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

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 3

Study type

Interventional

Source

CRIS

Registry ID

KCT0012009

Enrollment

248

Registered

2026-05-19

Start date

2026-07-20

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-05-25

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 the therapeutic efficacy of the Mi-Blator™ microwave ablation (MWA) system and the Emprint MWA system in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma measuring 3 cm or s

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 85 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 March 2024 B. Adult men and women aged 18 years or older and under 85 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

Measure	Time frame
2-year local tumor progression rate	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Complication rate	—

Countries

Korea, Republic of

Contacts

Public ContactDong Hwan Kim

Asan Medical Center

rhdwngkwk333@naver.com+82-2-3010-3221

Outcome results