FindTrial
Sign In

A study comparing the therapeutic efficacy of the conventional Emprint microwave ablation and the newly developed Mi-Blator™ microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma =3 cm

Comparison of the Efficacy of Microwave Ablation Using Emprint versus Mi-BlatorTM technology for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Status
Unknown
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
CRIS
Registry ID
KCT0010252
Enrollment
248
Registered
2025-03-04
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2026-04-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Medical Device : This study compares and analyzes the therapeutic efficacy between patients scheduled for treatment using the Mi-Blator™ microwave ablation (MWA) system for hepatocellular carcinoma =3

Sponsors

Asan Medical Center
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Group 1: 130 patients (Scheduled for treatment with the Mi-Blator MWA system) A. Adult men and women aged 18 years or older and under 80 years B. Patients diagnosed with primary or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) C. Patients with target tumors =3 cm in size who are not candidates for surgical resection or liver transplantation D. Patients with no major vascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis and no residual lesions other than the target lesion E. Patients with liver function classified as Child-Turcotte-Pugh grade A or B F. Patients who have understood the study information and consent form, and have provided written consent Group 2: 118 patients (Treated with the Emprint MWA system) A. Patients who underwent percutaneous tumor ablation using the Emprint MWA system for HCC at our institution between May 2021 and June 2023 B. Adult men and women aged 18 years or older and under 80 years

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Group 1: A. Patients with a general performance status of 3 or 4 according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) criteria B. Patients for whom percutaneous ablation using a single antenna is technically challenging C. Patients with severe coagulopathy D. Patients with uncontrolled malignancies other than liver cancer within 2 years prior to screening E. Patients with a follow-up period of less than 3 months F. Patients deemed inappropriate for the study by the investigator for any other reason Group 2: A. Patients with a follow-up period of less than 3 months B. Patients deemed inappropriate for the study by the investigator for any other reason

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
2-year local tumor progression rate—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Complication rate—

Countries

Korea, Republic of

Contacts

Public ContactDong Hwan Kim

Asan Medical Center

rhdwngkwk333@naver.com+82-2-3010-4352

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CRIS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Apr 17, 2026