Skip to content

Open-Label Phase IIb Efficacy Trial of Cancer Macrobeads Compared to Best Supportive Care in Colorectal Cancer Patients

A Phase IIb, Nonrandomized, Open-Label Trial With Mouse Renal Adenocarcinoma (RENCA) Cell Containing Agarose-Agarose Macrobeads Compared With Best Supportive Care in Patients With Treatment-Resistant, Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02046174
Enrollment
70
Registered
2014-01-27
Start date
2014-04-03
Completion date
2018-10-22
Last updated
2021-03-24

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

Conditions

Colorectal Cancers

Keywords

colon, colorectal, rectal, cancer, macrobead, stage IV, metastatic, biological, mouse cells, new york, new jersey, clinical research

Brief summary

This is a clinical research study of an investigational (FDA IND-BB 10091) treatment for patients with advanced colorectal cancer that no longer responds to standard therapies. The treatment is being evaluated for its effect on tumor growth. It consists of the placement (implantation) of small beads that contain mouse renal adenocarcinoma cells (RENCA macrobeads). The cells in the macrobeads produce substances that have been shown to slow or stop the growth of tumors in experimental animals and veterinary patients. It has been tested in 31 human subjects with different types of cancers in a Phase I safety trial. Phase II studies in patients with colorectal, pancreatic or prostate cancers are in progress

Detailed description

This is a Phase IIb, multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label study with RENCA macrobeads in patients with treatment-resistant, metastatic colorectal carcinoma to determine the effect of RENCA macrobead implantation on overall survival compared with best supportive care. Two treatment groups will be enrolled in this study, as follows: * Group A (n=40) - patients who will undergo up to 4 implantations of RENCA macrobeads (no less than 3 months apart), at a dosage level of 8 RENCA macrobeads per kilogram of body weight * Group B (n=80) - patients who had previously decided (independently of this study) to receive, or continue receiving, best supportive care, defined as management of symptoms aimed at maintaining or improving quality of life, but not including approved therapies targeting the patient's malignancy

Interventions

Sponsors

Vital Systems Inc.
CollaboratorOTHER
The Rogosin Institute
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Patients in both treatment groups must meet all of the following criteria to be considered eligible to participate in the study: * Adult men or women, aged 18 years or older, with histologically-confirmed, metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that has been proven to be resistant to available treatment options, including at least 2 such options from available chemotherapy, targeted, and/or other regimens. * Radiographic evidence of disease progression. * Life expectancy of at least 6 weeks, in the investigator's opinion, at the time disease progression is documented. * Considered surgical candidates on the basis of co-morbidity risks, number and sites of metastases, and ability to undergo general anesthesia. * Able to understand the risks of experimental therapy and provide written consent by signing the appropriate form. Patients in Group A must also meet all of the following additional criteria: * ECOG performance status score of 0, 1, or 2. * Adequate hematologic function, defined as follows: 1. absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥1500 /mL 2. hemoglobin ≥9 g/dL 3. platelets ≥75,000 /mL * Adequate hepatic function, defined as follows: 1. bilirubin ≤1.5 times the upper limit of normal (x ULN) 2. aspartate transaminase (AST) ≤3 x ULN, or ≤5 x ULN if liver metastases are present 3. alanine transaminase (ALT) ≤3, x ULN, or ≤5 x ULN if liver metastases are present * Adequate renal function, defined as creatinine ≤2.0 mg/dL. * Adequate coagulation function, defined as follows: 1. International Normalized Ratio (INR) ≤1.5 or between 2 and 3 if the patient is receiving anticoagulation 2. Partial Thromboplastin Time (PTT) ≤5 seconds above the ULN Note: Patients receiving full-dose anticoagulation therapy must have received a stable dose of oral anticoagulant therapy or low-molecular-weight heparin. * Clinically significant toxic effects of chemotherapy (excluding alopecia), radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, or prior surgery must have resolved to Grade 1 or better, with the exception of peripheral neuropathy, which must have resolved to Grade 2 or better. * Female participants of childbearing potential must have had a negative serum pregnancy test at screening; and must also agree to contraceptive use while on study if sexually active. Male subjects and their partners must have agreed to use condoms.

Exclusion criteria

Patients in either treatment group who meet any of the following criteria will be excluded from participating in the study: * Hepatic blood flow abnormalities, i.e., portal vein hypertension and thrombosis, and/or a large volume of ascites. * Concurrent cancer of any other type, except skin cancers other than melanoma. * A positive test result for HIV or any hepatitis other than A at screening. * Considered by the investigator to be unsuitable for participation in the study upon review of medical history, physical examination, or clinical laboratory test results. Patients in Group A who meet any of the following criteria will be excluded from participating in the study: * Received FDA-approved chemotherapy within 3 weeks of Day 0, or bevacizumab (or similar drugs) within 4 weeks of Day 0, or radiation therapy at any site within 4 weeks of Day 0. * Investigational anticancer therapy within 4 weeks of Day 0. * Positive reaction to the skin test for allergy to mouse antigen. * History of hypersensitivity reaction that, in the opinion of the investigator, poses an increased risk of an allergic reaction to the RENCA macrobeads, particularly any known allergy to murine antigens or body tissues. * Ongoing or active infection, symptomatic congestive heart failure, unstable angina pectoris, serious cardiac arrhythmias (with the exception of well controlled atrial fibrillation), active bleeding, or psychiatric illness, or social situations that could interfere with the patient's ability to participate in the study.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Overall SurvivalFrom date of the most recent scan prior to the first macrobead implantation; assessed up to 32 months.The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of RENCA macrobead implantation as assessed by overall survival in subjects with treatment-resistant mCRC.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Physical FunctionBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2TThe European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including physical function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Physical Function is assessed from 5 of the 30 questions (Questions 1-5), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for physical function is calculated based on the average score from these 5 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.
Cognitive FunctionBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including cognitive function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Cognitive Function is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Question 20 and 25), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.
Social FunctionBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including social function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Social Function is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Question 26 and 27), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.
Pain AssessmentBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2Participants were asked to rate their pain on a discrete scale (from 0 = no pain to 100 worst pain imaginable, unbearable). The worst pain at each time point was used in the analysis.
Performance Status (ECOG Score)Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance scale is a 5-point scale, where 0 denotes perfect health and 5 is death. It is used by clinicians to assess disease progression and how the disease is affecting the daily living abilities of the patient. The ECOG Performance Status scores are defined as follows: * 0: Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction. * 1: Restricted in physical strenuous activity, but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature (e.g. light house work, office work). * 2: Ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50% of waking hours. * 3: Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair 50% or more of waking hours. * 4: Completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed or chair. * 5: Death
Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is a self-rated scale that measures the participant's ability to perform daily functions, ranging from 0 (dead) to 100 (normal, no complaints, no evidence of disease). Karnofsky scores are defined as follows: * 100: Normal; no complaints; no evidence of disease * 90: Able to carry on normal activity with effort, minor sign or symptoms of disease * 80: Normal activity with effort; some sign or symptoms of disease * 70: Cares for self; unable to carry on normal activity or do active work * 60: Requires occasional assistance, but is able to care for most personal needs * 50: Requires considerable assistance and frequent medical care * 40: Disabled; requires special care and assistance * 30: Severely disabled; hospitalization is indicated, although death is not imminent * 20: Very sick; hospitalization/active support treatment is necessary * 10: Moribund; fatal processes progressively worsening * 0: Dead
Global Health StatusBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales, three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. The Global Health Status is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Question 29 and 30), whose response score ranges on a 7 point scale. The score for physical function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, excellent). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.
Role FunctionBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including role function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Role Function is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Questions 6 and 7), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.
Emotional FunctionBaseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including emotional function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Emotional Function is assessed from 4 of the 30 questions (Questions 21-24), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 4 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Necrosis Comparison of Tumors Using PET-CT ScanDay 90 post-Implant 1Tumors were assessed by positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scan at baseline and day 90 following the first RENCA macrobead implantation. The use of \[13\]F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake for the detection of lesions \>1 cm in diameter allowed evaluation of metabolic activity. Decreases in FDG uptake were indicative of metabolic suppression of the tumor. The use of PET-CT scanning indicated anatomical localization, approximate size/volume of primary tumor and metastatic lesion(s), and assessment of metabolic activity of the tumor (as an indicator of metabolic health and necrosis). Disease state is reported as a function of Tumor measurement divided by SUVmax. Changes were assessed between day 90 post RENCA macrobead implant and baseline values. Patients with no change = stable; patients with decreased values = decreased/necrosis, and patients with increased values = increased.
Overall Survival by Tumor Marker Response30 monthsOverall survival (OS) of participants by tumor marker response. A responder is a participant having a decrease from baseline of 20% or more in CEA or CA 19-9 within 90 days of Implant. OS is the time interval between the date of radiographically documented disease progression and the date of death due to any cause. Participants still alive at the end of the study are censored at 22OCT2018.
Tumor Marker Response (CEA and CA 19-9)Change from baseline up to and including day 90 post-Implant 1.Tumor markers included serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), and were assessed on all participants in the RENCA macrobead implantation arm at baseline and at subsequent evaluation points to further assess tumor response to RENCA macrobead implantation. A tumor marker response was defined as a greater than or equal to 20% decrease in one or both of CEA or CA 19-9.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were recruited based on physician referral at five academic medical centers between March 2013 and November 2017. The first participant was implanted on April 11, 2014 and the last implant was March 7, 2018.

Pre-assignment details

70 participants provided informed consent to participate in the study (Group A n=67; Group B n=3). Of these, 41 mCRC patients were enrolled in the RENCA macrobead implantation arm (Group A) and 3 subjects were enrolled in the Best Supportive Care arm (Group B). The 25 subjects who were not enrolled into Group A, after providing informed consent, had failed the respective eligibility criteria.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Macrobead Implantation Arm
mCRC patients who will undergo up to 4 implantations of RENCA macrobeads (no less than 3 months apart), at a dosage level of 8 RENCA macrobeads per kilogram of body weight.
41
Total41

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyToo many adhesions to receive implant (at time of surgery).10

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicMacrobead Implantation Arm
Age, Continuous55.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.67
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
African American
4 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic
3 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
33 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
41 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
21 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
20 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
36 / 41
other
Total, other adverse events
41 / 41
serious
Total, serious adverse events
27 / 41

Outcome results

Primary

Overall Survival

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of RENCA macrobead implantation as assessed by overall survival in subjects with treatment-resistant mCRC.

Time frame: From date of the most recent scan prior to the first macrobead implantation; assessed up to 32 months.

Population: The analysis population was limited to those in Group A, Macrobead Implantation Arm. Group B, Best Supportive Care, was only able to enroll 3 of 80 participants planned. Per Group B investigators, the entry criteria were flagged as being impossible for reliable enrollment. Therefore, these results focus on the participants who were enrolled and implanted with RENCA macrobeads.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Macrobead Implantation ArmOverall Survival9.25 months
Secondary

Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)

Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is a self-rated scale that measures the participant's ability to perform daily functions, ranging from 0 (dead) to 100 (normal, no complaints, no evidence of disease). Karnofsky scores are defined as follows: * 100: Normal; no complaints; no evidence of disease * 90: Able to carry on normal activity with effort, minor sign or symptoms of disease * 80: Normal activity with effort; some sign or symptoms of disease * 70: Cares for self; unable to carry on normal activity or do active work * 60: Requires occasional assistance, but is able to care for most personal needs * 50: Requires considerable assistance and frequent medical care * 40: Disabled; requires special care and assistance * 30: Severely disabled; hospitalization is indicated, although death is not imminent * 20: Very sick; hospitalization/active support treatment is necessary * 10: Moribund; fatal processes progressively worsening * 0: Dead

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmActivities of Daily Living (KPS Score)88.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.6
Implant 1: Day 14Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)82.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.6
Implant 1: Day 30Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)74.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.7
Implant 1: Day 60Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)81.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.1
Implant 2: Day 0Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)94.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.4
Implant 2: Day 14Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)83.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.7
Implant 2: Day 30Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)93.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.7
Implant 2: Day 60Activities of Daily Living (KPS Score)91.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.9
Secondary

Cognitive Function

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including cognitive function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Cognitive Function is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Question 20 and 25), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmCognitive Function83.74 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.02
Implant 1: Day 14Cognitive Function83.76 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.46
Implant 1: Day 30Cognitive Function85.78 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.43
Implant 1: Day 60Cognitive Function86.54 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.34
Implant 2: Day 0Cognitive Function93.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.4
Implant 2: Day 14Cognitive Function90.15 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.27
Implant 2: Day 30Cognitive Function97.62 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.29
Implant 2: Day 60Cognitive Function95.24 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.13
Secondary

Emotional Function

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including emotional function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Emotional Function is assessed from 4 of the 30 questions (Questions 21-24), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 4 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmEmotional Function79.07 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.06
Implant 1: Day 14Emotional Function72.65 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.74
Implant 1: Day 30Emotional Function76.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.91
Implant 1: Day 60Emotional Function80.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.79
Implant 2: Day 0Emotional Function86.46 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.73
Implant 2: Day 14Emotional Function78.13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.89
Implant 2: Day 30Emotional Function83.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.84
Implant 2: Day 60Emotional Function88.10 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.11
Secondary

Global Health Status

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales, three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. The Global Health Status is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Question 29 and 30), whose response score ranges on a 7 point scale. The score for physical function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, excellent). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmGlobal Health Status68.70 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.03
Implant 1: Day 14Global Health Status50.21 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.37
Implant 1: Day 30Global Health Status56.13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 29.61
Implant 1: Day 60Global Health Status69.87 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.48
Implant 2: Day 0Global Health Status84.38 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.5
Implant 2: Day 14Global Health Status75.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.77
Implant 2: Day 30Global Health Status83.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.79
Implant 2: Day 60Global Health Status83.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.79
Secondary

Pain Assessment

Participants were asked to rate their pain on a discrete scale (from 0 = no pain to 100 worst pain imaginable, unbearable). The worst pain at each time point was used in the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmPain Assessment26.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.58
Implant 1: Day 14Pain Assessment52.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.24
Implant 1: Day 30Pain Assessment41.18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.22
Implant 1: Day 60Pain Assessment33.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.67
Implant 2: Day 0Pain Assessment16.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.92
Implant 2: Day 14Pain Assessment22.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.79
Implant 2: Day 30Pain Assessment14.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.25
Implant 2: Day 60Pain Assessment14.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.39
Secondary

Performance Status (ECOG Score)

The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance scale is a 5-point scale, where 0 denotes perfect health and 5 is death. It is used by clinicians to assess disease progression and how the disease is affecting the daily living abilities of the patient. The ECOG Performance Status scores are defined as follows: * 0: Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction. * 1: Restricted in physical strenuous activity, but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature (e.g. light house work, office work). * 2: Ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50% of waking hours. * 3: Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair 50% or more of waking hours. * 4: Completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed or chair. * 5: Death

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis.~Implant 1 (day 0 to day 60): Participants who received at least one RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (day 0 to day 60): Participants who received at least two RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Macrobead Implantation ArmPerformance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Macrobead Implantation ArmPerformance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 30 Participants
Macrobead Implantation ArmPerformance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 121 Participants
Macrobead Implantation ArmPerformance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 016 Participants
Macrobead Implantation ArmPerformance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Macrobead Implantation ArmPerformance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 24 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 27 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 32 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 05 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 123 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 41 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 27 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 123 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 31 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 05 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 011 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 18 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 27 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 31 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 2: Day 0Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Implant 2: Day 0Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 12 Participants
Implant 2: Day 0Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 2: Day 0Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 05 Participants
Implant 2: Day 0Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 30 Participants
Implant 2: Day 0Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 21 Participants
Implant 2: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 21 Participants
Implant 2: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 30 Participants
Implant 2: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 13 Participants
Implant 2: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Implant 2: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 04 Participants
Implant 2: Day 14Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 2: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 30 Participants
Implant 2: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Implant 2: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 04 Participants
Implant 2: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 21 Participants
Implant 2: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 2: Day 30Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 12 Participants
Implant 2: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 30 Participants
Implant 2: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 21 Participants
Implant 2: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 50 Participants
Implant 2: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 40 Participants
Implant 2: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 04 Participants
Implant 2: Day 60Performance Status (ECOG Score)ECOG Score 12 Participants
Secondary

Physical Function

TThe European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including physical function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Physical Function is assessed from 5 of the 30 questions (Questions 1-5), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for physical function is calculated based on the average score from these 5 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmPhysical Function80.65 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.94
Implant 1: Day 14Physical Function69.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.79
Implant 1: Day 30Physical Function82.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.96
Implant 1: Day 60Physical Function83.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.13
Implant 2: Day 0Physical Function91.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.26
Implant 2: Day 14Physical Function90.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.26
Implant 2: Day 30Physical Function92.90 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.88
Implant 2: Day 60Physical Function90.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.32
Secondary

Role Function

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including role function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Role Function is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Questions 6 and 7), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmRole Function81.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20
Implant 1: Day 14Role Function55.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.07
Implant 1: Day 30Role Function61.27 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.75
Implant 1: Day 60Role Function74.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.99
Implant 2: Day 0Role Function89.58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.27
Implant 2: Day 14Role Function60.42 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 43.59
Implant 2: Day 30Role Function85.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.25
Implant 2: Day 60Role Function95.24 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.59
Secondary

Social Function

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30, version 3.0) consists of 30 questions which pertain to: five functional scales (including social function), three symptom scales, a global health status score, and six single items. Social Function is assessed from 2 of the 30 questions (Question 26 and 27), whose response score ranges on a 4 point scale. The score for role function is calculated based on the average score from these 2 questions. A linear transformation is used to standardize these responses. Using this linear transformation, the minimum value is 0 (worst outcome, poor functionality) and the maximum value is 100 (best outcome, better functionality). Therefore, increasing values indicate better outcome and decreasing values indicate worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 1; Day 14, 30, 60 post-Implant 2

Population: Analysis population was limited to the arm macrobead implantation as the proposed second arm best supportive care did not enroll enough participants to facilitate reliable analysis. Implant 1 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 1 RENCA macrobead implantation; Implant 2 (Day 0 to Day 60): Participants who had received at least 2 RENCA macrobead implantations.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Macrobead Implantation ArmSocial Function76.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.63
Implant 1: Day 14Social Function67.52 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.21
Implant 1: Day 30Social Function69.61 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.74
Implant 1: Day 60Social Function78.85 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.89
Implant 2: Day 0Social Function93.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.63
Implant 2: Day 14Social Function93.75 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.4
Implant 2: Day 30Social Function88.10 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.89
Implant 2: Day 60Social Function90.48 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.11
Other Pre-specified

Necrosis Comparison of Tumors Using PET-CT Scan

Tumors were assessed by positron emission tomography (PET)-CT scan at baseline and day 90 following the first RENCA macrobead implantation. The use of \[13\]F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake for the detection of lesions \>1 cm in diameter allowed evaluation of metabolic activity. Decreases in FDG uptake were indicative of metabolic suppression of the tumor. The use of PET-CT scanning indicated anatomical localization, approximate size/volume of primary tumor and metastatic lesion(s), and assessment of metabolic activity of the tumor (as an indicator of metabolic health and necrosis). Disease state is reported as a function of Tumor measurement divided by SUVmax. Changes were assessed between day 90 post RENCA macrobead implant and baseline values. Patients with no change = stable; patients with decreased values = decreased/necrosis, and patients with increased values = increased.

Time frame: Day 90 post-Implant 1

Population: Participants who had received at least one macrobead implant and for whom baseline PET-CT scan and day 90 post-Implant 1 PET-CT scan data were available.~n= 26 subjects; 77 lesions evaluated

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_UNITS)
Macrobead Implantation ArmNecrosis Comparison of Tumors Using PET-CT Scan19 lesions
Implant 1: Day 14Necrosis Comparison of Tumors Using PET-CT Scan37 lesions
Implant 1: Day 30Necrosis Comparison of Tumors Using PET-CT Scan21 lesions
Other Pre-specified

Overall Survival by Tumor Marker Response

Overall survival (OS) of participants by tumor marker response. A responder is a participant having a decrease from baseline of 20% or more in CEA or CA 19-9 within 90 days of Implant. OS is the time interval between the date of radiographically documented disease progression and the date of death due to any cause. Participants still alive at the end of the study are censored at 22OCT2018.

Time frame: 30 months

Population: All participants who had received at least one implantation of RENCA macrobeads.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Macrobead Implantation ArmOverall Survival by Tumor Marker Response10.33 months
Implant 1: Day 14Overall Survival by Tumor Marker Response6.82 months
Other Pre-specified

Tumor Marker Response (CEA and CA 19-9)

Tumor markers included serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), and were assessed on all participants in the RENCA macrobead implantation arm at baseline and at subsequent evaluation points to further assess tumor response to RENCA macrobead implantation. A tumor marker response was defined as a greater than or equal to 20% decrease in one or both of CEA or CA 19-9.

Time frame: Change from baseline up to and including day 90 post-Implant 1.

Population: Participants receiving at least one RENCA macrobead implantation whose tumor marker response was greater than or equal to 20% decrease in one or both of CEA or CA 19-9.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Macrobead Implantation ArmTumor Marker Response (CEA and CA 19-9)6 Participants
Implant 1: Day 14Tumor Marker Response (CEA and CA 19-9)5 Participants
Implant 1: Day 30Tumor Marker Response (CEA and CA 19-9)12 Participants
Implant 1: Day 60Tumor Marker Response (CEA and CA 19-9)18 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 26, 2026