Efficacy and Safety of IRE for RMs

NCT ID: NCT02298608

Last Updated: 2014-11-24

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

PHASE1/PHASE2

Total Enrollment

10 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2014-01-31

Study Completion Date

2016-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Background:

Electroporation or electropermeabilisation is a novel technique with the potential to overcome the main disadvantages of thermal ablation. It utilizes electric pulses, traveling between two or more electrodes, to create 'nanopores' in the cell membrane. If the applied current reaches a certain threshold these 'nanopores' become permanent resulting in cell death. The use of electric current means that IRE is not susceptible to 'thermal sink' leading to consistent ablation results. IRE ablation targets the cell membrane, sparing tissue architecture and minimizing damage to blood vessels, nerves and the renal collecting system.

The first in human studies have proven the safety of IRE for the ablation of small renal masses. However the efficacy of IRE through histopathological examination of an ablated renal tumour has not yet been studied, compromising the correct and scientific evaluation of this new technology.

Primary Objectives:

* To determine the efficacy of IRE ablation of renal masses , measured by histopathologic examination of the targeted tumour.
* To determine the safety of IRE ablation of renal masses, by evaluating device and procedural adverse events.

Secondary Objectives:

* To evaluate the efficacy of MRI in the imaging of ablation success, extend of the ablation zone, one and four weeks post IRE ablation.
* To evaluate the efficacy of CEUS in the imaging of ablation success, extend of the ablation zone, one and four weeks post IRE ablation.

Population:

10 patients, age ≥ 18 years, presenting with a solid enhancing mass, who are candidates for radical nephrectomy.

Intervention:

Eligible patients will receive IRE ablation of their renal mass 4 weeks prior to radical nephrectomy. Follow-up at one and four weeks post IRE will be performed using MRI and CEUS imaging. After radical nephrectomy histopathological examination will be performed to evaluate IRE ablation success.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Rationale:

The past decades have shown an increase in the incidence of small renal masses (SRM). At the moment laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is the 'golden standard' in treatment of SRMs. Thermal ablation techniques are indicated in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who have a predisposition to develop multiple tumours. Recent studies have shown thermal ablation techniques to have similar long-term oncologic results. Downsides to thermal ablation are the possible damage to vital structures in the vicinity of the ablation zone, e.g. collecting system or intestine, and unpredictable results due to difficulty in monitoring the ablation zone and 'thermal sink'.

Electroporation or electropermeabilisation is a novel technique with the potential to overcome the main disadvantages of thermal ablation. It utilizes electric pulses, traveling between two or more electrodes, to create 'nanopores' in the cell membrane. If the applied current reaches a certain threshold these 'nanopores' become permanent resulting in cell death. The use of electric current means that IRE is not susceptible to 'thermal sink' leading to consistent ablation results. IRE ablation targets the cell membrane, sparing tissue architecture and minimizing damage to blood vessels, nerves and the renal collecting system.

The first in human studies have proven the safety of IRE for the ablation of small renal masses. However the efficacy of IRE through histopathological examination of an ablated renal tumour has not yet been studied, compromising the correct and scientific evaluation of a new technology. This is the primary objective of this research project.

Objectives:

Primary Objectives:

* To determine the efficacy of IRE ablation of renal masses , measured by histopathologic examination of the targeted tumour.
* To determine the safety of IRE ablation of renal masses, by evaluating device and procedural adverse events.

Secondary Objectives:

* To evaluate the efficacy of MRI in the imaging of ablation success, extend of the ablation zone, one and four weeks post IRE ablation.
* To evaluate the efficacy of CEUS in the imaging of ablation success, extend of the ablation zone, one and four weeks post IRE ablation.

Study design:

This is a prospective, human, in-vivo pilot study. Study population: 10 patients, age ≥ 18 years, presented with a solid enhancing RM , who are candidates for radical nephrectomy.

Intervention:

Patients will receive IRE ablation of the RM, performed under general anaesthesia, 4 weeks before radical nephrectomy. Follow-up at one and four weeks post IRE will be performed using MRI and CEUS imaging. After radical nephrectomy histopathological examination will be performed to evaluate IRE ablation success.

Main study parameters/endpoints:

Primary endpoints:

* The efficacy of IRE ablation of renal masses , measured by histopathologic examination of the targeted tumour by an experienced genitourinary pathologist. Using immunehistochemical staining to evaluate cell viability.
* The safety of IRE ablation of renal masses, by evaluating device and procedural adverse events using CTCAE v4.0.

Secondary endpoints:

* The efficacy of MRI in the imaging of ablation success, extend of the ablation zone, one and four weeks post IRE ablation. By comparing MRI imaging to the histopathological examination results of the resected material.
* The efficacy of CEUS in the imaging of ablation success, extend of the ablation zone, one and four weeks post IRE ablation. By comparing CEUS imaging to the histopathological examination results of the resected material.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness:

There are no benefits for patients that participate in this study. Study participants will be exposed to additional risk when compared to standard treatment. They will have to undergo an additional procedure under general anaesthesia with muscle relaxation. The exposure to ionizing radiation during the procedure has been estimated at 32 mSv. Patients have to be informed about the risks of procedural complications. Information on the efficacy of IRE, proven histopathologically, is a vital step in order to progress to long term follow-up studies without tumour excision. So far no study has investigated the efficacy of IRE for the ablation of renal tumours in this manner.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Kidney Cancer

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Irreversible Electroporation

Percutaneous, CT guided, Irreversible Electroporation of renal mass

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Nano Knife

Intervention Type DEVICE

Percutaneous, CT guided, ablation of renal mass

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Nano Knife

Percutaneous, CT guided, ablation of renal mass

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Irreversible Electroporation

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Age ≥ 18 years
* Solid, enhancing mass on cross sectional imaging
* Scheduled for a radical nephrectomy, open or laparoscopic.
* Signed informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

* Irreversible bleeding disorders
* Inability/unwillingness to interrupt anticoagulation therapy
* Previous cryoablation, RFA or partial nephrectomy in affected kidney
* Anaesthesia Surgical Assignment (ASA), category ≤ IV
* ICD / pacemaker
* Severe cardiovascular disease in medical history
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

P.G.K. Wagstaff

M.D.

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Prof. M. Pilar Laguna Pes, M.D. Ph.D.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

Prof. Jean J de la Rosette, M.D. Ph.D.

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Dept. Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam

Amsterdam, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Netherlands

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Prof. M. Pilar Laguna Pes, M.D. Ph.D.

Role: CONTACT

+31(0)20-5668637

Peter GK Wagstaff, M.D.

Role: CONTACT

+31(0)205666493

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Prof. M. Pilar Laguna Pes, M.D. Ph.D.

Role: primary

+31(0)20-5668637

Peter GK Wagstaff, M.D.

Role: backup

+31(0)205666493

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Wagstaff PG, de Bruin DM, Zondervan PJ, Savci Heijink CD, Engelbrecht MR, van Delden OM, van Leeuwen TG, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna Pes MP. The efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation for the ablation of renal masses: a prospective, human, in-vivo study protocol. BMC Cancer. 2015 Mar 22;15:165. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1189-x.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 25886058 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

NL 44785.018.13

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id