Text Size

Examinations of Tissue From Ablated Malignant Liver Metastases as Predictors of Outcome

This study is currently recruiting participants.
Verified January 2013 by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Sponsor:
Collaborator:
University of Southern California
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01494324
First received: December 13, 2011
Last updated: January 31, 2013
Last verified: January 2013
History of Changes

December 13, 2011
January 31, 2013
October 2009
October 2013   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Tumor response [ Time Frame: 3 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
will be measured according to EASL and RECIST. In the case of differences between these criteria, the EASL criteria will be used for clinical judgment and decisions.
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01494324 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
Duration of treatment response [ Time Frame: 3 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
will be measured as the time from the date of first objective response until the first measurement of progression as determined by the central readers using the EASL criteria. Dynamic Liver CT scans, preferably including the liver triphasic examination will be conducted at each follow-up visit until progression.
Same as current
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Examinations of Tissue From Ablated Malignant Liver Metastases as Predictors of Outcome
Examinations of Tissue From Ablated Malignant Liver Metastases as Predictors of Outcome

The purpose of this study is to see if the investigators can do some tests on tissue from the area of the ablation. The investigators want to know if a test can help predict whether the ablation worked.

The treated tumor is normally evaluated with CT. The CT shows signs of treated tumor(s) in the area treated by ablation. However, cancer cells may begin to grow in or near the treated area. The CT scan cannot tell us if the cells are new cancer cells or if they are healthy liver cells that just look different because of the ablation. The test the investigators will study should be able to tell us the difference.
Not Provided
Interventional
Not Provided
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Liver Cancer
Other: CT guided percutaneous ablation
Depending on tumor size and location, we will direct a core biopsy needle in the ablated tumor using post-ablation dynamic Liver CT guidance, preferably including liver triphasic examination. The obtained tissue will be detached, collected and submitted to our molecular cytology laboratory. All specimens will be submitted fresh to our molecular cytology laboratory for immediate analysis in order to classify them as viable tumor (V) or apoptotic cells/coagulation necrosis (CN). CT will be performed within 24 hours of the ablation to demonstrate the ablation defect, representing the area of coagulation necrosis. This CT will be used for targeting the ablated tumor for biopsy. All patients will undergo CT again, approximately within 4-8 weeks (+/- 2 weeks) of percutaneous ablation to evaluate for CN in the target tumor or any sign of residual tissue enhancement, representing incomplete treatment.
Other Name: Follow-up will continue at approximate 2-4 months intervals (+/- 2 weeks) with CT, to evaluate for local tumor progression (LTP) for the following 3 years.
Experimental: CT guided percutaneous ablation
The selected patients will undergo CT guided percutaneous ablation. The use of multi-tined electrode is encouraged, unless tumor location requires the use of an internally cooled needle electrode to eliminate injury to an adjacent vital structure or the operator prefers to use an internally cooled electrode for a specific reason.
Intervention: Other: CT guided percutaneous ablation
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Recruiting
56
October 2013
October 2013   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with diagnosed with secondary hepatic malignancy;
  • Patients with confined liver disease or stable limited extrahepatic disease;
  • Lesions of 5cm or less in maximum diameter;
  • Patients who are not surgical candidates or refuse to undergo surgery and choose any percutaneous ablation as an alternative treatment option.
  • INR<1.5 *for patients on Coumadin general clinical guidelines for IR ablation will be followed.
  • Platelet count > or = to 50,000

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients < 18
  • Less than 5 mm distance of the tumor margin from a major vessel >7mm in diameter)
  • Less than 5 mm distance to a structure (GI or biliary tract), that cannot be protected from
  • the ablation injury with technical modifications such as hydro or air dissection.
  • INR > 1.5 that cannot be corrected with fresh frozen Plasma *for patients on Coumadin general clinical guidelines for IR ablation will be followed.
  • Platelet count of <50,000 that cannot be corrected with transfusion.
  • Patient with more than 3 tumors treated with any percutaneous ablation
  • Patients with more than 5 sites of extrahepatic disease (including nodes and pulmonary nodules)
Both
18 Years and older
No
Contact: Constantinos Sofocleous, MD 212-639-3379
Contact: Katia Manova, PhD 646-888-2173
United States
 
NCT01494324
09-122
Not Provided
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
University of Southern California
Principal Investigator: Constantinos Sofocleous, MD Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
January 2013

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP