Hepatocellular Carcinoma Clinical Trial
— ClinicIMPPACTOfficial title:
Clinical Intervention Modelling, Planning and Proof for Ablation Cancer Treatment (ClinicIMPPACT)
The main objective of the project is to bring the existing radio frequency ablation (RFA)
model for liver cancer treatment (Project IMPPACT, Grant No. 223877, completed in February
2012) into clinical practice. Therefore the project will pursue the following objectives:
i) to prove and refine the RFA model in a small clinical study; ii) to develop the model
into a real-time patient specific RFA planning and support system for Interventional
Radiologists (IR) under special consideration of their clinical workflow needs; iii) to
establish a corresponding training procedure for IR's; iv) to evaluate the clinical
practicality and benefit of the model for use in the routine workflow in a user survey and
expert forum.
Status | Recruiting |
Enrollment | 60 |
Est. completion date | March 2017 |
Est. primary completion date | February 2017 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | Both |
Age group | 18 Years and older |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - primary or secondary tumors of the liver - consent of local tumor board stating RFA is best treatment option - Maximum tumor diameter 3cm - Maximum of 3 lesions - Stable extrahepatic tumor manifestation without growth tendency including the possibility of therapy (e.g. bone, lung metastasis are no contraindication) - If liver cirrhosis must be compensated Child-Pugh A or B - written informed consent Exclusion Criteria: - Pregnancy and/or breastfeeding - Severe anaphylactic reaction against iodine and/ or contrast agent - Insufficient coagulation - Splenectomy - Insufficient kidney and thyroid gland function |
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Austria | Medical University Graz | Graz | |
Finland | University Hospital Turku | Turku | |
Germany | Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Leipzig, Germany | Leipzig | Saxony |
Netherlands | Radbound Universität Nijmegen | Nijmegen |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
University of Leipzig | Medical University of Graz, University Medical Center Nijmegen, University of Turku |
Austria, Finland, Germany, Netherlands,
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Comparison of the size and shape, using quantitative and semi-quantitative measures, of the real ablation zone one month after RFA treatment of liver tumors with the simulation results of the ClinicIMPPACT software. | For the primary endpoint, we will compare lesions visualized by routine CT one month after ablation with their simulated counterparts to define the accuracy of the method itself. The coinciding volumes of the real RFA lesion and the simulated one will be determined by counting the number of matching voxels, i.e. voxels of simulation and recorded data, sharing the space coordinates, and dividing by the sum of the voxels of simulated and real lesions. To define the accuracy of the simulation as a parameter, we introduce the following categories: In comparison to the "real ablation" the simulation result would have been: I. much smaller II. comparable III. much larger b) The spatial coordinates of the "real ablation" differs from the simulated one I. Strongly II. Not strongly |
All patients within 1 month follow up in the trial period | No |
Primary | To compare the spatial coordiantes of the real ablation zone one month after RFA treatment of liver tumors with the simulation results of the ClinicIMPPACT software. | To define the accuracy of the simulation as a parameter, we introduce the following categories: The spatial coordinates of the "real ablation" differs from the simulated one I. Strongly II. Not strongly |
All patients within 1 month follow up in the trial period | No |
Secondary | Duration/Efficiency of workflow steps measured in minutes | Duration of the simulation (minutes) | up to 60 minutes per lesion | No |
Secondary | Would the treatment protocol been influenced by the simulation results if it would have been known in advance by the treating doctor. | Influence Yes/No • If yes, is there an expectable potential benefit for the patient due to an increase or decrease of the treatment protocol? |
12 months | No |
Secondary | Does the follow - up (3, 6 ,12months) imaging support the assumptions regarding local tumor control | Choice of one of the options below: The tumor is completely treated with sufficient safety margins, healthy tissue has been largely spared by the ablation and there is no locoregional recurrence visible in the follow - up imaging (= locoregional recurrence free - survival). The tumor (incl. safety margins) is completely treated, but lots of healthy tissue has been damaged with the risk of serious complications. The tumor is treated incompletely or there is a visable recurrent tumor in the follow up examination. |
up to 24 months due to 12m follow up | No |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT04209491 -
Interest of the Intervention of a Nurse Coordinator in Complex Care Pathway
|
||
Completed |
NCT03963206 -
Cabozantinib toLERANCE Study in HepatoCellular Carcinoma (CLERANCE)
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT03268499 -
TACE Emulsion Versus Suspension
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05263830 -
Glypican-3 as a Prognostic Factor in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated by Immunotherapy
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05044676 -
Immune Cells as a New Biomarker of Response in Patients Treated by Immunotherapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05095519 -
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Imaging Using PSMA PET/CT
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05497531 -
Pilot Comparing ctDNA IDV vs. SPV Sample in Pts Undergoing Biopsies for Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Cancers
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05068193 -
A Clinical Trial to Compare the Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of "BR2008" With "BR2008-1" in Healthy Volunteers
|
Phase 1 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT03781934 -
A Study to Evaluate MIV-818 in Patients With Liver Cancer Manifestations
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Terminated |
NCT03655613 -
APL-501 or Nivolumab in Combination With APL-101 in Locally Advanced or Metastatic HCC and RCC
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT03170960 -
Study of Cabozantinib in Combination With Atezolizumab to Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04242199 -
Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of INCB099280 in Participants With Advanced Solid Tumors
|
Phase 1 | |
Completed |
NCT04401800 -
Preliminary Antitumor Activity, Safety and Tolerability of Tislelizumab in Combination With Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
|
Phase 2 | |
Withdrawn |
NCT05418387 -
A Social Support Intervention to Improve Treatment Among Hispanic Kidney and Liver Cancer Patients in Arizona
|
N/A | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04039607 -
A Study of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Participants With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
|
Phase 3 | |
Terminated |
NCT03970616 -
A Study of Tivozanib in Combination With Durvalumab in Subjects With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03642561 -
Evaluation the Treatment Outcome for RFA in Patients With BCLC Stage B HCC in Comparison With TACE
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06239155 -
A Phase I/II Study of AST-3424 in Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04118114 -
Phase II Study of PRL3-ZUMAB in Advanced Solid Tumors
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT03222076 -
Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Resectable Liver Cancer
|
Phase 2 |