MET, VEGFR2, RET, c-KIT, FLT1/3/4, TIE2 II 
 Everolimus mTOR II 
 Sunitinib VEGFR, PDGFR, KIT, FLT3, RET II 
 Regorafenib RET, RAF-1, VEGFR, KIT, BRAF (V600E), PDGFRB, FGFR1, TIE2 II 
 Celecoxib COX IV 1c 
 Trastuzumab HER2-neu II 
 LY2801653 c-MET, MST1R, FLT3, AXL, MERTK, TEK, ROS1, DDR1/2 
 BKM120 VPS34/mTOR/DNAPK/PI4Kβ II 
 Lapatinib ErbB2-4/EGFR/SRC II 
 Selumetinib MEK1/2 II 
 MK2206 AKT1-3 II 
 RAV12 RAAG12 
 PLX8394 BRAF I/II 
Combination 
 Selumetinib + MK-2206 MEK1 + AKT1-3 II 
 Bosutinib + capecitabine ABL/SRC/c-KIT 
 AZD2171 + AZD0530 VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR1/c-KIT + SRC/ABL/LCK/YES/EGFR/LYN 
 Pazopanib + GSK1120212 VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR/KIT + MEK1/2 
 Cetuximab + erlotinib EGFR I/II 2c 
 Trastuzumab + tipifarnib HER2-neu + FTI 
 Erlotinib + bevacizumab EGFR + VEGFA II 
Combination with chemotherapy 
 Radiotherapy + bevacizumab VEGFA 
 Chemotherapyb + veliparib PARP1/2 
 Chemotherapy + bevacizumab VEGFA II 2c 
 Chemotherapy ± panitumumab EGFR II 5c 
 Chemotherapy ± vandetanib (ZD6474) VEGFR, EGFR I, II 2c 
 Chemotherapy + cediranib VEGFR II 
 Chemotherpy ± sorafenib BRAF, VEGFR, PDGFR I/II 
 Chemotherapyb ± cetuximab EGFR II 2c 
 Chemotherpyb + selumetinib MEK1/2 I/II 
 Chemotherpy ± trametinib MEK1/2 II 
 Chemotherapyb + sirolimus mTOR 
 Chemotherapy + pazopanib VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR/KIT II 
 Chemotherapy + AZD2171 VEGFR/PDGFR/FGFR1/c-KIT II 
 Chemotherapyb ± CX-4945 CX2 I/II 1c 
 Chemotherapy + erlotinib EGFR I/II 

Abbreviations: FGFR, fibroblast growth factor; KIT, c-kit proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase; PDGFR, platelet-derived growth factor receptor.

aInformation acquired from clinicaltrials.gov.

bChemotherapy (standard of practice: gemcitabine and cisplatin).

cRandomized controlled clinical trials.

The application of new technologies has led to a more accurate mapping of the genomic landscape of iCCA, a devastating disease with limited treatment options. Among the newly discovered molecular alterations, FGFR2 fusions and IDH1/2 mutations hold great promise for improving the future management and treatment of iCCA patients through the first biomarker-driven clinical studies currently ongoing. Whether FGFR2 aberrations may represent a novel oncogene addiction loop in iCCA still remains an unanswered question. Nevertheless, FGFR2 fusions have the potential to represent a new avenue of research for basic investigators and clinicians. Finally, the intriguing possibility of multiple cells of origin in iCCA deserves further investigation as a means to understand the mechanisms underlying the carcinogenesis process and to determine whether this can be of relevance in clinical application.

V. Mazzaferro reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Bayer and BTG. J.M. Llovet reports receiving commercial research grants from Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, and Boehringer Ingelheim; other commercial research support from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and is a consultant/advisory board member for Bayer, Biocompatibles, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsion, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

A. Moeini is supported by a fellowship from Spanish National Health Institute (FPI program, BES-2011-046915). D. Sia is supported by the ILCA-Bayer Fellowship. N. Bardeesy holds the Gallagher Endowed Chair in Gastrointestinal Cancer Research at Massachusetts General Hospital and is supported by a V Foundation Translational Award, the TargetCancer Foundation, and the NIH under award numbers R01CA136567-02 and P50CA1270003. V. Mazzaferro is partially supported by the AIRC (Italian Association for Cancer Research) and a 5×1000 Milan-INT institutional grant in hepato-oncology. J.M Llovet is supported by grants from the Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Spanish National Health Institute (SAF-2013-41027), and a European Commission HEP-CAR grant (667273-2).

1.
Bridgewater
J
,
Galle
PR
,
Khan
SA
,
Llovet
JM
,
Park
JW
,
Patel
T
, et al
Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
J Hepatol
2014
;
60
:
1268
89
.
2.
Yang
JD
,
Kim
B
,
Sanderson
SO
,
Sauver
JS
,
Yawn
BP
,
Larson
JJ
, et al
Biliary tract cancers in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976–2008
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2012
;
107
:
1256
62
.
3.
Rizvi
S
,
Gores
GJ
. 
Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma
.
Gastroenterology
2013
;
145
:
1215
29
.
4.
Njei
B
. 
Changing pattern of epidemiology in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Hepatology
2014
;
60
:
1107
8
.
5.
de Jong
MC
,
Nathan
H
,
Sotiropoulos
GC
,
Paul
A
,
Alexandrescu
S
,
Marques
H
, et al
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an international multi-institutional analysis of prognostic factors and lymph node assessment
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
3140
5
.
6.
Valle
J
,
Wasan
H
,
Palmer
DH
,
Cunningham
D
,
Anthoney
A
,
Maraveyas
A
, et al
Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2010
;
362
:
1273
81
.
7.
Khan
SA
,
Toledano
MB
,
Taylor-Robinson
SD
. 
Epidemiology, risk factors, and pathogenesis of cholangiocarcinoma
.
HPB
2008
;
10
:
77
82
.
8.
Patel
T
. 
Increasing incidence and mortality of primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States
.
Hepatology
2001
;
33
:
1353
7
.
9.
Patel
T
. 
Worldwide trends in mortality from biliary tract malignancies
.
BMC Cancer
2002
;
2
:
10
.
10.
Taylor-Robinson
SD
,
Toledano
MB
,
Arora
S
,
Keegan
TJ
,
Hargreaves
S
,
Beck
A
, et al
Increase in mortality rates from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in England and Wales 1968–1998
.
Gut
2001
;
48
:
816
20
.
11.
Tyson
GL
,
El-Serag
HB
. 
Risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma
.
Hepatology
2011
;
54
:
173
84
.
12.
Blechacz
B
,
Komuta
M
,
Roskams
T
,
Gores
GJ
. 
Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma
.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol
2011
;
8
:
512
22
.
13.
DeOliveira
ML
,
Cunningham
SC
,
Cameron
JL
,
Kamangar
F
,
Winter
JM
,
Lillemoe
KD
, et al
Cholangiocarcinoma: thirty-one-year experience with 564 patients at a single institution
.
Ann Surg
2007
;
245
:
755
62
.
14.
Khan
SA
,
Davidson
BR
,
Goldin
RD
,
Heaton
N
,
Karani
J
,
Pereira
SP
, et al
Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: an update
.
Gut
2012
;
61
:
1657
69
.
15.
Khan
SA
,
Emadossadaty
S
,
Ladep
NG
,
Thomas
HC
,
Elliott
P
,
Taylor-Robinson
SD
, et al
Rising trends in cholangiocarcinoma: is the ICD classification system misleading us?
J Hepatol
2012
;
56
:
848
54
.
16.
Razumilava
N
,
Gores
GJ
. 
Cholangiocarcinoma
.
Lancet
2014
;
383
:
2168
79
.
17.
Donato
F
,
Gelatti
U
,
Tagger
A
,
Favret
M
,
Ribero
ML
,
Callea
F
, et al
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatitis C and B virus infection, alcohol intake, and hepatolithiasis: a case-control study in Italy
.
Cancer Causes Control
2001
;
12
:
959
64
.
18.
Lee
TY
,
Lee
SS
,
Jung
SW
,
Jeon
SH
,
Yun
SC
,
Oh
HC
, et al
Hepatitis B virus infection and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Korea: a case-control study
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2008
;
103
:
1716
20
.
19.
Shaib
YH
,
El-Serag
HB
,
Nooka
AK
,
Thomas
M
,
Brown
TD
,
Patt
YZ
, et al
Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a hospital-based case-control study
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2007
;
102
:
1016
21
.
20.
Welzel
TM
,
Graubard
BI
,
El-Serag
HB
,
Shaib
YH
,
Hsing
AW
,
Davila
JA
, et al
Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a population-based case-control study
.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
2007
;
5
:
1221
8
.
21.
Yamamoto
S
,
Kubo
S
,
Hai
S
,
Uenishi
T
,
Yamamoto
T
,
Shuto
T
, et al
Hepatitis C virus infection as a likely etiology of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Cancer Sci
2004
;
95
:
592
5
.
22.
Peng
NF
,
Li
LQ
,
Qin
X
,
Guo
Y
,
Peng
T
,
Xiao
KY
, et al
Evaluation of risk factors and clinicopathologic features for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Southern China: a possible role of hepatitis B virus
.
Ann Surg Oncol
2011
;
18
:
1258
66
.
23.
Welzel
TM
,
Graubard
BI
,
Zeuzem
S
,
El-Serag
HB
,
Davila
JA
,
McGlynn
KA
. 
Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of primary liver cancer in the United States: a study in the SEER-Medicare database
.
Hepatology
2011
;
54
:
463
71
.
24.
Roskams
T
,
Katoonizadeh
A
,
Komuta
M
. 
Hepatic progenitor cells: an update
.
Clin Liver Dis
2010
;
14
:
705
18
.
25.
Akiba
J
,
Nakashima
O
,
Hattori
S
,
Tanikawa
K
,
Takenaka
M
,
Nakayama
M
, et al
Clinicopathologic analysis of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma according to the latest WHO classification
.
Am J Surg Pathol
2013
;
37
:
496
505
.
26.
Si-Tayeb
K
,
Lemaigre
FP
,
Duncan
SA
. 
Organogenesis and development of the liver
.
Dev Cell
2010
;
18
:
175
89
.
27.
Kordes
C
,
Haussinger
D
. 
Hepatic stem cell niches
.
J Clin Invest
2013
;
123
:
1874
80
.
28.
Tarlow
BD
,
Pelz
C
,
Naugler
WE
,
Wakefield
L
,
Wilson
EM
,
Finegold
MJ
, et al
Bipotential adult liver progenitors are derived from chronically injured mature hepatocytes
.
Cell Stem Cell
2014
;
15
:
605
18
.
29.
Yanger
K
,
Zong
Y
,
Maggs
LR
,
Shapira
SN
,
Maddipati
R
,
Aiello
NM
, et al
Robust cellular reprogramming occurs spontaneously during liver regeneration
.
Genes Dev
2013
;
27
:
719
24
.
30.
Oishi
N
,
Kumar
MR
,
Roessler
S
,
Ji
J
,
Forgues
M
,
Budhu
A
, et al
Transcriptomic profiling reveals hepatic stem-like gene signatures and interplay of miR-200c and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Hepatology
2012
;
56
:
1792
803
.
31.
Sia
D
,
Hoshida
Y
,
Villanueva
A
,
Roayaie
S
,
Ferrer
J
,
Tabak
B
, et al
Integrative molecular analysis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma reveals 2 classes that have different outcomes
.
Gastroenterology
2013
;
144
:
829
40
.
32.
Lee
JS
,
Heo
J
,
Libbrecht
L
,
Chu
IS
,
Kaposi-Novak
P
,
Calvisi
DF
, et al
A novel prognostic subtype of human hepatocellular carcinoma derived from hepatic progenitor cells
.
Nat Med
2006
;
12
:
410
6
.
33.
Yamashita
T
,
Ji
J
,
Budhu
A
,
Forgues
M
,
Yang
W
,
Wang
HY
, et al
EpCAM-positive hepatocellular carcinoma cells are tumor-initiating cells with stem/progenitor cell features
.
Gastroenterology
2009
;
136
:
1012
24
.
34.
Chiang
DY
,
Villanueva
A
,
Hoshida
Y
,
Peix
J
,
Newell
P
,
Minguez
B
, et al
Focal gains of VEGFA and molecular classification of hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2008
;
68
:
6779
88
.
35.
Hoshida
Y
,
Nijman
SM
,
Kobayashi
M
,
Chan
JA
,
Brunet
JP
,
Chiang
DY
, et al
Integrative transcriptome analysis reveals common molecular subclasses of human hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2009
;
69
:
7385
92
.
36.
Roskams
T
. 
Liver stem cells and their implication in hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma
.
