Persistent FGFR pathway dependence: where does tinengotinib fit after FGFR inhibitor therapy in advanced cholangiocarcinoma?

Cholangiocarcinoma is a biologically heterogeneous malignancy, and a clinically important subset is driven by fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions or rearrangements (1). The development of selective FGFR inhibitors has established this pathway as a therapeutic target, with pemigatinib, infigratinib, and futibatinib each showing clinically meaningful activity in previously treated FGFR2-rearranged disease (2-4). However, acquired resistance to FGFR inhibition is common, and subsequent-line options after progression remain poorly defined (5). A critical unmet need is therefore to determine whether continued FGFR pathway targeting retains clinical value after progression on a previous FGFR inhibitor (5-7). In this context, the phase 2 study reported by Javle and colleagues directly addresses this clinically relevant question (7).

Tinengotinib differs from selective FGFR inhibitors in its binding profile and broader kinase inhibition. Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that these properties may preserve activity in tumors with acquired resistance while producing a different toxicity profile (7,8). The phase 2 study therefore informs both the efficacy of tinengotinib and its potential position in the treatment sequence for FGFR-altered cholangiocarcinoma (7).

Javle and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Patients were assigned to four biologically defined cohorts: FGFR2 fusions with primary resistance to prior FGFR inhibition (cohort A1), FGFR2 fusions with acquired resistance (cohort A2), other FGFR alterations (cohort B), and FGFR wild-type disease (cohort C). All enrolled patients had received at least one previous line of systemic therapy, and many had undergone multiple prior regimens (7).

This cohort-based design permits exploratory assessment across distinct resistance states and genomic contexts. However, the absence of a comparator arm and the small number of patients in each cohort limit cross-cohort inference (7). The study does not establish a new standard, but it suggests that patients with acquired resistance may represent a subgroup in whom continued FGFR pathway targeting warrants further evaluation. It also identifies the clinical and molecular questions that should be addressed in confirmatory studies (5,7). Table 1 summarizes these questions.

The efficacy results support the view that tinengotinib has clinically relevant antitumor activity in a subset of FGFR-altered cholangiocarcinomas, but that this activity is clearly context dependent. The most notable signal emerged in cohort A2, in which the objective response rate reached 30.0% among patients with acquired resistance to a prior FGFR inhibitor. By contrast, the response rate was 6.3% in cohort A1, 23.1% in cohort B, and 0% in the FGFR wild-type cohort (7).

These apparent differences should be interpreted cautiously because the cohorts were small and non-randomized. Nevertheless, the signal in acquired resistance is consistent with the hypothesis that at least some tumors remain biologically reliant on the FGFR pathway after progression and may harbor secondary FGFR2 kinase-domain alterations rather than complete pathway escape (5,7).

Time-to-event outcomes add important nuance. Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months for cohort A overall, 5.6 months in A1, 4.2 months in A2, 7.3 months in cohort B, and 3.8 months in cohort C. Median overall survival reached 18.0 months in cohort A, was not reached in A2 or cohort B at the time of reporting, and was 6.5 months in cohort C. These findings require cautious interpretation because both progression-free and overall survival are vulnerable to patient selection, and overall survival may additionally be influenced by post-progression therapy (7).

Taken together, tinengotinib appears to preserve activity in a setting where established treatment options are limited, particularly among patients who previously benefited from FGFR inhibition and later developed acquired resistance (7). Notably, despite the higher objective response rate in cohort A2, median progression-free survival was not longer than that in cohort A1, further emphasizing the limitations of cross-cohort comparisons in this small, non-randomized study (7).

The strongest caution in interpreting this trial concerns the enrolled population. Previous surgical resection had been performed in 80% of patients, suggesting enrichment for previously resected, likely postoperative recurrent disease rather than a population composed predominantly of de novo unresectable or metastatic presentation. Although this is a legitimate and clinically important subgroup, it does not fully mirror the broader population of advanced cholangiocarcinoma (7).

This distinction matters because postoperative recurrent cholangiocarcinoma may differ from initially unresectable or de novo metastatic disease in tumor burden, tempo of progression, organ function, surveillance intensity, and treatment tolerance; in the present study, this selection may have influenced observed outcomes (7). Patients who initially underwent resection may represent a clinically selected population with different disease biology and treatment trajectories when later-line systemic therapy was initiated (7). As a result, the extent to which the observed outcomes can be attributed to drug effect remains uncertain (7).

The study also provides limited detail about recurrence patterns within the previously resected subgroup. Information regarding local versus distant relapse, surgical margin status, disease-free interval, and prior adjuvant therapy would have helped clarify prognosis and external validity. This distinction is clinically important because postoperative local recurrence and distant metastatic relapse may reflect different patterns of disease biology and treatment trajectories (9-11). In a single-arm study, this missing clinical granularity is not merely descriptive; it directly influences how confidently the efficacy signal can be generalized to routine practice (7).

The safety profile is central to any positioning discussion. Treatment-related adverse events were common, most notably hypertension, diarrhea, stomatitis, fatigue, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. Grade 3 hypertension occurred in 31% of patients, and treatment interruption and dose reduction were required in 67% and 40%, respectively, although permanent discontinuation due to treatment-related toxicity was limited to 13% (7). Tinengotinib therefore appears to have a distinct toxicity profile, with class-associated FGFR toxicities appearing less frequent than historically reported with selective FGFR inhibitors, but with a substantial burden of adverse events associated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibition (2-4,7). Its clinical value will depend on whether this efficacy-toxicity trade-off compares favorably with available later-line alternatives.

The biomarker analyses reinforce the view that resistance after FGFR inhibition is biologically heterogeneous. The association of MED12 alterations with longer progression-free survival and the less favorable outcomes observed in tumors harboring ARID1A or MET alterations suggest that response may be shaped by co-occurring genomic context rather than FGFR status alone. Although these associations are hypothesis-generating, they suggest that FGFR alteration status alone may not fully capture the likelihood of benefit once resistance has evolved (7).

Consistent with this heterogeneity, the difference between the acquired and primary resistance cohorts also has a plausible biological basis. Acquired resistance after an initial response may reflect secondary FGFR2 kinase-domain alterations that preserve residual pathway dependence, thereby creating an opportunity for a mechanistically distinct inhibitor to remain active (5,7). Primary resistance, by contrast, may reflect non-functional fusions, parallel oncogenic drivers, or broader biologic heterogeneity that is less likely to respond to continued FGFR targeting (5,7).

Serial genomic assessment, including analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), may help distinguish persistent FGFR pathway dependence from pathway escape after progression (5,12). At present, however, these findings are not sufficient to direct clinical practice.

The central clinical question is not whether tinengotinib has activity, but where it should fit. On the basis of the current data, the most plausible position is after prior benefit from a selective FGFR inhibitor, particularly in patients with acquired resistance and preserved clinical fitness. The available evidence is less persuasive for primary resistance, and the absence of objective responses in FGFR wild-type disease supports a major contribution of FGFR dependence to tumor regression, although disease stabilization in this cohort leaves open the possibility of contributions from tinengotinib’s non-FGFR targets (7). These findings support further evaluation of sequential, resistance-informed FGFR targeting.

Equally important is the comparator question. In the absence of randomized data, it remains unclear whether the observed activity is superior to other later-line options or instead reflects favorable patient selection. Ongoing phase 3 evaluation against physician’s choice chemotherapy will therefore be critical, not only to confirm benefit, but also to determine whether this strategy improves outcomes enough to justify its toxicity and management burden (7).

Until such comparative data are available, the phase 2 study by Javle and colleagues should be regarded as providing an encouraging signal of antitumor activity in selected patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma after prior FGFR inhibitor therapy, especially in the setting of acquired resistance (7). These data support continued development of this strategy and reinforce the concept that FGFR pathway dependence can persist beyond progression on earlier targeted therapy (5,7).

At the same time, the study should not be overinterpreted. The highly selected population, substantial enrichment for previously resected patients, single-arm design, and frequent need for dose modification all temper direct clinical adoption. The findings should be regarded as signal-generating rather than practice-defining.

Tinengotinib is therefore best regarded, at present, as a promising candidate for resistance-informed treatment sequencing in FGFR-altered cholangiocarcinoma. Future studies should integrate prospective molecular stratification, resistance annotation, and longitudinal ctDNA profiling to define which patients remain dependent on FGFR signaling after progression (5,12). Beyond the activity of tinengotinib itself, this study supports the broader concept that evolving resistance biology should inform the longitudinal use of targeted therapy in cholangiocarcinoma.

Acknowledgments

OpenAI ChatGPT was used to assist with manuscript drafting, language editing, structural revision, and reference organization. The authors independently verified all scientific statements, numerical data, interpretations, and references and revised the final manuscript. ChatGPT was not used to generate or analyze research data. The authors take full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-2026-0668/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Ilyas SI, Affo S, Goyal L, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma - novel biological insights and therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2023;20:470-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Abou-Alfa GK, Sahai V, Hollebecque A, et al. Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:671-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Javle M, Roychowdhury S, Kelley RK, 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;6:803-15. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Goyal L, Meric-Bernstam F, Hollebecque A, et al. Futibatinib for FGFR2-Rearranged Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2023;388:228-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Goyal L, Saha SK, Liu LY, et al. Polyclonal Secondary FGFR2 Mutations Drive Acquired Resistance to FGFR Inhibition in Patients with FGFR2 Fusion-Positive Cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Discov 2017;7:252-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Vogel A, Ducreux MESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: clinicalguidelines@esmo. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline interim update on the management of biliary tract cancer. ESMO Open 2025;10:104003. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Javle M, Fountzilas C, Liao CY, et al. Tinengotinib for adults with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2026;11:137-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Piha-Paul SA, Xu B, Dumbrava EE, 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:e514-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Hu LS, Zhang XF, Weiss M, et al. Recurrence Patterns and Timing Courses Following Curative-Intent Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2019;26:2549-57. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Nakanishi Y, Okamura K, Tsuchikawa T, et al. Time to Recurrence After Surgical Resection and Survival After Recurrence Among Patients with Perihilar and Distal Cholangiocarcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:4171-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Labib PL, Russell TB, Denson JL, et al. Patterns, timing and predictors of recurrence following pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: An international multicentre retrospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2024;50:108353. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. González-Medina A, Vila-Casadesús M, Gomez-Rey M, et al. Clinical Value of Liquid Biopsy in Patients with FGFR2 Fusion-Positive Cholangiocarcinoma During Targeted Therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2024;30:4491-504. [Crossref] [PubMed]