Next Article in Journal
Cyclin-Dependent 4/6 Kinase Inhibitors for Treatment of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: 2026 Update
Next Article in Special Issue
The Potential of A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinase (ADAM) Proteins as Clinically Relevant Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Wu et al. WIP1 Inhibition by GSK2830371 Potentiates HDM201 Through Enhanced p53 Phosphorylation and Activation in Liver Adenocarcinoma Cells. Cancers 2021, 13, 3876
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 18
Issue 3
10.3390/cancers18030531
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

FGFR2-Rearranged Biliary Tract Cancer: Biology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies

by
Xin Xin
1 and
Ruoyu Miao
2,*
1
St. Joseph’s Hospital, BayCare Health System, Tampa, FL 33607, USA
2
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2026, 18(3), 531; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030531
Submission received: 29 December 2025 / Revised: 30 January 2026 / Accepted: 4 February 2026 / Published: 6 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Proteomic and Oncogenic Biomarkers in Gastrointestinal Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Biliary tract cancer is a rare and aggressive cancer with limited treatment options and poor survival outcomes. In recent years, alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) have been identified in a subset of patients, particularly those with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. These genetic changes drive tumor growth but also create an opportunity for targeted treatment. Several drugs that inhibit FGFR2 have shown meaningful clinical benefit; however, most patients eventually develop resistance, leading to disease progression. This review summarizes current knowledge of FGFR2-related cancer biology, available targeted therapies, and the main mechanisms by which resistance develops. We also discuss emerging treatment strategies, including next-generation drugs, combination approaches, and the use of blood-based testing to monitor disease evolution. Improving understanding of these mechanisms may help guide future treatment decisions and improve outcomes for patients with FGFR2-altered biliary tract cancer.

Abstract

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) rearrangements represent one of the most actionable molecular alterations in biliary tract cancer, particularly in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Approximately 10–16% of iCCA cases harbor FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, defining a distinct molecular subtype characterized by sensitivity to FGFR-targeted therapies. Selective FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including the reversible inhibitor pemigatinib and the irreversible inhibitor futibatinib, have demonstrated clinically meaningful response rates and durable disease control in patients with previously treated FGFR2-altered iCCA, leading to regulatory approvals and the incorporation of FGFR inhibition into contemporary treatment paradigms. However, the development of acquired resistance—most commonly driven by secondary kinase-domain mutations and activation of bypass signaling pathways—remains a major limitation to sustained therapeutic benefit. This review summarizes the biological basis of FGFR2 alterations, highlights current clinical evidence supporting FGFR inhibition, and discusses the evolving landscape of resistance mechanisms. We further examine emerging therapeutic strategies aimed at overcoming resistance, including next-generation FGFR inhibitors and rational combination approaches. In addition, we highlight the growing role of circulating tumor DNA as a noninvasive tool for longitudinal molecular monitoring and treatment guidance. Together, these insights underscore the central role of FGFR2-directed therapy in precision oncology for biliary tract cancer and provide a framework for optimizing and extending targeted treatment in this molecularly defined disease subset.

1. Introduction

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies arising from the epithelium of the intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts as well as the gallbladder. Among these, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) has emerged as a subtype with an increasing incidence worldwide and a particularly poor prognosis [1,2]. Despite the introduction of gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line standard chemotherapy for advanced BTC, the median overall survival (OS) remains below one year [3]. Incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), such as durvalumab or pembrolizumab, into this regimen has yielded only modest improvements, extending median OS to just over 12 months [4,5,6]. Molecular profiling has significantly advanced the understanding of iCCA, revealing several actionable alterations such as fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations, B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) V600E mutations, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplifications [7,8]. Among these, FGFR2 rearrangements are particularly notable: they are considered lineage-defining events and predict marked sensitivity to selective FGFR inhibition [9,10,11].
Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) are a family of receptor tyrosine kinases that regulate key cellular processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, survival, and angiogenesis through downstream signaling cascades such as Rat sarcoma(RAS)/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT), and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways [12]. Aberrant FGFR2 signaling—most commonly arising from gene fusions with partners that induce ligand-independent dimerization—drives oncogenesis by constitutively activating the downstream pathways [13,14]. These findings have led to a therapeutic paradigm shift in BTC, transforming a subset of this historically chemotherapy-refractory disease into a molecularly targetable entity.
The approval of selective FGFR inhibitors, including pemigatinib and futibatinib, has substantially expanded treatment options for patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive BTC [15,16]. However, secondary resistance typically develops within 12 months of therapy, representing a critical clinical challenge [17,18]. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of resistance and developing strategies to circumvent them are essential for extending therapeutic benefit and improving survival in this molecularly defined subset of BTC.

2. Molecular Biology and Clinical Significance of FGFR2 Alterations

2.1. Structure and Function of FGFR2

The FGFR2 gene, located on chromosome 10q26, encodes a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase comprising three extracellular immunoglobulin-like domains, a single transmembrane helix, and an intracellular tyrosine kinase domain [12]. FGFR2 consists of three extracellular immunoglobulin-like domains (D1–D3), an acidic box that modulates ligand binding, a single-pass transmembrane helix, and an intracellular split tyrosine kinase domain. Alternative splicing of the D3 domain generates the IIIb and IIIc isoforms, which display distinct ligand-binding specificities and tissue-restricted expression patterns, contributing to epithelial–mesenchymal signaling diversity [19,20].
Physiological activation of FGFR2 requires binding of fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) in the presence of heparan sulfate proteoglycans, which stabilize ligand-receptor complexes and promote receptor dimerization. This induces trans-autophosphorylation of intracellular tyrosine residues, allowing recruitment of adaptor proteins such as fibroblast growth factor receptor substrate 2 (FRS2) and growth factor receptor-bound protein 2 (GRB2) [19,21]. Activated FGFR2 engages multiple downstream signaling pathways including RAS/rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma kinase (RAF)/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), PI3K/AKT/mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR), phospholipase C γ (PLCγ), and Janus kinase (JAK)/STAT signaling, which collectively regulate cellular proliferation, survival, differentiation, migration, and angiogenesis [21,22]. Oncogenic activation of FGFR2 can arise through multiple mechanisms, such as gene amplification, activating mutations, or chromosomal rearrangements resulting in FGFR2 fusions, the latter representing the dominant oncogenic mechanism in BTC (Figure 1).

2.2. Prevalence and Oncogenic Drivers in BTC

Large-scale genomic profiling efforts have established that FGFR2 rearrangements are a defining molecular event in a substantial subset of iCCA, occurring in approximately 10–16% of cases across Western and Asian cohorts, while remaining rare in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) and gallbladder cancer (GBC) [23,24]. Among recurrent genomic alterations in iCCA, IDH1 mutations are observed at a similar frequency (approximately 10–15%), whereas alterations such as BRAF V600E mutations, neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) fusions, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangements are distinctly uncommon. In contrast, erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2 or HER2) amplification is infrequent in iCCA but more prevalent in eCCA and GBC, underscoring the anatomic specificity of actionable drivers within biliary tract cancer (Table 1) [9,10,25]. Such differences likely reflect heterogeneity in etiologic risk factors and underlying liver disease.
Clinically, FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA has been associated in several retrospective series with younger age at diagnosis, female predominance, and, in some cohorts, a comparatively less aggressive clinical course [26]. However, these observations may be influenced by selection effects, referral patterns, and treatment-related factors, and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. From a therapeutic standpoint, FGFR2 fusions uniquely define a molecularly enriched disease subset supported by multiple selective FGFR inhibitors demonstrating reproducible objective responses and durable disease control across independent phase II trials [5,10,27]. This depth of clinical validation, together with the clear lineage restriction of FGFR2 rearrangements to iCCA, distinguishes FGFR2 from other targets and underpins its current role as one of the most therapeutically actionable drivers in BTC.
More than 100 distinct fusion partners have been identified to date, including BICC1, PPHLN1, KIAA1598 (SHROOM3), and TACC3, most of which contribute oligomerization domains that drive constitutive receptor dimerization. These rearrangements preserve the FGFR2 kinase domain while removing regulatory regions, resulting in ligand-independent activation of downstream oncogenic signaling pathways [13,14,28]. Available evidence suggests that many FGFR2 fusions share common oncogenic properties driven by constitutive kinase activation, regardless of fusion partner; however, biological heterogeneity likely exists, and the extent to which specific fusion partners influence signaling output, tumor biology, or therapeutic sensitivity remains an active area of investigation.

2.3. Downstream Signaling and Biological Effects

Constitutive activation of FGFR2 fusion proteins leads to persistent, ligand-independent stimulation of downstream oncogenic signaling, most prominently the MAPK (RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK) and PI3K/AKT/mTOR axes, thereby promoting sustained cellular proliferation, survival, and resistance to apoptosis (Figure 1) [20,29,30]. Beyond tumor cell-intrinsic effects, aberrant FGFR2 activation may further modulate the tumor microenvironment (TME) by inducing pro-angiogenic factors, including VEGF, and engaging in paracrine crosstalk with endothelial cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts, thereby facilitating stromal remodeling, epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), and invasive behavior [30,31]. Integrative genomic and transcriptomic analyses have demonstrated that FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA constitutes a distinct molecular lineage characterized by low tumor mutation burden and an immune-cold phenotype with limited cytotoxic T-cell infiltration and low expression of immune checkpoint molecules [32,33], which may partly explain the limited clinical activity of ICIs observed in this subtype.

2.4. Clinical Significance

FGFR2 fusions represent a validated predictive biomarker for response to FGFR-targeted therapies in iCCA. Across multiple phase II studies, selective FGFR inhibitors, including pemigatinib, infigratinib, and futibatinib, have demonstrated reproducible antitumor activity in patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA, with objective response rates (ORR) of approximately 20–40% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6–9 months. These outcomes compare favorably with those historically reported for cytotoxic chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. However, it is important to emphasize that these data derive predominantly from single-arm trials and basket study subsets, and that any comparisons with historical chemotherapy cohorts are inherently indirect. Differences in patient selection, prior lines of therapy, molecular enrichment, and assessment methodologies limit cross-trial interpretability, and preclude definitive conclusions regarding relative efficacy [15,16,34,35]. Although responses to FGFR inhibition can be durable, most patients ultimately develop acquired resistance. Nevertheless, the consistent clinical benefit observed across multiple agents has validated FGFR2 as a therapeutic target and transformed the treatment paradigm for this molecularly defined subgroup. Accordingly, comprehensive genomic profiling should therefore be routinely performed for all patients with advanced iCCA to identify FGFR2 fusions and other actionable alterations and inform targeted therapy selection [36].

3. Clinical Development of FGFR Inhibitors in Biliary Tract Cancer

3.1. Overview of FGFR-Targeted Agents

Therapeutic development of FGFR inhibitors has largely centered on small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target the ATP-binding pocket of the FGFR kinase domain. These agents include reversible, ATP-competitive inhibitors, such as pemigatinib, infigratinib, derazantinib, and erdafitinib, as well as irreversible covalent inhibitors exemplified by futibatinib, which forms a covalent bond with a conserved cysteine residue within the FGFR kinase domain. Although these compounds differ in their biochemical potency and selectivity profiles across FGFR1-4, they share a common mechanism of suppressing aberrant FGFR-driven signaling through inhibition of downstream pathways. Across multiple phase I-II clinical trials, these agents have demonstrated reproducible and clinically meaningful antitumor activity in pretreated patients with FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). The consistent clinical activity of these agents, together with the relative lack of activity in tumors lacking FGFR2 rearrangements, has established FGFR2 fusions as validated oncogenic drivers and therapeutic targets [15,16,27,34,37,38,39,40,41]. Table 2 summarizes the approved and investigational FGFR inhibitors for BTC.

3.2. Key Clinical Trials

FIGHT-202 was a pivotal phase II trial evaluating the selective FGFR1-3 inhibitor pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA [15,38]. Among 108 patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, the ORR was 37.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.9–46.9), with a median duration of response (DOR) of 9.1 months (95% CI: 6.0–14.5). No objective responses were observed among patients with other FGF/FGFR alterations or without FGF/FGFR alterations. Median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 6.1–10.5) while median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI: 14.4–22.9) among patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. The most common treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, dysgeusia, and fatigue [38]. The randomized phase III FIGHT-302 trial (NCT03656536) was designed to compare pemigatinib with gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced CCA with FGFR2 rearrangements [42]. According to publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov records, the study is listed as discontinued, with the most recent update posted on 24 August 2025, citing enrollment challenges in the context of an evolving first-line treatment landscape.
A phase II single-arm study of the selective FGFR1-3 inhibitor infigratinib in patients with previously treated CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements demonstrated an ORR of 23.1% (95% CI: 15.6–32.2), a median PFS of 7.3 months (95% CI: 5.6–7.6), and a median OS of 12.2 months (95% CI: 10.7–14.9) [34]. Despite the promising clinical activity, the subsequent development program was later discontinued, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for infigratinib in this indication was voluntarily withdrawn following a strategic and commercial review by the sponsor.
Similarly, the multikinase FGFR1-3 inhibitor derazantinib (ARQ 087) demonstrated moderate clinical activity in patients with FGFR2 fusion- or rearrangement-positive iCCA in the phase II FIDES-01 study, with an ORR of 21.4% (95% CI: 13.9–30.5) and a median DOR of 6.4 months (95% CI: 3.9–9.2). Median PFS and OS were 7.8 months (95% CI: 5.5–8.2) and 15.5 months (95% CI: 11.8–21.9), respectively, with a manageable toxicity profile [27,39]. Although subsequent evaluation in metastatic urothelial cancer (FIDES-02) did not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit [43], and development was ultimately discontinued following strategic reprioritization, early results in iCCA supported FGFR2 as a biologically relevant therapeutic target.
FOENIX-CCA2 was a single-arm, global phase II trial evaluating futibatinib (TAS-120), an irreversible covalent FGFR1-4 inhibitor, in patients with previously treated iCCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements [16,40]. Among 103 evaluable patients, the ORR was 42% (95% CI: 32–52), with a median DOR of 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.6–17.0). Median PFS was 9.0 months (95% CI: 6.9–13.1), and median OS was 21.7 months (95% CI: 14.5-not reached [NR]). The most common side effects were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, and dry mouth [40]. Notably, futibatinib also demonstrated activity in a subset of patients previously treated with reversible FGFR inhibitors, supporting its ability to overcome certain acquired resistance mutations [44,45]. FOENIX-CCA3 (NCT04093362) was a randomized phase III study evaluating futibatinib in the first line setting for patients with FGFR2-rearranged iCCA. Based on ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed on 28 January 2026) registry information, the trial is currently listed as discontinued, with the most recent update posted on 7 February 2025, noting recruitment challenges after changes in the standard-of-care landscape. Subsequent clinical development has focused on dose and exposure optimization, including the ongoing FOENIX-CCA4 study (NCT05727176).
The selective pan-FGFR inhibitor erdafitinib was evaluated in the phase II RAGNAR basket trial in previously treated patients with FGFR1-4-altered advanced non-urothelial solid tumors [46]. In an exploratory subgroup of 35 patients with CCA, preliminary results showed an ORR of 60.0% (95% CI: 42.1–76.1) with a median DOR of 5.6 months (95% CI: 2.8–8.3). Responses were observed in patients harboring FGFR fusions and activating mutations. Disease control was achieved in nearly all treated patients. Median PFS and OS were 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.5–9.7) and 18.7 months (95% CI: 8.9–not evaluable [NE]), respectively. Safety profile was similar to that of other FGFR inhibitors, with the most common TEAEs being hyperphosphatemia, diarrhea, and stomatitis [41]. These findings suggest promising activity of erdafitinib in selected FGFR-altered CCA.
Collectively, these data establish FGFR inhibition as a clinically meaningful therapeutic strategy in molecularly selected BTCs and support incorporation of FGFR testing into routine diagnostic workflows.

4. Mechanisms of Resistance to FGFR Inhibition

4.1. Overview

Despite initial responses, virtually all patients treated with FGFR TKIs eventually experienced disease progression, reflecting the development of acquired resistance. The median duration of response across clinical trials is approximately 6–9 months, with some variability by agent [27,34,38,40,41]. Molecular analyses of post-progression tumor biopsies and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have delineated two principal categories of resistance mechanisms: on-target mutations within the FGFR2 kinase domain and off-target or bypass pathway alterations that restore downstream signaling independently of FGFR2 (Table 3 and Figure 2) [17,18,47,48].

4.2. On-Target Resistance Mechanisms

The most frequent mechanism of acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition in FGFR2 fusion-positive CCA involves the emergence of secondary mutations within the FGFR2 kinase domain that impair inhibitor binding affinity. These alterations typically arise under selective pressure from ATP-competitive FGFR inhibitors and cluster within structurally and functionally critical regions of the kinase domain, such as the ATP-binding cleft, the gatekeeper residue, and the molecular brake motif that normally maintains kinase autoinhibition [17,49].
Recurrent gatekeeper substitutions at valine 565 (V565F/L/I) increase steric hindrance within the ATP-binding pocket and reduce the binding affinity of reversible FGFR inhibitors [17,49,50]. In parallel, molecular-brake mutations involving N550D/K/H, E566A, or K659M destabilize the inactive conformation of FGFR2, enhance constitutive receptor phosphorylation, and sustain downstream MAPK and PI3K signaling despite continued drug exposure [49,50,51]. Importantly, distinct resistance mutations confer heterogeneous effects on inhibitor sensitivity, highlighting the structural diversity of on-target resistance mechanisms [17].
Acquired resistance is further complicated by its frequently polyclonal nature. Post-progression analyses have demonstrated the coexistence of multiple FGFR2 kinase-domain mutations within individual patients, sometimes varying across metastatic sites or evolving dynamically over time [48,49,52]. This spatial and temporal heterogeneity reflects convergent evolutionary pressure and underscores the biological complexity of resistance development in FGFR2-driven disease.

4.3. Off-Target and Bypass Signaling Mechanisms

Not all resistance to FGFR inhibition is mediated by structural alterations of FGFR2. A subset of tumors develops off-target resistance mechanisms that bypass FGFR dependency through activation of alternative growth and survival pathways capable of re-engaging downstream signaling [53,54]. In this context, tumor cells maintain proliferative signaling despite sustained pharmacologic FGFR blockade, representing a mechanistically distinct form of resistance from kinase-domain mutation-driven escape.
The most commonly implicated bypass mechanism involves reactivation of the MAPK pathway, driven by acquired alterations in RAS or BRAF or by upregulation of alternative receptor tyrosine kinases such as MET, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), or ERBB2 [55,56,57]. These changes restore ERK phosphorylation independently of FGFR2 activity and support continued tumor growth.
In addition to genomic alterations, tumors may adopt non-genetic adaptive programs. Transcriptional and epigenetic reprogramming, including epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), has been observed in resistant models and clinical samples [58,59]. EMT is characterized by reduced epithelial marker expression and increased levels of mesenchymal regulators such as TWIST1, SNAIL, and ZEB1, promoting phenotypic plasticity and diminished dependence on FGFR2 signaling [60].

4.4. Role of Circulating Tumor DNA in Resistance Detection

Serial monitoring of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has substantially enhanced the ability to characterize resistance evolution in patients receiving FGFR-targeted therapy. Multiple studies specifically in FGFR2-rearranged iCCA have demonstrated that ctDNA profiling can detect emergent FGFR2 kinase-domain mutations prior to radiographic progression, often providing clinically meaningful lead time and revealing marked intrapatient heterogeneity of resistance mechanisms [61].
In addition, important insights have come from basket trial populations that included, but were not limited to, CCA. In the FIGHT-207 basket study of pemigatinib in advanced solid tumors harboring FGFR1-3 alterations, which enrolled a subset of patients with CCA, longitudinal ctDNA analysis demonstrated that secondary FGFR2 mutations emerged almost exclusively in patients who initially derived clinical benefit, supporting the role of selective therapeutic pressure in shaping resistance [1].
Together, these CCA-specific cohorts and basket trial analyses establish ctDNA as a powerful, minimally invasive tool to capture the temporal and polyclonal nature of resistance to FGFR inhibition, although the relative sensitivity of plasma-based assays and the generalizability of findings across tumor types must be carefully considered.

5. Strategies to Overcome Resistance and Future Directions

5.1. Sequential and Next-Generation FGFR Inhibitors

Sequential use of FGFR inhibitors, often informed by emerging resistance mechanisms, has become an important exploratory therapeutic strategy in FGFR2-rearranged iCCA. Patients progressing on reversible ATP-competitive inhibitors who develop on-target kinase domain mutations may derive benefit from switching to irreversible inhibitors. Futibatinib, which forms a covalent bond with a conserved cysteine residue in the FGFR2 kinase domain, retains activity against multiple secondary FGFR2 mutations, although incomplete mutation coverage remains a challenge [16,62].
Beyond currently approved agents, ongoing structure-guided drug development and medicinal chemistry efforts aim to refine FGFR inhibition and address the molecular heterogeneity of resistance in FGFR2-driven cancers by leveraging multiple complementary strategies. One active direction is the design of next-generation reversible inhibitors with structure-optimized ATP-binding pockets and hinge interactions to better accommodate steric hindrance introduced by gatekeeper and molecular-brake mutations such as V565 and N550 variants [63,64,65]. In parallel, investigational covalent FGFR inhibitors are being optimized to improve engagement of conserved residues within the kinase domain and maintain potency against a broader array of resistant alleles while balancing selectivity and toxicity [66,67,68]. Recent structure-based scaffold redesign has yielded selective FGFR2/3 inhibitors with improved biochemical profiles against wild-type and mutant kinases, underscoring how rational scaffold modification can enhance both selectivity and resistance coverage [69]. Several next-generation inhibitors and allele-specific compounds are currently in early clinical development [70].
Tinengotinib (TT-00420) is a spectrum-selective, multikinase inhibitor with potent activity against FGFR1-3 along with Aurora A/B, VEGFR, JAK1/2, and CSF1R that has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with FGFR-altered CCA, including those previously treated with FGFR inhibitors [71]. In a phase II study (NCT04919642), tinengotinib showed objective responses across FGFR alteration subgroups, albeit with limited sample sizes. ORR was 6.3% (95% CI: 0.2–30.2) in patients with FGFR2 fusions and primary FGFR inhibitor resistance, 30.0% (95% CI: 6.7–65.3) in patients with FGFR2 fusions and acquired resistance, 23.1% (95% CI: 5.0–53.8) in other FGFR alterations, but 0% in FGFR wild type. Exploratory analyses suggested improved outcomes in FGFR inhibitor-naïve patients compared with those previously exposed, underscoring the continued impact of prior FGFR therapy on subsequent treatment efficacy [72].
More selective FGFR2 inhibitors have been developed to enhance on-target potency while minimizing off-target toxicity. Lirafugratinib (RLY-4008), a highly FGFR2-selective, covalent inhibitor, exhibits robust preclinical activity against common resistance mutations and avoids FGFR1- and FGFR4-mediated toxicities [67]. Early clinical data from the phase I/II ReFocus study (NCT04526106) demonstrated substantial activity in FGFR inhibitor-naïve FGFR2 fusion- or rearrangement-positive CCA [73], with more modest responses in patients previously treated with FGFR inhibitors, consistent with a resistance-driven disease biology [74]. Tasurgratinib (E7090), an irreversible, ATP competitive FGFR1-3 inhibitor, has also shown promising early activity in FGFR2-rearranged CCA in a phase I study (NCT02275910), although data remain preliminary [75]. SURF201 (NCT06160752) is investigating TYRA-200, an oral covalent FGFR1/2/3 inhibitor, in patients with advanced iCCA and other solid tumors with primary activating alterations in FGFR2 and on-target acquired FGFR2 resistance mutations [68]. Collectively, these next-generation agents illustrate evolving strategies to extend clinical benefit through improved kinase selectivity and broader coverage of resistance mutations.

5.2. Combination Strategies Targeting Bypass Pathways

Given the frequent activation of alternative signaling routes following FGFR inhibition, rational combination therapies have emerged primarily from preclinical and early translational studies as an attractive strategy to delay or overcome acquired resistance. Combination approaches have focused on simultaneously targeting FGFR2 and key downstream or parallel signaling nodes that sustain tumor growth despite receptor blockade.
In preclinical models of FGFR2 fusion-positive CCA, combinations of FGFR inhibitors with agents targeting the MAPK pathway or selected receptor tyrosine kinases have demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity, including enhanced growth suppression and increased apoptotic responses in vitro and in vivo [53,57]. These studies provide proof-of-concept that dual-pathway inhibition may delay the expansion of resistant subclones. However, clinical validation of these approaches remains limited, and their safety, tolerability, and efficacy require prospective evaluation in early-phase clinical trials.
In parallel, combination strategies incorporating inhibitors of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR axis have been investigated in preclinical FGFR-driven CCA models. Co-targeting FGFR and PI3K–mTOR signaling has been shown to restore sensitivity to FGFR inhibition and enhance cytotoxic responses, including induction of autophagic cell death in resistant models [54,76]. While these findings highlight the therapeutic potential of multi-pathway suppression, PI3K–mTOR-based combination approaches remain investigational and should currently be pursued within carefully designed clinical trials.

5.3. Role of Antibody-Based and Non-TKI Strategies

Beyond small-molecule kinase inhibitors, alternative therapeutic strategies that remain largely preclinical are being explored to target FGFR2 signaling while bypassing resistance driven by kinase-domain mutations. Beyond classical inhibition, proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC)-based degraders directed against the FGFR family are emerging as a promising investigational non-occupancy-based therapeutic modality [64]. Early FGFR-directed degraders have demonstrated potent depletion of FGFR2 and antiproliferative activity in FGFR-dependent models [77,78], establishing the feasibility of targeted FGFR degradation.
Although FGFR2-selective degraders and constructs engineered to address gatekeeper mutations remain in early preclinical development, the PROTAC approach offers a mechanistically distinct strategy to eliminate both wild-type and mutant FGFR2 proteins rather than merely inhibit their kinase activity [64,79]. As such, PROTAC-based FGFR targeting represents a compelling translational concept, though substantial optimization and clinical evaluation will be required before applicability in biliary tract cancer can be established.
Additional innovations include antibody-based approaches that target the extracellular domain of FGFR2, enabling ligand blockade and receptor inhibition independent of ATP-binding site conformation and potentially retaining activity despite certain kinase-domain mutations. Antibody-based FGFR2-targeted strategies have shown proof-of-concept activity in preclinical studies, but clinical development has thus far been limited, and no antibody-based FGFR2 therapies are currently approved for biliary tract cancer.
The earliest clinical agent, aprutumab ixadotin (BAY1187982), an FGFR2-directed antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), demonstrated selective cytotoxicity in FGFR2-expressing preclinical models and early signs of antitumor activity; however, dose-limiting ocular and hematologic toxicities, together with limited clinical efficacy, led to early termination of its first-in-human study in advanced solid tumors [80]. Nonetheless, its development established proof of concept for FGFR2-targeted biologics as an alternative to kinase inhibition. Parallel efforts are now focused on engineering next-generation ADCs with improved antibody backbones and refined linker-payload designs to achieve greater tumor selectivity while minimizing systemic toxicity [81,82]. Biparatopic antibodies that bind multiple non-overlapping extracellular FGFR2 epitopes demonstrate enhanced receptor blockade, internalization, and antitumor activity in preclinical FGFR2 fusion-driven CCA models, including activity against kinase-mutant variants, supporting their potential as innovative therapeutics [83]. Additional modalities, including FGFR-targeted bispecific antibodies, FGF-ligand-trap fusion proteins, and FGFR-directed CAR-T constructs, are being explored across FGFR-altered solid tumors, but data specific to FGFR2-fusion or FGFR2-mutant CCA are still limited [84,85,86]. These emerging biologic strategies offer mechanistically orthogonal approaches to ATP-competitive inhibition and may ultimately provide therapeutic options for patients with TKI-refractory FGFR2-driven disease once further preclinical and clinical evaluation is completed (Figure 2).

5.4. Integration of ctDNA-Guided Precision Oncology

The integration of ctDNA profiling into clinical workflows represents a promising advance for patients with FGFR2-rearranged iCCA. In CCA-focused studies, serial plasma analysis has enabled non-invasive detection of emergent on-target resistance mutations, delineation of polyclonal evolution, and dynamic monitoring of molecular response during FGFR inhibitor therapy [1,61].
Insights from larger basket trials that included CCA, such as FIGHT-207, further demonstrate the feasibility of longitudinal ctDNA monitoring across FGFR-altered solid tumors and support its role in identifying resistance mechanisms that may inform therapeutic sequencing or clinical trial selection. However, because such studies enroll heterogeneous tumor types, extrapolation to CCA should be performed cautiously and interpreted in the context of disease-specific datasets [87].
As ctDNA technologies mature, prospective studies focused specifically on FGFR2-rearranged CCA will be critical to define standardized testing intervals, analytic thresholds, and actionable resistance frameworks [88].

5.5. Clinical Implications and Treatment Sequencing Considerations

In current clinical practice, FGFR inhibitors are typically employed in patients with advanced FGFR2-rearranged iHCC following progression on first-line chemotherapy, consistent with regulatory approvals and guideline recommendations. Selection among available FGFR inhibitors is influenced by prior FGFR inhibitor exposure, toxicity profiles, and the presence of known resistance mutations.
Repeating molecular assessment at disease progression is increasingly important. Tissue biopsy remains the gold standard for comprehensive genomic characterization; however, serial ctDNA analysis offers a minimally invasive alternative that can capture emerging resistance mutations and polyclonal evolution in real time. In practice, ctDNA profiling is particularly useful when tissue acquisition is not feasible or when rapid therapeutic decision-making is required, while tissue biopsy may be preferred when histologic transformation or non-genomic resistance is suspected.
Next-generation FGFR inhibitors and rational combination strategies are most appropriately considered in the context of clinical trials, especially for patients with acquired resistance to first-generation FGFR inhibitors. As prospective data mature, integrating resistance-guided sequencing strategies may further refine personalized treatment approaches for FGFR2-rearranged disease.

5.6. Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs

Beyond current clinical practice, adaptive platform trial designs that allocate patients to treatment arms based on molecular resistance profiles represent an efficient and increasingly attractive framework for evaluating emerging therapies in precision oncology. Adaptive platform trials that allocate patients to treatment arms based on molecular resistance profiles represent an efficient and increasingly attractive framework for evaluating emerging therapies in precision oncology. Such designs facilitate the rapid assessment of combination regimens or allele-specific inhibitors in small, molecularly defined cohorts [89]. Integrating real-time ctDNA monitoring within these frameworks could enable earlier identification of molecular progression, support adaptive treatment modification, improve response durability, and generate longitudinal data to refine molecular response endpoints, although widespread clinical implementation remains investigational [90].

6. Conclusions

The discovery of FGFR2 rearrangements as a defining oncogenic driver in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma has transformed the therapeutic landscape of biliary tract cancer. The development of selective FGFR inhibitors such as pemigatinib and futibatinib represents a major advance in precision oncology for this rare but aggressive malignancy, supported by consistent clinical activity across multiple phase II trials and resulting in regulatory approvals. FGFR2-directed therapy is now an established molecularly guided treatment option for patients with FGFR2-rearranged disease. Nevertheless, acquired resistance—driven by heterogeneous kinase-domain mutations and bypass signaling—remains a formidable obstacle to long-term disease control.
Ongoing translational and clinical research is focused on elucidating the molecular basis of resistance, optimizing sequencing strategies, and developing next-generation or combination regimens to extend the benefit of FGFR inhibition. Incorporating serial ctDNA profiling as an emerging clinical tool may enable dynamic, mutation-guided therapy selection and earlier identification of resistance. Ultimately, multidisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, translational scientists, and trial investigators will be essential to fully realize and extend the potential of FGFR2-directed precision therapy in biliary tract cancer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.X. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, R.M.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (GPT-4.1) for the purpose of graph generation. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BTCBiliary tract cancer
iCCAIntrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
OSOverall survival
mOSMedian overall survival
ICIImmune checkpoint inhibitor
FGFRFibroblast growth factor receptor
IDH1isocitrate dehydrogenase 1
BRAFB-Raf proto-oncogene
HER2human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
FGFFibroblast growth factor
RASRat sarcoma
MAPKmitogen-activated protein kinase
PI3Kphosphoinositide 3-kinase
AKTprotein kinase B
STATsignal transducer and activator of transcription
FRS2fibroblast growth factor receptor substrate 2
GRB2growth factor receptor-bound protein 2
RAFrapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma kinase
MEKmitogen-activated protein kinase
ERKextracellular signal-regulated kinase
mTORmechanistic target of rapamycin
PLCγphospholipase C γ
JAKJanus kinase
eCCAExtrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
GBCGallbladder cancer
NTRKneurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase
ALKanaplastic lymphoma kinase
ROS1c-ros oncogene 1
ERBB2erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2
IHCImmunohistochemistry
ISHIn situ hybridization
NGSNext-generation sequencing
TMETumor microenvironment
EGFRepidermal growth factor receptor
EMTEpithelial–mesenchymal transition
ORRObjective response rate
PFSProgression-free survival
mPFSMedian progression-free survival
TKITyrosine kinase inhibitor
CCACholangiocarcinoma
DORDuration of response
TEAETreatment emergent adverse event
moMonth
FDAThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration
ctDNACirculating tumor DNA
RTKReceptor tyrosine kinase
PROTACProteolysis-targeting chimera
ADCAntibody-drug conjugate

References

  1. Rodon, J.; Damian, S.; Furqan, M.; Garcia-Donas, J.; Imai, H.; Italiano, A.; Spanggaard, I.; Ueno, M.; Yokota, T.; Veronese, M.L.; et al. Pemigatinib in previously treated solid tumors with activating FGFR1-FGFR3 alterations: Phase 2 FIGHT-207 basket trial. Nat. Med. 2024, 30, 1645–1654, Erratum in Nat. Med. 2024, 30, 2377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03072-w. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lamarca, A.; Barriuso, J.; McNamara, M.G.; Valle, J.W. Biliary Tract Cancer: State of the Art and potential role of DNA Damage Repair. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018, 70, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Valle, J.; Wasan, H.; Palmer, D.H.; Cunningham, D.; Anthoney, A.; Maraveyas, A.; Madhusudan, S.; Iveson, T.; Hughes, S.; Pereira, S.P.; et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 1273–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oh, D.Y.; Ruth He, A.; Qin, S.; Chen, L.T.; Okusaka, T.; Vogel, A.; Kim, J.W.; Suksombooncharoen, T.; Ah Lee, M.; Kitano, M.; et al. Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer. NEJM Evid. 2022, 1, EVIDoa2200015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oh, D.Y.; He, A.R.; Qin, S.; Chen, L.T.; Okusaka, T.; Kim, J.W.; Suksombooncharoen, T.; Lee, M.A.; Kitano, M.; Burris, H.A.; et al. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer: 3-year overall survival update from the phase III TOPAZ-1 study. J. Hepatol. 2025, 83, 1092–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kelley, R.K.; Ueno, M.; Yoo, C.; Finn, R.S.; Furuse, J.; Ren, Z.; Yau, T.; Klumpen, H.J.; Chan, S.L.; Ozaka, M.; et al. Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023, 401, 1853–1865, Erratum in Lancet 2023, 402, 964. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01904-9; Erratum in Lancet 2024, 403, 1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00545-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Farshidfar, F.; Zheng, S.; Gingras, M.C.; Newton, Y.; Shih, J.; Robertson, A.G.; Hinoue, T.; Hoadley, K.A.; Gibb, E.A.; Roszik, J.; et al. Integrative Genomic Analysis of Cholangiocarcinoma Identifies Distinct IDH-Mutant Molecular Profiles. Cell Rep. 2017, 18, 2780–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jusakul, A.; Cutcutache, I.; Yong, C.H.; Lim, J.Q.; Huang, M.N.; Padmanabhan, N.; Nellore, V.; Kongpetch, S.; Ng, A.W.T.; Ng, L.M.; et al. Whole-Genome and Epigenomic Landscapes of Etiologically Distinct Subtypes of Cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 1116–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nakamura, H.; Arai, Y.; Totoki, Y.; Shirota, T.; Elzawahry, A.; Kato, M.; Hama, N.; Hosoda, F.; Urushidate, T.; Ohashi, S.; et al. Genomic spectra of biliary tract cancer. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 1003–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Javle, M.; Lowery, M.; Shroff, R.T.; Weiss, K.H.; Springfeld, C.; Borad, M.J.; Ramanathan, R.K.; Goyal, L.; Sadeghi, S.; Macarulla, T.; et al. Phase II Study of BGJ398 in Patients With FGFR-Altered Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Churi, C.R.; Shroff, R.; Wang, Y.; Rashid, A.; Kang, H.C.; Weatherly, J.; Zuo, M.; Zinner, R.; Hong, D.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; et al. Mutation profiling in cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and therapeutic implications. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Turner, N.; Grose, R. Fibroblast growth factor signalling: From development to cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Arai, Y.; Totoki, Y.; Hosoda, F.; Shirota, T.; Hama, N.; Nakamura, H.; Ojima, H.; Furuta, K.; Shimada, K.; Okusaka, T.; et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 tyrosine kinase fusions define a unique molecular subtype of cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology 2014, 59, 1427–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wu, Y.M.; Su, F.; Kalyana-Sundaram, S.; Khazanov, N.; Ateeq, B.; Cao, X.; Lonigro, R.J.; Vats, P.; Wang, R.; Lin, S.F.; et al. Identification of targetable FGFR gene fusions in diverse cancers. Cancer Discov. 2013, 3, 636–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Abou-Alfa, G.K.; Sahai, V.; Hollebecque, A.; Vaccaro, G.; Melisi, D.; Al-Rajabi, R.; Paulson, A.S.; Borad, M.J.; Gallinson, D.; Murphy, A.G.; et al. Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 671–684, Erratum in Lancet Oncol. 2023, 25, e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00642-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Goyal, L.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; Hollebecque, A.; Valle, J.W.; Morizane, C.; Karasic, T.B.; Abrams, T.A.; Furuse, J.; Kelley, R.K.; Cassier, P.A.; et al. Futibatinib for FGFR2-Rearranged Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, Q.; Ellis, H.; Siravegna, G.; Michel, A.G.; Norden, B.L.; Fece de la Cruz, F.; Balasooriya, E.R.; Zhen, Y.; Silveira, V.S.; Che, J.; et al. Landscape of Clinical Resistance Mechanisms to FGFR Inhibitors in FGFR2-Altered Cholangiocarcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2024, 30, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Facchinetti, F.; Loriot, Y.; Braye, F.; Vasseur, D.; Bahleda, R.; Bigot, L.; Barbe, R.; Nobre, C.; Combarel, D.; Michiels, S.; et al. Understanding and Overcoming Resistance to Selective FGFR Inhibitors across FGFR2-Driven Malignancies. Clin. Cancer Res. 2024, 30, 4943–4956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brooks, A.N.; Kilgour, E.; Smith, P.D. Molecular pathways: Fibroblast growth factor signaling: A new therapeutic opportunity in cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012, 18, 1855–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dienstmann, R.; Rodon, J.; Prat, A.; Perez-Garcia, J.; Adamo, B.; Felip, E.; Cortes, J.; Iafrate, A.J.; Nuciforo, P.; Tabernero, J. Genomic aberrations in the FGFR pathway: Opportunities for targeted therapies in solid tumors. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 552–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ornitz, D.M.; Itoh, N. The Fibroblast Growth Factor signaling pathway. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Dev. Biol. 2015, 4, 215–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Katoh, M. Therapeutics Targeting FGF Signaling Network in Human Diseases. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2016, 37, 1081–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lowery, M.A.; Ptashkin, R.; Jordan, E.; Berger, M.F.; Zehir, A.; Capanu, M.; Kemeny, N.E.; O’Reilly, E.M.; El-Dika, I.; Jarnagin, W.R.; et al. Comprehensive Molecular Profiling of Intrahepatic and Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinomas: Potential Targets for Intervention. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018, 24, 4154–4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Graham, R.P.; Barr Fritcher, E.G.; Pestova, E.; Schulz, J.; Sitailo, L.A.; Vasmatzis, G.; Murphy, S.J.; McWilliams, R.R.; Hart, S.N.; Halling, K.C.; et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 translocations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hum. Pathol. 2014, 45, 1630–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersen, J.B.; Spee, B.; Blechacz, B.R.; Avital, I.; Komuta, M.; Barbour, A.; Conner, E.A.; Gillen, M.C.; Roskams, T.; Roberts, L.R.; et al. Genomic and genetic characterization of cholangiocarcinoma identifies therapeutic targets for tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Gastroenterology 2012, 142, 1021–1031.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jain, A.; Borad, M.J.; Kelley, R.K.; Wang, Y.; Abdel-Wahab, R.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; Baggerly, K.A.; Kaseb, A.O.; Al-Shamsi, H.O.; Ahn, D.H.; et al. Cholangiocarcinoma With FGFR Genetic Aberrations: A Unique Clinical Phenotype. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Droz Dit Busset, M.; Shaib, W.L.; Mody, K.; Personeni, N.; Damjanov, N.; Harris, W.P.; Bergamo, F.; Brandi, G.; Masi, G.; Halfdanarson, T.R.; et al. 47P Derazantinib for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements: Primary results from the phase II study FIDES-01. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, S376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Borad, M.J.; Champion, M.D.; Egan, J.B.; Liang, W.S.; Fonseca, R.; Bryce, A.H.; McCullough, A.E.; Barrett, M.T.; Hunt, K.; Patel, M.D.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Touat, M.; Ileana, E.; Postel-Vinay, S.; Andre, F.; Soria, J.C. Targeting FGFR Signaling in Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015, 21, 2684–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Babina, I.S.; Turner, N.C. Advances and challenges in targeting FGFR signalling in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2017, 17, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Katoh, M. Fibroblast growth factor receptors as treatment targets in clinical oncology. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 16, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sia, D.; Hoshida, Y.; Villanueva, A.; Roayaie, S.; Ferrer, J.; Tabak, B.; Peix, J.; Sole, M.; Tovar, V.; Alsinet, C.; et al. Integrative molecular analysis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma reveals 2 classes that have different outcomes. Gastroenterology 2013, 144, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sridharan, V.; Neyaz, A.; Chogule, A.; Baiev, I.; Reyes, S.; Barr Fritcher, E.G.; Lennerz, J.K.; Sukov, W.; Kipp, B.; Ting, D.T.; et al. FGFR mRNA Expression in Cholangiocarcinoma and Its Correlation with FGFR2 Fusion Status and Immune Signatures. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022, 28, 5431–5439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Javle, M.; Roychowdhury, S.; Kelley, R.K.; Sadeghi, S.; Macarulla, T.; Weiss, K.H.; Waldschmidt, D.T.; Goyal, L.; Borbath, I.; El-Khoueiry, A.; et al. Infigratinib (BGJ398) in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: Mature results from a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 6, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kommalapati, A.; Tella, S.H.; Borad, M.; Javle, M.; Mahipal, A. FGFR Inhibitors in Oncology: Insight on the Management of Toxicities in Clinical Practice. Cancers 2021, 13, 2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Benson, A.B., 3rd; D’Angelica, M.I.; Abrams, T.; Ahmed, A.; Akce, M.; Anaya, D.A.; Anders, R.; Are, C.; Aye, L.; Bachini, M.; et al. Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2025, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2025, 23, 403–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chmiel, P.; Geca, K.; Rawicz-Pruszynski, K.; Polkowski, W.P.; Skorzewska, M. FGFR Inhibitors in Cholangiocarcinoma-A Novel Yet Primary Approach: Where Do We Stand Now and Where to Head Next in Targeting This Axis? Cells 2022, 11, 3929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vogel, A.; Sahai, V.; Hollebecque, A.; Vaccaro, G.M.; Melisi, D.; Al Rajabi, R.M.; Paulson, A.S.; Borad, M.J.; Gallinson, D.; Murphy, A.G.; et al. An open-label study of pemigatinib in cholangiocarcinoma: Final results from FIGHT-202. ESMO Open 2024, 9, 103488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mazzaferro, V.; El-Rayes, B.F.; Droz Dit Busset, M.; Cotsoglou, C.; Harris, W.P.; Damjanov, N.; Masi, G.; Rimassa, L.; Personeni, N.; Braiteh, F.; et al. Derazantinib (ARQ 087) in advanced or inoperable FGFR2 gene fusion-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Br. J. Cancer 2019, 120, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Goyal, L.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; Hollebecque, A.; Valle, J.W.; Morizane, C.; Karasic, T.B.; Abrams, T.A.; Furuse, J.; Kelley, R.K.; Cassier, P.A.; et al. Plain language summary of the FOENIX-CCA2 study: Futibatinib for people with advanced bile duct cancer. Future Oncol. 2024, 20, 2811–2822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pant, S.; Schuler, M.H.; Iyer, G.; Doi, T.; Qin, S.; Tabernero, J.; Arnold, D.; Gutierrez, M.; Prenen, H.; Folprecht, G.; et al. Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in adults with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) with prespecified fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations (FGFRalt) in the phase 2 open-label, single-arm RAGNAR trial: Expansion cohort results. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bekaii-Saab, T.S.; Valle, J.W.; Van Cutsem, E.; Rimassa, L.; Furuse, J.; Ioka, T.; Melisi, D.; Macarulla, T.; Bridgewater, J.; Wasan, H.; et al. FIGHT-302: First-line pemigatinib vs gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 rearrangements. Future Oncol. 2020, 16, 2385–2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Necchi, A.; Ramlau, R.; Falcon Gonzalez, A.; Chaudhry, A.; Todenhofer, T.; Tahbaz, R.; Fontana, E.; Giannatempo, P.; Deville, J.L.; Pouessel, D.; et al. Derazantinib alone and with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR aberrations. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2024, 8, pkae030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Meric-Bernstam, F.; Bahleda, R.; Hierro, C.; Sanson, M.; Bridgewater, J.; Arkenau, H.T.; Tran, B.; Kelley, R.K.; Park, J.O.; Javle, M.; et al. Futibatinib, an Irreversible FGFR1-4 Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors Harboring FGF/FGFR Aberrations: A Phase I Dose-Expansion Study. Cancer Discov. 2022, 12, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Goyal, L.; Shi, L.; Liu, L.Y.; Fece de la Cruz, F.; Lennerz, J.K.; Raghavan, S.; Leschiner, I.; Elagina, L.; Siravegna, G.; Ng, R.W.S.; et al. TAS-120 Overcomes Resistance to ATP-Competitive FGFR Inhibitors in Patients with FGFR2 Fusion-Positive Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2019, 9, 1064–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Pant, S.; Schuler, M.; Iyer, G.; Witt, O.; Doi, T.; Qin, S.; Tabernero, J.; Reardon, D.A.; Massard, C.; Minchom, A.; et al. Erdafitinib in patients with advanced solid tumours with FGFR alterations (RAGNAR): An international, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023, 24, 925–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Walden, D.; Eslinger, C.; Bekaii-Saab, T. Pemigatinib for adults with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2022, 15, 17562848221115317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Goyal, L.; Saha, S.K.; Liu, L.Y.; Siravegna, G.; Leshchiner, I.; Ahronian, L.G.; Lennerz, J.K.; Vu, P.; Deshpande, V.; Kambadakone, A.; et al. Polyclonal Secondary FGFR2 Mutations Drive Acquired Resistance to FGFR Inhibition in Patients with FGFR2 Fusion-Positive Cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 252–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Goyal, L.; DiToro, D.; Facchinetti, F.; Martin, E.E.; Peng, P.; Baiev, I.; Iyer, R.; Maurer, J.; Reyes, S.; Zhang, K.; et al. A model for decoding resistance in precision oncology: Acquired resistance to FGFR inhibitors in cholangiocarcinoma. Ann. Oncol. 2025, 36, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lin, Q.; Chen, X.; Qu, L.; Guo, M.; Wei, H.; Dai, S.; Jiang, L.; Chen, Y. Characterization of the cholangiocarcinoma drug pemigatinib against FGFR gatekeeper mutants. Commun. Chem. 2022, 5, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Silverman, I.M.; Hollebecque, A.; Friboulet, L.; Owens, S.; Newton, R.C.; Zhen, H.; Feliz, L.; Zecchetto, C.; Melisi, D.; Burn, T.C. Clinicogenomic Analysis of FGFR2-Rearranged Cholangiocarcinoma Identifies Correlates of Response and Mechanisms of Resistance to Pemigatinib. Cancer Discov. 2021, 11, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Varghese, A.M.; Patel, J.; Janjigian, Y.Y.; Meng, F.; Selcuklu, S.D.; Iyer, G.; Houck-Loomis, B.; Harding, J.J.; O’Reilly, E.M.; Abou-Alfa, G.K.; et al. Noninvasive Detection of Polyclonal Acquired Resistance to FGFR Inhibition in Patients With Cholangiocarcinoma Harboring FGFR2 Alterations. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2021, 5, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. DiPeri, T.P.; Zhao, M.; Evans, K.W.; Varadarajan, K.; Moss, T.; Scott, S.; Kahle, M.P.; Byrnes, C.C.; Chen, H.; Lee, S.S.; et al. Convergent MAPK pathway alterations mediate acquired resistance to FGFR inhibitors in FGFR2 fusion-positive cholangiocarcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2024, 80, 322–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Krook, M.A.; Lenyo, A.; Wilberding, M.; Barker, H.; Dantuono, M.; Bailey, K.M.; Chen, H.Z.; Reeser, J.W.; Wing, M.R.; Miya, J.; et al. Efficacy of FGFR Inhibitors and Combination Therapies for Acquired Resistance in FGFR2-Fusion Cholangiocarcinoma. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2020, 19, 847–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lim, M.; Lynch, P.T.; Bai, X.; Hsiehchen, D. Oncogenic RAS Drives Resistance to Pemigatinib in Cholangiocarcinoma Harboring a FGFR2 Delins Disrupting Ligand Binding. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2023, 7, e2200340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kitowska, K.; Gorska-Arcisz, M.; Antoun, D.; Zarczynska, I.; Czaplinska, D.; Szczepaniak, A.; Skladanowski, A.C.; Wieczorek, M.; Stanczak, A.; Skupinska, M.; et al. MET-Pyk2 Axis Mediates Acquired Resistance to FGFR Inhibition in Cancer Cells. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 633410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wu, Q.; Zhen, Y.; Shi, L.; Vu, P.; Greninger, P.; Adil, R.; Merritt, J.; Egan, R.; Wu, M.J.; Yin, X.; et al. EGFR Inhibition Potentiates FGFR Inhibitor Therapy and Overcomes Resistance in FGFR2 Fusion-Positive Cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2022, 12, 1378–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Vaquero, J.; Guedj, N.; Claperon, A.; Nguyen Ho-Bouldoires, T.H.; Paradis, V.; Fouassier, L. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cholangiocarcinoma: From clinical evidence to regulatory networks. J. Hepatol. 2017, 66, 424–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Seo, J.; Ha, J.; Kang, E.; Cho, S. The role of epithelial-mesenchymal transition-regulating transcription factors in anti-cancer drug resistance. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2021, 44, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Katoh, M.; Loriot, Y.; Brandi, G.; Tavolari, S.; Wainberg, Z.A.; Katoh, M. FGFR-targeted therapeutics: Clinical activity, mechanisms of resistance and new directions. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2024, 21, 312–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gonzalez-Medina, A.; Vila-Casadesus, M.; Gomez-Rey, M.; Fabregat-Franco, C.; Sierra, A.; Tian, T.V.; Castet, F.; Castillo, G.; Matito, J.; Martinez, P.; et al. Clinical Value of Liquid Biopsy in Patients with FGFR2 Fusion-Positive Cholangiocarcinoma During Targeted Therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2024, 30, 4491–4504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sootome, H.; Fujita, H.; Ito, K.; Ochiiwa, H.; Fujioka, Y.; Ito, K.; Miura, A.; Sagara, T.; Ito, S.; Ohsawa, H.; et al. Futibatinib Is a Novel Irreversible FGFR 1-4 Inhibitor That Shows Selective Antitumor Activity against FGFR-Deregulated Tumors. Cancer Res. 2020, 80, 4986–4997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chen, L. Next-generation isoform-selective fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2025, 46, 1091–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yue, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Xing, J.; Wang, T.; Bao, Y.; Hou, Y.; Zhao, Y. Small-molecule FGFR-targeted medicinal chemistry: Advances since 2020 and future perspectives. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2025, 300, 118117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kawano, S.; Kawada, M.I.; Fukushima, S.; Arai, Y.; Shibata, T.; Miyano, S.W. Antitumor Activity of Tasurgratinib as an Orally Available FGFR1-3 Inhibitor in Cholangiocarcinoma Models With FGFR2-fusion. Anticancer. Res. 2024, 44, 2393–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Balasooriya, E.R.; Wu, Q.; Ellis, H.; Zhen, Y.; Norden, B.L.; Corcoran, R.B.; Mohan, A.; Martin, E.; Franovic, A.; Tyhonas, J.; et al. The Irreversible FGFR Inhibitor KIN-3248 Overcomes FGFR2 Kinase Domain Mutations. Clin. Cancer Res. 2024, 30, 2181–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Schonherr, H.; Ayaz, P.; Taylor, A.M.; Casaletto, J.B.; Toure, B.B.; Moustakas, D.T.; Hudson, B.M.; Valverde, R.; Zhao, S.; O’Hearn, P.J.; et al. Discovery of lirafugratinib (RLY-4008), a highly selective irreversible small-molecule inhibitor of FGFR2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2317756121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rodon Ahnert, J.; Roychowdhury, S.; Ellis, H.; Blanco, F.F.; Burn, T.; Davis, J.M.; Balcer, A.; Zalutskaya, A.; Kelley, R.K. A multicenter, open-label, first-in-human study of TYRA-200 in advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and other solid tumors with activating FGFR2 gene alterations (SURF201). J. Clin. Oncol. 2025, 43, TPS646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nguyen, M.H.; Ye, H.F.; Xu, Y.; Truong, L.; Horsey, A.; Zhao, P.; Styduhar, E.D.; Frascella, M.; Leffet, L.; Federowicz, K.; et al. Discovery of Orally Bioavailable FGFR2/FGFR3 Dual Inhibitors via Structure-Guided Scaffold Repurposing Approach. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2023, 14, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sasanuma, H.; Yamaguchi, H. Sequential Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibition in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Navigating an Evolving Landscape of Resistance and Opportunity-A Case Report and Current Opinion. Oncol. Ther. 2025, 13, 1243–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Piha-Paul, S.A.; Xu, B.; Dumbrava, E.E.; Fu, S.; Karp, D.D.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; Hong, D.S.; Rodon, J.A.; Tsimberidou, A.M.; Raghav, K.; et al. First-In-Human Phase I Study of Tinengotinib (TT-00420), a Multiple Kinase Inhibitor, as a Single Agent in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors. Oncologist 2024, 29, e514–e525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Javle, M.; Fountzilas, C.; Liao, C.Y.; Pelster, M.; Li, D.; Deming, D.; Sahai, V.; Fonkoua, L.K.; Cohn, A.; Mantry, P.; et al. Tinengotinib for adults with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2025, 11, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hollebecque, A.; Borad, M.J.; Lu, P.; Meng, X.; Ryan, K.; Alexander, L.; Liu, J.; Oh, D.-Y.; Kim, R.D. Efficacy and safety of lirafugratinib in FGFRi-naïve cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients harboring FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements (FGFR2 f/r). J. Clin. Oncol. 2026, 44, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Borad, M.J.; Schram, A.M.; Kim, R.D.; Kamath, S.D.; Sahai, V.; Dotan, E.; Kelley, R.K.; Ponz-Sarvise, M.; Oh, D.-Y.; Yachnin, J.; et al. Updated dose escalation results for ReFocus, a first-in-human study of highly selective FGFR2 inhibitor RLY-4008 in cholangiocarcinoma and other solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 4009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Morizane, C.; Ueno, M.; Ioka, T.; Tajika, M.; Ikeda, M.; Yamaguchi, K.; Hara, H.; Yabusaki, H.; Miyamoto, A.; Iwasa, S.; et al. Tasurgratinib in patients with cholangiocarcinoma or gastric cancer: Expansion part of the first-in-human phase I study. Cancer Sci. 2025, 116, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mahaamnad, N.; Pocasap, P.; Kukongviriyapan, V.; Senggunprai, L.; Prawan, A.; Kongpetch, S. Dual blockage of PI3K-mTOR and FGFR induced autophagic cell death in cholangiocarcinoma cells. Heliyon 2024, 10, e31112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kong, Y.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Z.; Yuan, S.; Chen, S.; Lou, S.; Ma, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Ge, Y.; et al. A Selective FGFR1/2 PROTAC Degrader with Antitumor Activity. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2024, 23, 1084–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hu, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Z.; Yang, H.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, T.; He, X.; Feng, Q.; He, J.; et al. Design, synthesis and antitumor activity of a novel FGFR2-selective degrader to overcome resistance of the FGFR2(V564F) gatekeeper mutation based on a pan-FGFR inhibitor. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2024, 275, 116612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Burslem, G.M.; Crews, C.M. Proteolysis-Targeting Chimeras as Therapeutics and Tools for Biological Discovery. Cell 2020, 181, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kim, S.B.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; Kalyan, A.; Babich, A.; Liu, R.; Tanigawa, T.; Sommer, A.; Osada, M.; Reetz, F.; Laurent, D.; et al. First-in-Human Phase I Study of Aprutumab Ixadotin, a Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2 Antibody-Drug Conjugate (BAY 1187982) in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Target. Oncol. 2019, 14, 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Teng, F.; Guo, H.; Li, H.; Qin, L.; Yao, X.; Shi, L.; Gu, Y.; Qian, X. Abstract 4769: Characterization of novel humanized FGFR2b antibody-based ADCs site-specifically conjugated with topoisomerase I inhibitor payload in preclinical tumor models. Cancer Res. 2025, 85, 4769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chen, B.; Zheng, X.; Wu, J.; Chen, G.; Yu, J.; Xu, Y.; Wu, W.K.K.; Tse, G.M.K.; To, K.F.; Kang, W. Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: Current landscape, challenges, and future directions. Mol. Cancer 2025, 24, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chaturantabut, S.; Oliver, S.; Frederick, D.T.; Kim, J.J.; Robinson, F.P.; Sinopoli, A.; Song, T.Y.; He, Y.; Chang, Y.C.; Rodriguez, D.J.; et al. Identification of potent biparatopic antibodies targeting FGFR2 fusion-driven cholangiocarcinoma. J. Clin. Investig. 2025, 135, e182417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Szymczyk, J.; Sochacka, M.; Biadun, M.; Sluzalska, K.D.; Witkowska, D.; Zakrzewska, M. Overcoming drug resistance of cancer cells by targeting the FGF1/FGFR1 axis with honokiol or FGF ligand trap. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1459820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Yang, Y.; Suhasini, A.N.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, N.; Rosconi, M.; Zhang, B.; Li, Y.; Dudgeon, D.; Seong, C.; Kim, S.; et al. A Tetravalent Bispecific Antibody Selectively Inhibits Diverse FGFR3 Oncogenic Variants. Cancer Res. 2024, 84, 2169–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lin, K.; Xia, B.; Wang, X.; He, X.; Zhou, M.; Lin, Y.; Qiao, Y.; Li, R.; Chen, Q.; Li, Y.; et al. Development of nanobodies targeting hepatocellular carcinoma and application of nanobody-based CAR-T technology. J. Transl. Med. 2024, 22, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gujarathi, R.; Peshin, S.; Zhang, X.; Bachini, M.; Meeks, M.N.; Shroff, R.T.; Pillai, A. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Insights on molecular testing, targeted therapies, and future directions from a multidisciplinary panel. Hepatol. Commun. 2025, 9, e0743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Cowzer, D.; Darmofal, M.; Seier, K.; Thummalapalli, R.; Walch, H.; El Dika, I.; Khalil, D.N.; Park, W.; Dhyani, A.; Yaqubie, A.; et al. Clinical Utility and Prognostic Implications of Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Biliary Tract Cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2025, 9, e2500355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hu, C.; Dignam, J.J. Biomarker-Driven Oncology Clinical Trials: Key Design Elements, Types, Features, and Practical Considerations. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2019, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sanz-Garcia, E.; Zhao, E.; Bratman, S.V.; Siu, L.L. Monitoring and adapting cancer treatment using circulating tumor DNA kinetics: Current research, opportunities, and challenges. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabi8618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 18 00531 g001
Figure 1. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion biology and oncogenic signaling pathways in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. FGFR2 rearrangements generate fusion proteins that retain the intracellular kinase domain and acquire oligomerization motifs from partner genes, leading to ligand-independent receptor dimerization and constitutive activation. Activated FGFR2 fusion proteins engage multiple downstream signaling cascades, most prominently the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) (Rat sarcoma [RAS]–rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma kinase [RAF]–mitogen-activated protein kinase [MEK]–extracellular signal-regulated kinase [ERK]) and, phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)–protein kinase B (AKT) pathways, promoting tumor cell proliferation, survival, and resistance to apoptosis. Aberrant FGFR2 signaling also contributes to tumor growth and oncogenic dependency, establishing FGFR2 as a validated therapeutic target in FGFR2-rearranged intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Figure 1. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion biology and oncogenic signaling pathways in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. FGFR2 rearrangements generate fusion proteins that retain the intracellular kinase domain and acquire oligomerization motifs from partner genes, leading to ligand-independent receptor dimerization and constitutive activation. Activated FGFR2 fusion proteins engage multiple downstream signaling cascades, most prominently the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) (Rat sarcoma [RAS]–rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma kinase [RAF]–mitogen-activated protein kinase [MEK]–extracellular signal-regulated kinase [ERK]) and, phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)–protein kinase B (AKT) pathways, promoting tumor cell proliferation, survival, and resistance to apoptosis. Aberrant FGFR2 signaling also contributes to tumor growth and oncogenic dependency, establishing FGFR2 as a validated therapeutic target in FGFR2-rearranged intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Cancers 18 00531 g001
Cancers 18 00531 g002
Figure 2. Mechanisms of resistance to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibition and emerging therapeutic strategies in FGFR2-rearranged intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Acquired resistance to FGFR inhibitors arises through both on-target and off-target mechanisms. Upper panel (On-Target Mutations): On-target resistance is most commonly driven by secondary FGFR2 kinase-domain mutations, including gatekeeper and molecular-brake alterations, which impair inhibitor binding and often emerge in a polyclonal pattern. The DNA double helix represents genetic alterations acquired during treatment. The FGFR protein structure denotes the FGFR2 receptor. The pill icon represents FGFR-targeted therapy. The modified FGFR receptor signifies a drug-resistant FGFR2 protein. Upper panel (Bypass Pathways): Off-target mechanisms include activation of bypass signaling pathways such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) through alternative receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) or downstream mutations, as well as phenotypic plasticity and epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Lower panel: Emerging therapeutic strategies aimed at overcoming resistance include next-generation and covalent FGFR inhibitors, rational combination approaches targeting bypass pathways, and non-tyrosine kinase inhibitor modalities such as antibody-drug conjugates and proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) degraders.
Figure 2. Mechanisms of resistance to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibition and emerging therapeutic strategies in FGFR2-rearranged intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Acquired resistance to FGFR inhibitors arises through both on-target and off-target mechanisms. Upper panel (On-Target Mutations): On-target resistance is most commonly driven by secondary FGFR2 kinase-domain mutations, including gatekeeper and molecular-brake alterations, which impair inhibitor binding and often emerge in a polyclonal pattern. The DNA double helix represents genetic alterations acquired during treatment. The FGFR protein structure denotes the FGFR2 receptor. The pill icon represents FGFR-targeted therapy. The modified FGFR receptor signifies a drug-resistant FGFR2 protein. Upper panel (Bypass Pathways): Off-target mechanisms include activation of bypass signaling pathways such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) through alternative receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) or downstream mutations, as well as phenotypic plasticity and epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Lower panel: Emerging therapeutic strategies aimed at overcoming resistance include next-generation and covalent FGFR inhibitors, rational combination approaches targeting bypass pathways, and non-tyrosine kinase inhibitor modalities such as antibody-drug conjugates and proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) degraders.
Cancers 18 00531 g002
Table 1. Major actionable molecular targets in biliary tract cancer.
Table 1. Major actionable molecular targets in biliary tract cancer.
Molecular Alteration (Biomarker)Predominant BTC Subtype(s)Approx. Prevalence (by Subtype)Representative Targeted Therapy OptionsHighest Level of Clinical Evidence
FGFR2 fusion/rearrangementiCCAiCCA: ~10–15%|eCCA/GBC: rarePemigatinib, futibatinibPhase II trials
IDH1 mutationiCCAiCCA: up to ~20%|eCCA/GBC: uncommonIvosidenibPhase III trial
HER2 (ERBB2) overexpression/amplification *eCCA, GBC (also seen in a subset of iCCA)eCCA: ~17% HER2 overexpression|iCCA: ~5%|GBC: variable; higher than CCA in many seriesZanidatamab-hrii (HER2 bispecific antibody); trastuzumab-based regimens (context-dependent)Phase II trials
BRAF V600E mutationPan-BTC (rare)BTC overall: ~1–5% (reported in BTC; varies by cohort)Dabrafenib + trametinibPhase II trial
NTRK gene fusionTumor-agnostic (very rare in BTC)BTC/GBC/CCA: <1%Larotrectinib, entrectinib, repotrectinibPhase II basket trials
MSI-H/dMMRTumor-agnostic (rare)BTC overall MSI-H: ~1–3% (range across studies)PembrolizumabPhase II trials
* For HER2, studies variably report overexpression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) vs. amplification by in situ hybridization (ISH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS); prevalence depends strongly on assay and positivity threshold. Reported alteration frequencies vary by assay platform (IHC/ISH/NGS), positivity definitions, and cohort composition; ranges above reflect commonly cited estimates stratified by anatomic subtype where available. Cross-study prevalence comparisons should therefore be interpreted cautiously.
Table 2. Selected approved and investigational fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in FGFR2-rearranged biliary tract cancer.
Table 2. Selected approved and investigational fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in FGFR2-rearranged biliary tract cancer.
AgentType/SelectivityMechanism of InhibitionKey Clinical TrialsPopulationOutcomes *Regulatory Status in USReference
PemigatinibFGFR1-3 selectiveReversible ATP-competitiveFIGHT-202 [NCT02924376]Previously treated CCAORR: 37.0%
mPFS: 7.0 mo
mOS: 17.5 mo		FDA accelerated approval in 2020[15,38]
InfigratinibFGFR1-3 selectiveReversible ATP-competitiveNCT02150967Previously treated CCA with FGFR2 fusion/rearrangementORR: 23.1%
mPFS: 7.3 mo
mOS: 12.2 mo		FDA accelerated approval in 2021, withdrawal in 2024[34]
DerazantinibFGFR1-3, multikinaseReversible ATP-competitiveFIDES-01 [NCT03230318]Previously treated iCCA with FGFR2 fusion/rearrangementORR: 21.4%
mPFS: 7.8 mo
mOS: 15.5 mo		No further development[27,39]
FutibatinibFGFR1-4 pan-selectiveIrreversible (covalent)FOENIX-CCA2 [NCT02052778]Previously treated iCCA with FGFR2 fusion/rearrangementORR: 42%
mPFS: 9.0 mo
mOS: 21.7 mo		FDA accelerated approval in 2022[16,40]
Erdafitinib FGFR1-4 pan-selectiveReversible ATP-competitiveRAGNAR [NCT04083976]Previously treated FGFR-altered non-urothelial solid tumorsIn CCA
ORR: 60.0%
mPFS: 8.4 mo
mOS: 18.7 mo		 [41]
* Efficacy outcomes are reported from separate single-arm phase I/II studies and basket trial subsets. Cross-trial comparisons, including contrasts with historical chemotherapy outcomes, are exploratory only and limited by differences in patient populations, molecular selection, prior therapies, and study design. These data should not be interpreted as head-to-head comparisons.
Table 3. Summary of on-target and off-target resistance mechanisms to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA.
Table 3. Summary of on-target and off-target resistance mechanisms to fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA.
Resistance CategoryRepresentative AlterationsEffect on Drug SensitivityTherapeutic Implications
On-target FGFR2 kinase-domain mutationsN550D/K/H, E566A, V565F/L/I, K659M, C492RReduced binding of reversible TKIs; partial retention with irreversible futibatinib for some variantsSwitch from reversible to irreversible FGFR inhibitor; consider trial of next-generation allele-specific agent
Polyclonal FGFR2 mutationsMultiple distinct FGFR2 mutations in same patientCo-existence of sensitive and resistant clonesCombination therapy or next-generation TKI with broader coverage
Bypass signaling activationKRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations, MET/EGFR/ERBB2 amplificationsReactivation of MAPK pathway independent of FGFR2Combine FGFR and MAPK/receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors in trial setting
Phenotypic transition (EMT)Upregulation of TWIST1, SNAIL, ZEB1; loss of E-cadherinDecreased FGFR dependencyInvestigational epigenetic or EMT-targeting strategies
Histologic transformation/clonal evolutionAcquisition of non-epithelial featuresResistance to FGFR blockade and chemotherapyRe-biopsy to guide treatment choice
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xin, X.; Miao, R. FGFR2-Rearranged Biliary Tract Cancer: Biology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies. Cancers 2026, 18, 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030531

AMA Style

Xin X, Miao R. FGFR2-Rearranged Biliary Tract Cancer: Biology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies. Cancers. 2026; 18(3):531. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030531

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xin, Xin, and Ruoyu Miao. 2026. "FGFR2-Rearranged Biliary Tract Cancer: Biology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies" Cancers 18, no. 3: 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030531

APA Style

Xin, X., & Miao, R. (2026). FGFR2-Rearranged Biliary Tract Cancer: Biology, Resistance Mechanisms, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies. Cancers, 18(3), 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030531

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop