Trial Outcomes & Findings for Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Microwave Ablation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea (NCT NCT03586050)
NCT ID: NCT03586050
Last Updated: 2024-07-24
Results Overview
Number of participants whose ablation resulted in technical success were reported. Technical success was defined as complete tumor ablation with adequate or insufficient margin, based on contrast-enhanced Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Computed scans immediately following the ablation procedure on Day 0 evaluated by the independent reviewer and principle investigator (PI) based on the response to the question "Confirm outcome of ablation".
COMPLETED
NA
33 participants
Post ablation procedure (Day 0) up to 4 days
2024-07-24
Participant Flow
Recruitment occurred from 04Dec2017 through 21May2020.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
33
|
|
Overall Study
Full Analysis Set (FAS)
|
30
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
28
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
5
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Death
|
3
|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
2
|
Baseline Characteristics
Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Microwave Ablation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
63.6 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.16 • n=99 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
5 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
28 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
33 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Maximum Tumor Dimension
|
2.49 Centimeters (cm)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.578 • n=99 Participants
|
|
Liver Segment
Segment 3
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Liver Segment
Segment 4
|
6 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Liver Segment
Segment 5
|
5 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Liver Segment
Segment 6
|
5 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Liver Segment
Segment 7
|
6 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Liver Segment
Segment 8
|
14 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Tumor Depth
Superficial
|
17 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Tumor Depth
Deep
|
9 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Tumor Depth
Dome
|
7 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Major Vessel/Duct Assessment
Near Major Vessel/Duct
|
14 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Major Vessel/Duct Assessment
No Major Vessel/Duct Near Ablation
|
19 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging
0 (Very early stage disease; Child-Pugh score of A, ECOG 0-1, single tumor < 2cm)
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging
A (Early stage disease; Child-Pugh score of A/B, ECOG 0-1, single or 2-3 tumors < 3cm)
|
33 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging
B (Intermediate stage disease; Child-Pugh score of A/B, ECOG 0-1, multinodular tumors)
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging
C (Advanced stage disease; Child-Pugh score of A/B, ECOG 0-2, portal vein invasion)
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging
D (Terminal disease; Child-Pugh score C, ECOG>2, metastasized tumors to lymph nodes or other organs)
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Child-Pugh Score
Class A (mild liver disease; 5-6 points)
|
30 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Child-Pugh Score
Class B (moderately severe liver disease; 7-9 points)
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
|
Child-Pugh Score
Class C (severe liver disease; 10-15 points)
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Post ablation procedure (Day 0) up to 4 daysPopulation: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Number of participants whose ablation resulted in technical success were reported. Technical success was defined as complete tumor ablation with adequate or insufficient margin, based on contrast-enhanced Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Computed scans immediately following the ablation procedure on Day 0 evaluated by the independent reviewer and principle investigator (PI) based on the response to the question "Confirm outcome of ablation".
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical Success
PI Assessment
|
30 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical Success
Independent Reviewer Assessment
|
30 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At 1 month after the ablation procedure on Day 0Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Number of participants whose ablation resulted in primary technique efficacy were reported. Primary technique efficacy was defined as a complete tumor ablation with adequate or insufficient ablation margin, based on contrast-enhanced MRI and CT scans follow-up at 1 month after the ablation procedure, evaluated by the independent reviewer and PI based on the response to the question "Confirm outcome of ablation". The primary technique efficacy was achieved if responses were either "Complete tumor ablation with adequate margin" or "Complete tumor ablation with insufficient margin".
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique Efficacy
PI Assessment
|
30 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique Efficacy
Independent Reviewer Assessment
|
30 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post ablation on Day 0Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Percentage of participants with LTP were reported. The first LTP rate was defined as one minus primary efficacy rate. Primary efficacy rate was defined as percentage of participants with target tumors successfully eradicated following the ablation procedure and measured at each follow-up visit post-ablation. Primary efficacy was achieved when any target tumor had been successfully ablated at the Visit 2 ablation (Technical success achieved) and had no evidence of local tumor progression (LTP) based on the independent reviewer's assessment and PI assessment.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 1 Month post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 3 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 6 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 9 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 12 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 18 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 24 Months post ablation
|
3.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 30 Months post ablation
|
7.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
PI Assessment: 36 Months post ablation
|
7.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 1 Month post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 3 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 6 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 9 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 12 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 18 Months post ablation
|
0.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 24 Months post ablation
|
3.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 30 Months post ablation
|
7.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
Independent Reviewer: 36 Months post ablation
|
7.3 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post ablation on Day 0Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Percentage of participants with primary efficacy based on the independent reviewer and PI assessment were reported. Primary efficacy rate was defined as percentage of participants with target tumors successfully eradicated following the ablation procedure and measured at each follow-up visit post-ablation. Primary efficacy was achieved when any target tumor had been successfully ablated at the Visit 2 ablation (Technical success achieved) and had no evidence of LTP based on the independent reviewer's assessment and PI assessment.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 12 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 1 Month post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 3 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 6 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 9 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 18 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 24 Months post ablation
|
96.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 30 Months post ablation
|
92.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
PI Assessment: 36 Months post ablation
|
92.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 1 Month post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 3 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 6 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 9 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 12 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 18 Months post ablation
|
100.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 24 Months post ablation
|
96.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 30 Months post ablation
|
92.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy
Independent Reviewer: 36 Months post ablation
|
92.7 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 monthsPopulation: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy. Data for this outcome measure was not collected and analyzed as no participant had undergone repeat ablations.
Percentage of participants with secondary efficacy based on the independent reviewer and PI assessment were reported. Secondary efficacy rate was defined as percentage of participants with target tumors that had undergone successful repeat ablation following identification of local tumor progression.
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At 36 months after the ablation procedure on Day 0Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy. Here "N" (number of participants analyzed) signifies the number of participants that were evaluable for this outcome measure and "n"(number analyzed) signifies the number of participants analyzed for specified categories.
PFS rate was defined as the percentage of participants with PFS. PFS was defined as the time from the first ablation until LTP (first LTP rate was defined as one minus primary efficacy rate), any identification of a new (nontarget) lesion/tumor during follow-up, or death due to any cause (whichever occurs first). PFS rate based on independent reviewer's assessment and PI assessment was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=18 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Progression Free Survival (PFS) Rate
PI Assessment
|
40.8 Percentage of participants
|
|
Progression Free Survival (PFS) Rate
Independent Reviewer Assessment
|
38.5 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At 36 months after the ablation procedure on Day 0Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
OS rate was defined as the percentage of participants with OS. OS was defined as the time from the first ablation until death due to any cause.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Overall Survival (OS) Rate
|
90.0 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 3 months post ablationPopulation: Safety analysis set (SAF) included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is, started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
Percentage of participants with AEs within 3 months post ablation were reported. An AE was an untoward medical occurrence (sign, symptom or disease) in a participant, and which did not necessarily have a causal relationship with the study medical device.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) Within 3 Months Post Ablation
|
66.7 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablationPopulation: SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is, started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
Percentage of participants with AEs within 36 months post ablation were reported. An AE was an untoward medical occurrence (sign, symptom or disease) in a participant, and which did not necessarily have a causal relationship with the study medical device.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=33 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events Within 36 Months Post Ablation
|
66.7 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Pre-Ablation), Day 0 (post ablation), Months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 (post ablation on Day 0)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Change from baseline in VAS pain scores were reported. VAS pain score was a self-reported pain score on a 100 millimeter (mm) scale which ranged from ranged from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (severe pain). Higher score indicated severe pain. Baseline was defined as the last non-missing measurement taken prior to date of first microwave ablation (including unscheduled assessments) or on the date of first microwave ablation but prior to the time of first probe placement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
Post ablation (Day 0)
|
0.32 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.258
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
1 Month post ablation
|
-0.01 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.194
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
3 Months post ablation
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.204
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
6 Months post ablation
|
0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.214
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
9 Months post ablation
|
0.01 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.211
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
12 Months post ablation
|
-0.03 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.176
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
18 Months post ablation
|
-0.06 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.145
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
24 Months post ablation
|
-0.06 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.148
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
30 Months post ablation
|
-0.06 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.121
|
|
Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
36 Months post ablation
|
-0.06 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.180
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Pre-Ablation), Months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 (post ablation on Day 0)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 scale score were reported. EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 questions for assessing overall health in cancer patients. The questions reflect how patients felt during the past week and are scored 1-4 (1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much) except for the last two questions, which are scored on a 7-point Likert Scale from 1-7 (1=very poor to 7=excellent). All the questions were transformed to a 0-100 scale and summed for an overall quality of life score, with a high score representing higher quality of life. Baseline: last non-missing measurement prior to date of first microwave ablation or on date of first microwave ablation but prior to time of first probe placement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
3 Months post ablation
|
-0.05 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.120
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
6 Months post ablation
|
-0.42 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.147
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
9 Months post ablation
|
0.74 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.427
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
12 Months post ablation
|
2.23 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.526
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
18 Months post ablation
|
3.38 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.608
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
24 Months post ablation
|
1.59 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.425
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
30 Months post ablation
|
4.01 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.652
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
36 Months post ablation
|
2.47 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.793
|
|
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
1 Month post ablation
|
1.23 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.415
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Pre-Ablation), Months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 (post ablation on Day 0)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Change from baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 scale score were reported. EORTC 18-item hepatocellular cancer health-related quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-HCC18) was an 18-multi-item scales which were grouped into 8 symptom scales such as fatigue, body image, jaundice, nutrition, pain, fever, abdominal swelling and sex life. All scales were grouped and converted to scores of 0 to 100 according to the scoring manual; a higher score represented a more severe symptom or problem. Baseline was defined as the last non-missing measurement taken prior to date of first microwave ablation (including unscheduled assessments) or on the date of first microwave ablation but prior to the time of first probe placement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
1 Month post ablation
|
1.58 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.397
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
3 Months post ablation
|
1.85 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.663
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
6 Months post ablation
|
0.69 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.575
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
9 Months post ablation
|
1.36 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.508
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
12 Months post ablation
|
1.11 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.902
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
18 Months post ablation
|
3.24 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.080
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
24 Months post ablation
|
0.41 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.593
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
30 Months post ablation
|
-1.57 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.948
|
|
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
36 Months post ablation
|
-4.33 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.320
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Day 0 (On day of ablation treatment)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Complete procedure time was defined as the time between the first probe placement and the last probe removal.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Health Economics: Complete Procedure Time
|
19 minutes
Interval 4.0 to 46.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Day 0 (On the day of ablation treatment)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Total ablation duration were reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Health Economics: Total Ablation Duration
|
7.76 minutes
Interval 4.0 to 16.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Day 0 (On the day of ablation treatment)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
The median number of ablations was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Health Economics: Median Number of Ablations
|
2 ablations
Interval 1.0 to 5.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Day 0 (On day of ablation treatment) up to 30 days (1-month post ablation visit)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Length of hospital stay were reported. Length of hospital stay was defined as the time from procedure completion to hospital discharge.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Health Economics: Length of Hospital Stay
|
2 days
Interval 2.0 to 22.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Day 0 (On the day of ablation treatment)Population: FAS included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was completed and who provided information on ablation margins for evaluation of technical success and technique efficacy.
Percentage of participants with single and multiple probes usage were reported. PR and LK probes were used at least once.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=30 Participants
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Health Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes Usage
Single probe
|
3.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Health Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes Usage
Multi probe
|
96.7 percentage of participants
|
Adverse Events
Microwave Ablation
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=33 participants at risk
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Extra nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma (MALT type)
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Thermal burn
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Peritonitis bacterial
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Diabetes mellitus
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Cerebrovascular accident
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Hypovolaemic shock
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Hepatocellular carcinoma
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Lung neoplasm malignant
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Microwave Ablation
n=33 participants at risk
Participants underwent microwave ablation using the NEUWAVE Certus 140 2.45 Gigahertz (GHz) Ablation System of liver tumors (Hepatocellular Carcinoma \[HCC\]) at a single visit, in accordance with their institution's standard-of-care (SOC) for ablation. The treating physician determined the ablation time and power used on a case-by-case basis.
|
|---|---|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural pain
|
45.5%
15/33 • Number of events 15 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Constipation
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Duodenal ulcer
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Gingival bleeding
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Large intestine polyp
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Wound secretion
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural nausea
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Thermal burn
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Dyslipidaemia
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Hyperkalaemia
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Hyponatraemia
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Hepatobiliary disorders
Hepatic failure
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Hepatobiliary disorders
Hepatic infarction
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Cerebral artery stenosis
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Dizziness
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Confusional state
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Delirium
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Investigations
Blood pressure decreased
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Pruritus
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
SAF included all participants in whom the microwave ablation procedure was attempted, that is started and regardless of whether it got completed as planned or not.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: LTE60