Trial Comparing PLA to HIGRT (PROVE-HCC) (PROVE-HCC)

July 5, 2022 updated by: Duke University

Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Percutaneous Ablation to Hypofractionated Image-Guided Radiation Therapy in Veteran and Non-Veteran, Non-surgical Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients (PROVE-HCC)

This phase II, randomized trial compare Quality of Life for patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) who are not surgical candidates or decline surgery and are treated with Percutaneous Local Ablation (PLA) or Hypofractionated Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (HIGRT).

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Terminated

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Administrative clarification:

This clinical trial was terminated due to poor enrollment and was replaced by a separate non-randomized trial (NCT04933435).

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
12

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • North Carolina
      • Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27710
        • Duke Cancer Center
      • Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27705
        • Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center (DVAMC)

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • HCC diagnosed either by histology/pathology or Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LIRADs 5 per the ACR's LIRADs criteria) by CT or MRI
  • Patient is 18 years or older
  • ECOG Performance status of 0-2
  • Child Pugh score A5, A6, B7 or B8
  • Lesions less than or equal to 5cm in size
  • Less than or equal to 3 lesions in the liver to be treated on protocol
  • Lesion amenable to treatment with both PLA and HIGRT; for PLA treatment this requires the lesion be visible via ultrasound and/or non-contrast CT or feasible per treating physician

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Child Pugh score B9 or Class C
  • Fluctuating ascites
  • Inability to complete baseline QOL forms
  • Concurrent administration of systemic therapy for HCC
  • Prior liver RT is an exclusion unless subject participation is approved by the PI
  • Positive serum pregnancy test

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: Percutaneous Local Ablation (PLA)
A PLA procedure uses high-energy radio waves to treat liver tumors. Using CT and ultrasound guidance the doctor inserts a thin, needle-like probe into the liver tumor A high-frequency current is then passed through the tip of the probe, which heats the tumor with the goal to destroy the cancer cells. This may be done as an outpatient procedure or a short (1-2 day) hospital stay. PLA is the standard treatment for patients with liver cancer who cannot undergo liver surgery.
Procedure: Percutaneous Local Ablation
Microwave Ablation (MWA) is a form of percutaneous localized ablation using thermal ablation techniques to treat cancer via direct coagulative necrosis. Microwaves can generate high temperatures in a short period of time; MWA has the potential to improve treatment efficacy over radiofrequency ablation as it can be used to treat larger lesions and has less susceptibility to heat-sink due to vessel proximity. MWA uses electromagnetic waves (300 MHz to 300 GHz) to produce oscillation of polar molecules within tissue; this generates tissue necrosis through frictional heating. For HCC, one or more microwave antennae are inserted into the liver, usually under the guidance of ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT). Frequency and length of treatment is determined on a case by case basis depending on tumor size and proximity to vessels or other organs at risk.
Other Names:
  • Microwave Ablation (MWA)
Active Comparator: Hypofractionated Image-Guided Radiation Therapy (HIGRT)
HIGRT is an emerging treatment option for patients with HCC; it utilizes external radiation where multiple beams enter the body from multiple angles to treat the liver cancer over typically 5-10 treatments while minimizing radiation to normal tissues. You will receive between 5-10 fractions (treatments) of radiation. Fraction size will be either 5 or 10 Gy (pronounced Gray, a standard unit of radiation measurement) depending on your tumor size and location or underlying liver function. The total dose of radiation is 50 Gy.
Radiation: Hypofractionated Image Guided Radiation Therapy
HIGRT represents the only non-invasive curative modality in the management of HCC. HCC patients typically have a host of other medical comorbidities complicated by underlying liver dysfunction that makes the implementation of liver-directed therapy challenging. Presently HIGRT is typically offered only after alternative surgical (transplantation/hepatectomy) and non-operative approaches (PLA/embolization) have been exhausted.
Other Names:
  • HIGRT

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Quality of Life (QOL) Using EORTC C-30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30)
Time Frame: Baseline to one month
To compare change in Quality of Life (QOL), as defined by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC C-30) post treatment in patients receiving PLA vs HIGRT. The EORTC QLQ-C30 reports a Summary Score that is calculated from the mean of 13 of the 15 QLQ-C30 scales (excluding Global Quality of Life scale and the Financial Impact scale). 28 of the items have a range of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) and two of them have a range of 1 (very poor) to 7 (excellent). The total summary score ranges from 30 to 126, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life. Only the change in summary score is reported; no individual subscale scores are reported.
Baseline to one month

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Quality of Life (QOL) Using The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) Assessment
Time Frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months; change between baseline and 3 months reported
To compare change in Quality of Life (QOL), as measured by the FACT-Hep questionnaire post treatment in patients receiving PLA vs HIGRT from baseline to 1 month. The FACT-Hep Scale consists of five subscales: Physical well-being (PWB), Social/Family well-being (SWB), Emotional well-being (EWB), Functional well-being (FWB), and the Hepatobiliary Cancer Subscale (HCS). Total score ranges from 0 to 180, with higher scores indicating better quality of life. Average differences in each FACT-Hep Total Score for 3 months minus baseline are reported by treatment arm; no individual subscales are reported. An average difference > 0 indicates improvement in QOL at 3 versus baseline. An average difference < 0 indicates a worsening of QOL at 1 month versus baseline.
Baseline, 1 month, 3 months; change between baseline and 3 months reported
Change in Quality of Life (QOL) Using EORTC QLQ C-30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30)
Time Frame: Baseline to 3 months
To compare change in Quality of Life (QOL), as defined by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC C-30) post treatment in patients receiving PLA vs HIGRT. The EORTC QLQ-C30 reports a Summary Score that is calculated from the mean of 13 of the 15 QLQ-C30 scales (excluding Global Quality of Life scale and the Financial Impact scale). 28 of the items have a range of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) and two of them have a range of 1 (very poor) to 7 (excellent). The total summary score ranges from 30 to 126, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life. Only the change in summary score is reported; no individual subscale scores are reported.
Baseline to 3 months
Change in Quality of Life (QOL) Using EORTC QLQ C-30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30)
Time Frame: Baseline to 6 months
To compare change in Quality of Life (QOL), as defined by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC C-30) post treatment in patients receiving PLA vs HIGRT. To compare change in Quality of Life (QOL), as defined by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC C-30) post treatment in patients receiving PLA vs HIGRT. The EORTC QLQ-C30 reports a Summary Score that is calculated from the mean of 13 of the 15 QLQ-C30 scales (excluding Global Quality of Life scale and the Financial Impact scale). 28 of the items have a range of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) and two of them have a range of 1 (very poor) to 7 (excellent). The total summary score ranges from 30 to 126, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life. Only the change in summary score is reported; no individual subscale scores are reported.
Baseline to 6 months
Number of Participants With Grade 2 or Higher Adverse Events
Time Frame: Up to 90 days post treatment
Grade ≥2 acute toxicity within 90 days of treatment initiation for each treatment as defined by the CTCAE v4.0
Up to 90 days post treatment
The Total Healthcare System Costs Associated With PLA vs HIGRT
Time Frame: From time of intervention to 90 days post treatment
Healthcare system costs estimated based on national averages for billable charges for all codes associated with PLA vs HIRGT throughout the course of treatment through 90 days post treatment.
From time of intervention to 90 days post treatment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Duke University

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Durham VA Medical Center
Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Manisha Palta, MD, Duke University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
August 8, 2018

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
July 25, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
March 25, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
January 11, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
January 17, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
January 18, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
July 8, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 5, 2022

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
July 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • Pro00089525

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Clinical Trials on Percutaneous Local Ablation

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings