Relying solely on Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) is insufficient for HER2 testing in biliary tract cancers. Data shows NGS misses up to 15% of patients with HER2 overexpression detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Performing both tests is essential to avoid denying patients effective targeted therapies.

The CREST trial showed benefit driven by patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS), while the Potomac trial showed a lack of benefit in the same subgroup. This stark inconsistency demonstrates that subgroup analyses, even for stratified factors, can be unreliable and are a weak basis for regulatory decisions or label restrictions.

When a biliary tract tumor has both an FGFR2 fusion and HER2 positivity, oncologists may prioritize targeting the FGFR2 fusion. They reason that fusions are often early, clonal, and homogenous driver events, making them a more reliable therapeutic target than HER2, which can be expressed heterogeneously.

The technology and breadth of molecular testing panels for GIST are rapidly evolving. A patient whose tumor tested negative for driver mutations in the past should be considered for re-testing with current, broader panels. This may uncover previously undetectable alterations like FGFR translocations and open up new treatment options.

A real-world analysis of pemigatinib reported low rates of dose reduction or discontinuation. This may be misleading, as the toxicities of FGFR inhibitors (e.g., nail, skin, eye issues) are cumulative and worsen over extended periods. The study's shorter follow-up likely didn't capture the full long-term safety profile of the drug.

Real-world data for pemigatinib in cholangiocarcinoma showed a higher response rate (59%) than the pivotal FITE-202 trial (36%). This discrepancy likely stems from the lack of standardized, centrally reviewed imaging in real-world settings, which can inflate perceived response. Comparable progression-free survival across both settings supports this interpretation.

Despite mutation testing being a critical first step for effective treatment planning in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), a significant number of patients in the United States still do not receive this essential diagnostic. This highlights a major gap between established best practices and real-world clinical application.

Even when trials like LITESPARK 022 and Keynote 564 use identical eligibility criteria, outdated staging systems result in patient populations with different underlying risks. This makes direct comparison of outcomes between trials, even for the same drug, an unfair and statistically flawed analysis that ignores the function of a control arm.

The study presented three different datasets over a short period. While efficacy endpoints like PFS and OS changed, the toxicity data remained identical. This is highly unusual, as resolving censored patient data for efficacy should also lead to updated toxicity information, suggesting a rushed or incomplete analysis process.