OnCo

Sign in to keep your watchlist

Your watched pages live in this browser. Sign in with an email link and OnCo keeps the same list on every device you use. Only your email address and your watchlist are stored.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the decisions you may face

7 treatment settings, 5 with more than one named option. Each section lays out the options the standard of care names, what each is for, the trials behind them with their recorded results, the side effects and cautions on record, and questions to ask. Built from the cancer page's standard-of-care rows; nothing here is advice for your case.

Contrast MRI and CT, biopsy, and comprehensive genomic profiling including RNA-based fusion detection for every patient.

The options, in plain words
MRIStandard of care

MRI uses a strong magnet and radio waves, with no ionising radiation, to picture soft tissue in finer contrast than CT, so it is the standard scan for brain tumours, prostate, rectal cancer staging, liver lesions and breast screening in high-risk women. It is slow, expensive and blurred by movement.

  • No ionising radiation
  • Best soft-tissue and brain imaging
  • Functional sequences (diffusion, perfusion)
CT (computed tomography)Standard of care

A CT scan is a fast 3D X-ray that shows the size and shape of tumours and whether they have spread.

  • Fast, ubiquitous
  • Sub-millimetre resolution
  • Standard for RECIST response

Sequencing hundreds of cancer genes at once from a biopsy to find the mutations a drug can target.

  • One test, all actionable alterations
  • Trial matching
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Slow and expensive
  • Motion artefacts
  • Gadolinium concerns in renal impairment
  • Anatomic only; cannot distinguish scar from live tumour
  • Radiation dose
  • Poor for brain, marrow, and small peritoneal disease
  • Tissue quantity
  • VUS interpretation
  • 2-3 week turnaround
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between MRI, CT (computed tomography) and Comprehensive genomic profiling, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (diagnosis), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Contrast MRI and CT, biopsy, and comprehensive genomic profiling including RNA-based fusion detection for every patient.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

One path named

Hepatectomy with lymph node dissection followed by six months of adjuvant capecitabine (BILCAP).

The path, in plain words

Capecitabine (Xeloda) is a tablet form of the chemotherapy fluorouracil. It is a backbone of treatment for bowel cancer and a standard option in advanced breast cancer.

The evidence behind it
  • Adjuvant capecitabine for 6 months vs observation after resection of biliary tract cancer

    OS 51.1 vs 36.4 months; ITT HR 0.81 (p=0.097), per-protocol HR 0.75.

    Overall survival (ITT) (months): Capecitabine 51.1 (n=223) vs Observation 36.4 (n=224) · HR 0.81 · source
The main trade-offs on record

No side-effect rates or interaction flags are recorded for these options yet. The side-effect lookup and interaction checker cover the products that have them.

Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Capecitabine the only reasonable path for me, or is there a trial, a different sequence or a wait-and-see option?
    Why: A single standard does not mean a single choice; timing and trials are decisions too.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in BILCAP, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  5. For my situation (resectable), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Hepatectomy with lymph node dissection followed by six months of adjuvant capecitabine (BILCAP).
  6. Am I a candidate for Capecitabine, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  7. How do the results of BILCAP apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Advanced, first line

Unresectable, liver-confined

3 options

Radioembolisation, stereotactic radiotherapy or hepatic artery infusion in specialised centres, usually with systemic therapy; liver transplantation in trials.

The options, in plain words

Millions of tiny radioactive glass or resin beads are injected into the liver artery, lodging in the tumour and irradiating it from within.

  • Outpatient, single session
  • Effective in portal vein thrombosis where TACE is contraindicated
  • Radiation segmentectomy can be curative for small tumours

Stereotactic body radiotherapy converges multiple beams with sub-millimetre accuracy to deliver tumour-destroying doses in one to five outpatient sessions, doing the job of surgery for inoperable early lung cancer and for metastases in liver, spine and brain. Tumour size and location limit its use, and late toxicity is a concern near the central airways.

  • Ablative doses with minimal recovery
  • Outpatient

Replacing the whole diseased liver cures both the cancer and the cirrhosis underneath it, for patients whose tumours are small enough.

  • Only therapy that treats cancer and cirrhosis together
  • Best long-term survival for early HCC
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Radioembolisation-induced liver disease
  • Failed to beat sorafenib on OS in advanced disease
  • Lung shunting excludes some patients
  • Size and location limits
  • Late toxicity near central airways
  • Organ shortage and waiting-list dropout
  • Lifelong immunosuppression; checkpoint inhibitors before transplant risk rejection
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Radioembolisation (TARE / SIRT, yttrium-90), SBRT / SABR (stereotactic radiotherapy) and Liver transplantation for cancer (Milan criteria and beyond), which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (unresectable, liver-confined), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Radioembolisation, stereotactic radiotherapy or hepatic artery infusion in specialised centres, usually with systemic therapy; liver transplantation in trials.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin with durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966).

The options, in plain words

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin has been the chemotherapy backbone for bile duct cancer since 2010 and is now given with immunotherapy.

A PD-L1 blocker that became standard after chemoradiation for stage III lung cancer, and now in bladder, biliary, and gastric cancers.

Pembrolizumab is a PD-1 blocking antibody approved in more than 40 settings, from melanoma and lung cancer to the first tumour-agnostic approval for mismatch-repair-deficient tumours in 2017, and before and after surgery in triple-negative breast cancer. A subcutaneous form arrived in 2025, and it is the backbone partner for ADCs and personalised neoantigen vaccines.

The evidence behind it
  • First-line advanced biliary tract cancer: gemcitabine-cisplatin + durvalumab vs + placebo
    Show survival figures (1)

    Averages across everyone diagnosed, often years ago. Your stage, subtype, age, fitness and the treatment you receive matter more than the average, and the numbers are improving quickly.

    • OS HR 0.76; 2-year OS 23.6% vs 11.5%.
    Overall survival (updated) (months): Durvalumab + GemCis 12.9 (n=341) vs Placebo + GemCis 11.3 (n=344) · HR 0.76 · source
  • First-line advanced biliary tract cancer: gemcitabine-cisplatin + pembrolizumab vs + placebo

    OS 12.7 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.83.

    Overall survival (months): Pembrolizumab + GemCis 12.7 (n=533) vs Placebo + GemCis 10.9 (n=536) · HR 0.83 · source
  • Locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer: gemcitabine + cisplatin vs gemcitabine

    OS 11.7 vs 8.1 months, HR 0.64.

    Overall survival (months): Gemcitabine + cisplatin 11.7 (n=204) vs Gemcitabine 8.1 (n=206) · HR 0.64 · source
The main trade-offs on record
Side effectAny gradeGrade 3+
Pneumonitis (any cause, PACIFIC) · vs 12.8% placebo; 1.1% fatal18.3%-

Rates from the label or pivotal trial as recorded on the product page; each grade 3+ figure links to its source.

Side effectAny gradeGrade 3+
Hypothyroidism (immune-mediated) · Pooled monotherapy data, >2,800 patients8%-
Pneumonitis (immune-mediated) · Pooled monotherapy data, >2,800 patients3.4%-
Colitis (immune-mediated) · Pooled monotherapy data, >2,800 patients1.7%-
Hepatitis (immune-mediated) · Pooled monotherapy data, >2,800 patients0.7%-
  • No pharmacokinetic interactions expected (antibody). See the irAE guide for toxicity management.

Rates from the label or pivotal trial as recorded on the product page; each grade 3+ figure links to its source.

Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Gemcitabine + cisplatin, Durvalumab and Pembrolizumab, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. Which side effects of Durvalumab or Pembrolizumab are most likely for me, which are reversible, and which would make us stop?
    Why: The recorded rates below come from labels and trials; your own risk depends on dose, other medicines and your health.
  5. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  6. For my situation (advanced, first line), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Gemcitabine and cisplatin with durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966).
  7. Am I a candidate for Gemcitabine + cisplatin, Durvalumab, Pembrolizumab, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  8. How do the results of TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Second line

Advanced, FGFR2 fusion after chemotherapy

Pemigatinib (FIGHT-202) or futibatinib (FOENIX-CCA2); management of hyperphosphataemia and eye toxicity.

The options, in plain words

Pemigatinib was the first targeted therapy for bile duct cancer, for tumours with an FGFR2 gene fusion.

Futibatinib is a covalent FGFR inhibitor for FGFR2-fusion bile duct cancer, with the highest response rate of the first-generation drugs.

The evidence behind it
The main trade-offs on record

No side-effect rates or interaction flags are recorded for these options yet. The side-effect lookup and interaction checker cover the products that have them.

Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between Pemigatinib and Futibatinib, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in FIGHT-202 and FOENIX-CCA2, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  5. For my situation (advanced, fgfr2 fusion after chemotherapy), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Pemigatinib (FIGHT-202) or futibatinib (FOENIX-CCA2); management of hyperphosphataemia and eye toxicity.
  6. Am I a candidate for Pemigatinib, Futibatinib, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  7. How do the results of FIGHT-202 and FOENIX-CCA2 apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Second line

Advanced, IDH1 mutation after chemotherapy

One path named

Ivosidenib (ClarIDHy).

The path, in plain words

The first drug to block a mutant metabolic enzyme in cancer. With azacitidine it tripled survival in IDH1-mutated AML that could not take intensive chemotherapy.

Also referenced:IDH1 / IDH2
The evidence behind it
The main trade-offs on record
Side effectAny gradeGrade 3+
Differentiation syndrome · AGILE combination arm14%-
  • Known QT prolongation. Avoid other QT-prolonging drugs where possible; check ECG and correct potassium and magnesium before and during treatment.

Rates from the label or pivotal trial as recorded on the product page; each grade 3+ figure links to its source.

Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Is Ivosidenib the only reasonable path for me, or is there a trial, a different sequence or a wait-and-see option?
    Why: A single standard does not mean a single choice; timing and trials are decisions too.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. How closely do I match the people in ClarIDHy, and does that change what the results mean for me?
    Why: Trial populations are selected; age, fitness, prior treatment and biomarkers all affect how far results carry.
  4. Which side effects of Ivosidenib are most likely for me, which are reversible, and which would make us stop?
    Why: The recorded rates below come from labels and trials; your own risk depends on dose, other medicines and your health.
  5. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  6. For my situation (advanced, idh1 mutation after chemotherapy), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: Ivosidenib (ClarIDHy).
  7. Am I a candidate for Ivosidenib, and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.
  8. How do the results of ClarIDHy apply to someone like me?
    Why: Trial populations differ from individual patients; ask how closely you match.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

Second line

Second line without a target

2 options

FOLFOX (ABC-06); trials.

The options, in plain words

FOLFOX is the workhorse chemotherapy combination for bowel cancer, used after surgery to cure and in advanced disease as the backbone that targeted drugs are added to.

Cytotoxic chemotherapyStandard of care

Cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs (platinums, antimetabolites, microtubule agents and topoisomerase inhibitors) kill rapidly dividing cells by damaging DNA or the mitotic spindle. They still cure testicular cancer, lymphoma and leukaemia, and they are the warhead inside antibody-drug conjugates, but a narrow margin between effective and toxic doses is their limitation.

  • Curative in several cancers
  • Cheap, generic
The evidence behind it

No trial record is attached to this row yet. The trials tab lists what is recruiting and the landmark trials for this cancer.

The main trade-offs on record
  • Narrow therapeutic index
  • Resistance via efflux pumps and DNA repair
Questions to ask about this decision
  1. Between FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) and Cytotoxic chemotherapy, which do you recommend for me, and what about my case would make you choose differently?
    Why: Guidelines list several reasonable options; the choice turns on details of your tumour, your health and your priorities.
  2. What is each option trying to achieve: cure, long control, or relief of symptoms, and over what time?
    Why: The aim shapes how much side effect and disruption is worth accepting.
  3. What happens if I delay, or decline this step for now? Is the decision reversible?
    Why: Some decisions can wait for a second opinion or a trial slot; others cannot. Knowing which is part of the choice.
  4. For my situation (second line without a target), which of the standard options do you recommend and why?
    Why: Guideline options include: FOLFOX (ABC-06); trials.
  5. Am I a candidate for FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin), and what side effects should I expect?
    Why: Knowing the expected toxicities helps you plan work, family, and supportive care.

Add these to your appointment list, or take the full question set for this cancer.

How to read this page. Options and results come from OnCo records with their sources; the settings are the standard-of-care rows on the cancer page, and the lines of therapy are on the sequencing grid. Where a setting names one path, the choice is usually about timing, trials and where to be treated: see expert centres. OnCo is orientation, not medical advice.