Oncogene
2006
;
25
:
3818
22
.
37.
Woo
HG
,
Lee
JH
,
Yoon
JH
,
Kim
CY
,
Lee
HS
,
Jang
JJ
, et al
Identification of a cholangiocarcinoma-like gene expression trait in hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2010
;
70
:
3034
41
.
38.
Komuta
M
,
Spee
B
,
Vander Borght
S
,
De Vos
R
,
Verslype
C
,
Aerts
R
, et al
Clinicopathological study on cholangiolocellular carcinoma suggesting hepatic progenitor cell origin
.
Hepatology
2008
;
47
:
1544
56
.
39.
Saha
SK
,
Parachoniak
CA
,
Ghanta
KS
,
Fitamant
J
,
Ross
KN
,
Najem
MS
, et al
Mutant IDH inhibits HNF-4alpha to block hepatocyte differentiation and promote biliary cancer
.
Nature
2014
;
513
:
110
4
.
40.
Fitamant
J
,
Kottakis
F
,
Benhamouche
S
,
Tian
HS
,
Chuvin
N
,
Parachoniak
CA
, et al
YAP inhibition restores hepatocyte differentiation in advanced HCC, leading to tumor regression
.
Cell Rep
2015
;
10
:
1692
707
.
41.
Lee
KP
,
Lee
JH
,
Kim
TS
,
Kim
TH
,
Park
HD
,
Byun
JS
, et al
The Hippo-Salvador pathway restrains hepatic oval cell proliferation, liver size, and liver tumorigenesis
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2010
;
107
:
8248
53
.
42.
Lu
L
,
Li
Y
,
Kim
SM
,
Bossuyt
W
,
Liu
P
,
Qiu
Q
, et al
Hippo signaling is a potent in vivo growth and tumor suppressor pathway in the mammalian liver
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2010
;
107
:
1437
42
.
43.
Fan
B
,
Malato
Y
,
Calvisi
DF
,
Naqvi
S
,
Razumilava
N
,
Ribback
S
, et al
Cholangiocarcinomas can originate from hepatocytes in mice
.
J Clin Invest
2012
;
122
:
2911
5
.
44.
Sekiya
S
,
Suzuki
A
. 
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can arise from Notch-mediated conversion of hepatocytes
.
J Clin Invest
2012
;
122
:
3914
8
.
45.
Villanueva
A
,
Alsinet
C
,
Yanger
K
,
Hoshida
Y
,
Zong
Y
,
Toffanin
S
, et al
Notch signaling is activated in human hepatocellular carcinoma and induces tumor formation in mice
.
Gastroenterology
2012
;
143
:
1660
9
.
46.
Wu
WR
,
Shi
XD
,
Zhang
R
,
Zhu
MS
,
Xu
LB
,
Yu
XH
, et al
Clinicopathological significance of aberrant Notch receptors in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Int J Clin Exp Pathol
2014
;
7
:
3272
9
.
47.
Guest
RV
,
Boulter
L
,
Kendall
TJ
,
Minnis-Lyons
SE
,
Walker
R
,
Wigmore
SJ
, et al
Cell lineage tracing reveals a biliary origin of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2014
;
74
:
1005
10
.
48.
Chapman
PB
,
Hauschild
A
,
Robert
C
,
Haanen
JB
,
Ascierto
P
,
Larkin
J
, et al
Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation
.
N Engl J Med
2011
;
364
:
2507
16
.
49.
Shaw
AT
,
Kim
DW
,
Nakagawa
K
,
Seto
T
,
Crino
L
,
Ahn
MJ
, et al
Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2013
;
368
:
2385
94
.
50.
Andersen
JB
,
Spee
B
,
Blechacz
BR
,
Avital
I
,
Komuta
M
,
Barbour
A
, et al
Genomic and genetic characterization of cholangiocarcinoma identifies therapeutic targets for tyrosine kinase inhibitors
.
Gastroenterology
2012
;
142
:
1021
31
.
51.
Borad
MJ
,
Champion
MD
,
Egan
JB
,
Liang
WS
,
Fonseca
R
,
Bryce
AH
, et al
Integrated genomic characterization reveals novel, therapeutically relevant drug targets in FGFR and EGFR pathways in sporadic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
PLoS Genet
2014
;
10
:
e1004135
.
52.
Chan-On
W
,
Nairismagi
ML
,
Ong
CK
,
Lim
WK
,
Dima
S
,
Pairojkul
C
, et al
Exome sequencing identifies distinct mutational patterns in liver fluke-related and non-infection-related bile duct cancers
.
Nat Genet
2013
;
45
:
1474
8
.
53.
Churi
CR
,
Shroff
R
,
Wang
Y
,
Rashid
A
,
Kang
HC
,
Weatherly
J
, et al
Mutation profiling in cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic and therapeutic implications
.
PLoS ONE
2014
;
9
:
e115383
.
54.
Jiao
Y
,
Pawlik
TM
,
Anders
RA
,
Selaru
FM
,
Streppel
MM
,
Lucas
DJ
, et al
Exome sequencing identifies frequent inactivating mutations in BAP1, ARID1A and PBRM1 in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas
.
Nat Genet
2013
;
45
:
1470
3
.
55.
Leone
F
,
Cavalloni
G
,
Pignochino
Y
,
Sarotto
I
,
Ferraris
R
,
Piacibello
W
, et al
Somatic mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor in bile duct and gallbladder carcinoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2006
;
12
:
1680
5
.
56.
Ross
JS
,
Wang
K
,
Gay
L
,
Al-Rohil
R
,
Rand
JV
,
Jones
DM
, et al
New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing
.
Oncologist
2014
;
19
:
235
42
.
57.
Sia
D
,
Losic
B
,
Moeini
A
,
Cabellos
L
,
Hao
K
,
Revill
K
, et al
Massive parallel sequencing uncovers actionable FGFR2–PPHLN1 fusion and ARAF mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Nat Commun
2015
;
6
:
6087
.
58.
Sia
D
,
Tovar
V
,
Moeini
A
,
Llovet
JM
. 
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: pathogenesis and rationale for molecular therapies
.
Oncogene
2013
;
32
:
4861
70
.
59.
Simbolo
M
,
Fassan
M
,
Ruzzenente
A
,
Mafficini
A
,
Wood
LD
,
Corbo
V
, et al
Multigene mutational profiling of cholangiocarcinomas identifies actionable molecular subgroups
.
Oncotarget
2014
;
5
:
2839
52
.
60.
Wang
P
,
Dong
Q
,
Zhang
C
,
Kuan
PF
,
Liu
Y
,
Jeck
WR
, et al
Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 and 2 occur frequently in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and share hypermethylation targets with glioblastomas
.
Oncogene
2013
;
32
:
3091
100
.
61.
Zou
S
,
Li
J
,
Zhou
H
,
Frech
C
,
Jiang
X
,
Chu
JS
, et al
Mutational landscape of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Nat Commun
2014
;
5
:
5696
.
62.
Fujimoto
A
,
Furuta
M
,
Shiraishi
Y
,
Gotoh
K
,
Kawakami
Y
,
Arihiro
K
, et al
Whole-genome mutational landscape of liver cancers displaying biliary phenotype reveals hepatitis impact and molecular diversity
.
Nat Commun
2015
;
6
:
6120
.
63.
Kim
HJ
,
Yoo
TW
,
Park
DI
,
Park
JH
,
Cho
YK
,
Sohn
CI
, et al
Gene amplification and protein overexpression of HER-2/neu in human extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as detected by chromogenic in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry: its prognostic implication in node-positive patients
.
Ann Oncol
2007
;
18
:
892
7
.
64.
Zhu
AX
,
Borger
DR
,
Kim
Y
,
Cosgrove
D
,
Ejaz
A
,
Alexandrescu
S
, et al
Genomic profiling of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: refining prognosis and identifying therapeutic targets
.
Ann Surg Oncol
2014
;
21
:
3827
34
.
65.
Ishimura
N
,
Bronk
SF
,
Gores
GJ
. 
Inducible nitric oxide synthase up-regulates Notch-1 in mouse cholangiocytes: implications for carcinogenesis
.
Gastroenterology
2005
;
128
:
1354
68
.
66.
El Khatib
M
,
Bozko
P
,
Palagani
V
,
Malek
NP
,
Wilkens
L
,
Plentz
RR
. 
Activation of Notch signaling is required for cholangiocarcinoma progression and is enhanced by inactivation of p53 in vivo
.
PLoS ONE
2013
;
8
:
e77433
.
67.
Zender
S
,
Nickeleit
I
,
Wuestefeld
T
,
Sorensen
I
,
Dauch
D
,
Bozko
P
, et al
A critical role for notch signaling in the formation of cholangiocellular carcinomas
.
Cancer Cell
2013
;
23
:
784
95
.
68.
Huntzicker
EG
,
Hotzel
K
,
Choy
L
,
Che
L
,
Ross
J
,
Pau
G
, et al
Differential effects of targeting Notch receptors in a mouse model of liver cancer
.
Hepatology
2015
;
61
:
942
52
.
69.
Boulter
L
,
Guest
RV
,
Kendall
TJ
,
Wilson
DH
,
Wojtacha
D
,
Robson
AJ
, et al
WNT signaling drives cholangiocarcinoma growth and can be pharmacologically inhibited
.
J Clin Invest
2015
;
125
:
1269
85
.
70.
Goeppert
B
,
Konermann
C
,
Schmidt
CR
,
Bogatyrova
O
,
Geiselhart
L
,
Ernst
C
, et al
Global alterations of DNA methylation in cholangiocarcinoma target the Wnt signaling pathway
.
Hepatology
2014
;
59
:
544
54
.
71.
Loilome
W
,
Bungkanjana
P
,
Techasen
A
,
Namwat
N
,
Yongvanit
P
,
Puapairoj
A
, et al
Activated macrophages promote Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in cholangiocarcinoma cells
.
Tumour Biol
2014
;
35
:
5357
67
.
72.
Arai
Y
,
Totoki
Y
,
Hosoda
F
,
Shirota
T
,
Hama
N
,
Nakamura
H
, et al
Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 tyrosine kinase fusions define a unique molecular subtype of cholangiocarcinoma
.
Hepatology
2014
;
59
:
1427
34
.
73.
Wu
YM
,
Su
F
,
Kalyana-Sundaram
S
,
Khazanov
N
,
Ateeq
B
,
Cao
X
, et al
Identification of targetable FGFR gene fusions in diverse cancers
.
Cancer Discov
2013
;
3
:
636
47
.
74.
Dienstmann
R
,
Rodon
J
,
Prat
A
,
Perez-Garcia
J
,
Adamo
B
,
Felip
E
, et al
Genomic aberrations in the FGFR pathway: opportunities for targeted therapies in solid tumors
.
Ann Oncol
2014
;
25
:
552
63
.
75.
Graham
RP
,
Barr Fritcher
EG
,
Pestova
E
,
Schulz
J
,
Sitailo
LA
,
Vasmatzis
G
, et al
Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 translocations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Hum Pathol
2014
;
45
:
1630
8
.
76.
Tanizaki
J
,
Ercan
D
,
Capelletti
M
,
Dodge
M
,
Xu
C
,
Bahcall
M
, et al
Identification of oncogenic and drug-sensitizing mutations in the extracellular domain of FGFR2
.
Cancer Res
2015
;
75
:
3139
46
.
77.
Gu
TL
,
Deng
X
,
Huang
F
,
Tucker
M
,
Crosby
K
,
Rimkunas
V
, et al
Survey of tyrosine kinase signaling reveals ROS kinase fusions in human cholangiocarcinoma
.
PLoS ONE
2011
;
6
:
e15640
.
78.
Saborowski
A
,
Saborowski
M
,
Davare
MA
,
Druker
BJ
,
Klimstra
DS
,
Lowe
SW
. 
Mouse model of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma validates FIG-ROS as a potent fusion oncogene and therapeutic target
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2013
;
110
:
19513
8
.
79.
Jinawath
N
,
Chamgramol
Y
,
Furukawa
Y
,
Obama
K
,
Tsunoda
T
,
Sripa
B
, et al
Comparison of gene expression profiles between Opisthorchis viverrini and non-Opisthorchis viverrini associated human intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
.
Hepatology
2006
;
44
:
1025
38
.
80.
Ong
CK
,
Subimerb
C
,
Pairojkul
C
,
Wongkham
S
,
Cutcutache
I
,
Yu
W
, et al
Exome sequencing of liver fluke-associated cholangiocarcinoma
.
Nat Genet
2012
;
44
:
690
3
.
81.
Eckel
F
,
Schmid
RM
. 
Chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract carcinoma: a pooled analysis of clinical trials
.
Br J Cancer
2007
;
96
:
896
902
.