Cancer, Hepatocellular, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Hepatocellular Cancer, Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Conditions
Keywords
Hepatocellular Carcinoma; liver cancer; cancer; liver
Brief summary
This is a single arm, non-randomized, single center study to evaluate ablation, oncologic outcomes and safety in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Detailed description
This prospective, single-arm single center study will provide clinical data for the Neuwave Medical Microwave Ablation System and accessories. Individuals who undergo microwave ablation of liver tumors who meet study entry criteria, will be enrolled. The enrollment for the study will continue until 30 eligible subjects complete the 3-month visit after ablation for the primary effectiveness and safety analysis. The subjects will be followed for approximately up to 36 months after the ablation procedure for safety, oncologic and ablation outcomes.
Interventions
All patients will receive microwave ablation using the NeuWave Microwave Ablation System and Accessories
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
1. Confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma, tumor size of more than 2 cm and up to 5cm, single location, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage A based on imaging and biopsy confirmation 2. Primary hepatocellular carcinoma or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma which was previously treated with ablation or surgical resection only; 3. Scheduled for microwave ablation of the liver; 4. Performance status 0-1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group classification); 5. Functional hepatic reserve based on the Child-Pugh score (Class A or B); 6. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score \< 3; 7. Given voluntary, written informed consent to participate in this study and has authorized the transfer of his/her information to the Sponsor, and willing to comply with study-related evaluation and treatment schedule; 8. At least 19 years of age
Exclusion criteria
1. Active bacterial infection or fungal infection; 2. Systemic administration of steroids, including herbal supplements that contain steroids, within 30 days prior to the study procedure; 3. Chemotherapy or radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma may not be performed for 30 days prior to the study procedure; 4. Subject with implantable pacemakers or other electronic implants; 5. Planned/ scheduled liver surgery. 6. Subject with a platelet count of less than 20,000/mm3; 7. Subject with an INR greater than 1.5; 8. Subject with renal failure on renal dialysis; 9. Scheduled concurrent procedure other than microwave ablation in the liver; 10. Pregnant or lactating; 11. Physical or psychological condition which would impair study participation; 12. Participation in any other clinical study concurrently or within the last 3 months; 13. The subject is judged unsuitable for study participation by the Investigator for any other reason; 14. Unable or unwilling to attend follow-up visits and examinations.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical Success | Post ablation procedure (Day 0) up to 4 days | 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. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post ablation on Day 0 | 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. |
| Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post ablation on Day 0 | 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. |
| Percentage of Participants With Secondary Efficacy | From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months | 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. |
| Progression Free Survival (PFS) Rate | At 36 months after the ablation procedure on Day 0 | 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. |
| Overall Survival (OS) Rate | At 36 months after the ablation procedure on Day 0 | 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. |
| Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) Within 3 Months Post Ablation | From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 3 months post ablation | 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. |
| Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events Within 36 Months Post Ablation | From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation | 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. |
| Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique Efficacy | At 1 month after the ablation procedure on Day 0 | 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. |
| Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score | Baseline (Pre-Ablation), Months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 (post ablation on Day 0) | 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. |
| Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | Baseline (Pre-Ablation), Months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 (post ablation on Day 0) | 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. |
| Health Economics: Complete Procedure Time | Day 0 (On day of ablation treatment) | Complete procedure time was defined as the time between the first probe placement and the last probe removal. |
| Health Economics: Total Ablation Duration | Day 0 (On the day of ablation treatment) | Total ablation duration were reported. |
| Health Economics: Median Number of Ablations | Day 0 (On the day of ablation treatment) | The median number of ablations was reported. |
| Health Economics: Length of Hospital Stay | Day 0 (On day of ablation treatment) up to 30 days (1-month post ablation visit) | Length of hospital stay were reported. Length of hospital stay was defined as the time from procedure completion to hospital discharge. |
| Health Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes Usage | Day 0 (On the day of ablation treatment) | Percentage of participants with single and multiple probes usage were reported. PR and LK probes were used at least once. |
| Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | Baseline (Pre-Ablation), Day 0 (post ablation), Months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 (post ablation on Day 0) | 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. |
Countries
South Korea
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Recruitment occurred from 04Dec2017 through 21May2020.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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. | 33 |
| Total | 33 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Death | 3 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 2 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Microwave Ablation |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 63.6 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.16 |
| BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging 0 (Very early stage disease; Child-Pugh score of A, ECOG 0-1, single tumor < 2cm) | 0 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 |
| BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Staging B (Intermediate stage disease; Child-Pugh score of A/B, ECOG 0-1, multinodular tumors) | 0 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 |
| 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 |
| Child-Pugh Score Class A (mild liver disease; 5-6 points) | 30 Participants |
| Child-Pugh Score Class B (moderately severe liver disease; 7-9 points) | 3 Participants |
| Child-Pugh Score Class C (severe liver disease; 10-15 points) | 0 Participants |
| Liver Segment Segment 3 | 3 Participants |
| Liver Segment Segment 4 | 6 Participants |
| Liver Segment Segment 5 | 5 Participants |
| Liver Segment Segment 6 | 5 Participants |
| Liver Segment Segment 7 | 6 Participants |
| Liver Segment Segment 8 | 14 Participants |
| Major Vessel/Duct Assessment Near Major Vessel/Duct | 14 Participants |
| Major Vessel/Duct Assessment No Major Vessel/Duct Near Ablation | 19 Participants |
| Maximum Tumor Dimension | 2.49 Centimeters (cm) STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.578 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 33 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 0 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 5 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 28 Participants |
| Tumor Depth Deep | 9 Participants |
| Tumor Depth Dome | 7 Participants |
| Tumor Depth Superficial | 17 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 3 / 33 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 22 / 33 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 7 / 33 |
Outcome results
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical Success
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.
Time frame: Post ablation procedure (Day 0) up to 4 days
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical Success | PI Assessment | 30 Participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical Success | Independent Reviewer Assessment | 30 Participants |
Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score
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.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 1 Month post ablation | 1.58 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.397 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 3 Months post ablation | 1.85 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.663 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 6 Months post ablation | 0.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.575 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 9 Months post ablation | 1.36 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.508 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 12 Months post ablation | 1.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.902 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 18 Months post ablation | 3.24 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.08 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 24 Months post ablation | 0.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 13.593 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 30 Months post ablation | -1.57 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.948 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score | 36 Months post ablation | -4.33 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 14.32 |
Change From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score
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.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 11.12 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 |
| Microwave Ablation | 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 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score
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.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | Post ablation (Day 0) | 0.32 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.258 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 1 Month post ablation | -0.01 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.194 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 3 Months post ablation | 0.00 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.204 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 6 Months post ablation | 0.02 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.214 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 9 Months post ablation | 0.01 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.211 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 12 Months post ablation | -0.03 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.176 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 18 Months post ablation | -0.06 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.145 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 24 Months post ablation | -0.06 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.148 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 30 Months post ablation | -0.06 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.121 |
| Microwave Ablation | Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score | 36 Months post ablation | -0.06 Score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.18 |
Health Economics: Complete Procedure Time
Complete procedure time was defined as the time between the first probe placement and the last probe removal.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Health Economics: Complete Procedure Time | 19 minutes |
Health Economics: Length of Hospital Stay
Length of hospital stay were reported. Length of hospital stay was defined as the time from procedure completion to hospital discharge.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Health Economics: Length of Hospital Stay | 2 days |
Health Economics: Median Number of Ablations
The median number of ablations was reported.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Health Economics: Median Number of Ablations | 2 ablations |
Health Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes Usage
Percentage of participants with single and multiple probes usage were reported. PR and LK probes were used at least once.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Health Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes Usage | Single probe | 3.3 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Health Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes Usage | Multi probe | 96.7 percentage of participants |
Health Economics: Total Ablation Duration
Total ablation duration were reported.
Time frame: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Health Economics: Total Ablation Duration | 7.76 minutes |
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary 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.
Time frame: At 1 month after the ablation procedure 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique Efficacy | PI Assessment | 30 Participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique Efficacy | Independent Reviewer Assessment | 30 Participants |
Overall Survival (OS) Rate
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.
Time frame: At 36 months after the ablation procedure 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Overall Survival (OS) Rate | 90.0 percentage of participants |
Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) Within 3 Months Post Ablation
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.
Time frame: From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 3 months post ablation
Population: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) Within 3 Months Post Ablation | 66.7 percentage of participants |
Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events Within 36 Months Post Ablation
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.
Time frame: From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablation
Population: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events Within 36 Months Post Ablation | 66.7 percentage of participants |
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)
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.
Time frame: At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 9 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 30 Months post ablation | 7.6 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 1 Month post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 3 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 6 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 12 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 18 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 24 Months post ablation | 3.6 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | PI Assessment: 36 Months post ablation | 7.6 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 1 Month post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 3 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 6 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 9 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 12 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 18 Months post ablation | 0.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 24 Months post ablation | 3.6 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 30 Months post ablation | 7.3 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP) | Independent Reviewer: 36 Months post ablation | 7.3 percentage of participants |
Percentage of Participants With Primary 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.
Time frame: At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 24 Months post ablation | 96.4 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 12 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 1 Month post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 3 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 6 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 9 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 12 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 18 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 30 Months post ablation | 92.4 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | PI Assessment: 36 Months post ablation | 92.4 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 1 Month post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 3 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 6 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 9 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 18 Months post ablation | 100.0 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 24 Months post ablation | 96.4 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 30 Months post ablation | 92.7 percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Percentage of Participants With Primary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer: 36 Months post ablation | 92.7 percentage of participants |
Percentage of Participants With Secondary Efficacy
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.
Time frame: From time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months
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. Data for this outcome measure was not collected and analyzed as no participant had undergone repeat ablations.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown | Percentage of Participants With Secondary Efficacy | PI Assessment | — |
| Unknown | Percentage of Participants With Secondary Efficacy | Independent Reviewer Assessment | — |
Progression Free Survival (PFS) Rate
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.
Time frame: At 36 months after the ablation procedure 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. 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave Ablation | Progression Free Survival (PFS) Rate | PI Assessment | 40.8 Percentage of participants |
| Microwave Ablation | Progression Free Survival (PFS) Rate | Independent Reviewer Assessment | 38.5 Percentage of participants |