Skip to content

Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Microwave Ablation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Microwave Ablation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03586050
Enrollment
33
Registered
2018-07-13
Start date
2017-12-11
Completion date
2023-05-11
Last updated
2024-07-24

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

Conditions

Cancer, Hepatocellular, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Hepatocellular Cancer, Hepatocellular Carcinoma

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

DEVICEMicrowave ablation

All patients will receive microwave ablation using the NeuWave Microwave Ablation System and Accessories

Sponsors

Ethicon, Inc.
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

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

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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical SuccessPost ablation procedure (Day 0) up to 4 daysNumber 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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)At 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post ablation on Day 0Percentage 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 EfficacyAt 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months post ablation on Day 0Percentage 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 EfficacyFrom time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 monthsPercentage 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) RateAt 36 months after the ablation procedure on Day 0PFS 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) RateAt 36 months after the ablation procedure on Day 0OS 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 AblationFrom time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 3 months post ablationPercentage 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 AblationFrom time of first ablation (Day 0) up to 36 months post ablationPercentage 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 EfficacyAt 1 month after the ablation procedure on Day 0Number 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 ScoreBaseline (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 ScoreBaseline (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 TimeDay 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 DurationDay 0 (On the day of ablation treatment)Total ablation duration were reported.
Health Economics: Median Number of AblationsDay 0 (On the day of ablation treatment)The median number of ablations was reported.
Health Economics: Length of Hospital StayDay 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 UsageDay 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 ScoreBaseline (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

ArmCount
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
Total33

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyDeath3
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject2

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicMicrowave Ablation
Age, Continuous63.6 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 Dimension2.49 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 typeEG000
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

Primary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Microwave AblationNumber of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical SuccessPI Assessment30 Participants
Microwave AblationNumber of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Technical SuccessIndependent Reviewer Assessment30 Participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score1 Month post ablation1.58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.397
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score3 Months post ablation1.85 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.663
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score6 Months post ablation0.69 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.575
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score9 Months post ablation1.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.508
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score12 Months post ablation1.11 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.902
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score18 Months post ablation3.24 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.08
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score24 Months post ablation0.41 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.593
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score30 Months post ablation-1.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.948
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in EORTC QLQ HCC 18 Scale Score36 Months post ablation-4.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.32
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score6 Months post ablation-0.42 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.147
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score12 Months post ablation2.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.526
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score1 Month post ablation1.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.415
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score3 Months post ablation-0.05 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.12
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score9 Months post ablation0.74 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.427
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score18 Months post ablation3.38 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.608
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score24 Months post ablation1.59 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.425
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score30 Months post ablation4.01 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.652
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 Scale Score36 Months post ablation2.47 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.793
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain ScorePost ablation (Day 0)0.32 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.258
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score1 Month post ablation-0.01 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.194
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score3 Months post ablation0.00 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.204
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score6 Months post ablation0.02 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.214
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score9 Months post ablation0.01 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.211
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score12 Months post ablation-0.03 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.176
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score18 Months post ablation-0.06 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.145
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score24 Months post ablation-0.06 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.148
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score30 Months post ablation-0.06 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.121
Microwave AblationChange From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score36 Months post ablation-0.06 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.18
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Microwave AblationHealth Economics: Complete Procedure Time19 minutes
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Microwave AblationHealth Economics: Length of Hospital Stay2 days
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Microwave AblationHealth Economics: Median Number of Ablations2 ablations
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationHealth Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes UsageSingle probe3.3 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationHealth Economics: Percentage of Participants With Single and Multi Probes UsageMulti probe96.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Microwave AblationHealth Economics: Total Ablation Duration7.76 minutes
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Microwave AblationNumber of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique EfficacyPI Assessment30 Participants
Microwave AblationNumber of Participants Whose Ablation Resulted in Primary Technique EfficacyIndependent Reviewer Assessment30 Participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationOverall Survival (OS) Rate90.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) Within 3 Months Post Ablation66.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Adverse Events Within 36 Months Post Ablation66.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 9 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 30 Months post ablation7.6 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 1 Month post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 3 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 6 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 12 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 18 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 24 Months post ablation3.6 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)PI Assessment: 36 Months post ablation7.6 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 1 Month post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 3 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 6 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 9 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 12 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 18 Months post ablation0.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 24 Months post ablation3.6 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 30 Months post ablation7.3 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Local Tumor Progression (LTP)Independent Reviewer: 36 Months post ablation7.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 24 Months post ablation96.4 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 12 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 1 Month post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 3 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 6 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 9 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 12 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 18 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 30 Months post ablation92.4 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyPI Assessment: 36 Months post ablation92.4 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 1 Month post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 3 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 6 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 9 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 18 Months post ablation100.0 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 24 Months post ablation96.4 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 30 Months post ablation92.7 percentage of participants
Microwave AblationPercentage of Participants With Primary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer: 36 Months post ablation92.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue
UnknownPercentage of Participants With Secondary EfficacyPI Assessment
UnknownPercentage of Participants With Secondary EfficacyIndependent Reviewer Assessment
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Microwave AblationProgression Free Survival (PFS) RatePI Assessment40.8 Percentage of participants
Microwave AblationProgression Free Survival (PFS) RateIndependent Reviewer Assessment38.5 Percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026