Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Post-Market Clinical Follow-up study in order to consolidate performance and safety data of the EPIONE® device when used for percutaneous procedures in the abdomen
The objective of this PMCF study is to compile data on the routine use of the EPIONE® device in subjects undergoing CT-guided percutaneous procedures in the abdomen.
The objectives are:
55 patients are planned in this post-market study.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention with the EPIONE® device | Patients treated by percutaneous CT-guided procedures in the abdomen with the EPIONE® device |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPIONE® CT-Guided Percutaneous procedures | Device | The EPIONE device is a user controlled, stereotactic accessory intended to assist in the planning and manual advancement of one or more instruments, as well as in verification of instrument position during Computed Tomography (CT) guided percutaneous procedures. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Success | Number of targets reached ; the target is considered to have been reached when the needle is positioned accurately enough to allow the planned procedure to be performed (by patient) | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
| Technical Success | Number of targets reached ; the target is considered to have been reached when the needle is positioned accurately enough to allow the planned procedure to be performed (by lesion) | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Needle Placement Accuracy | accuracy of the needle placement: deviation between the planned and actual needle position once inserted | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
| Number and Nature of Needle Adjustments to Reach the Target |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Patients treated/operated in routine practice, in accordance with the device's intended use, without any additional nor burdensome procedure.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Baptiste BONNET, MD | Gustave Roussy, Cancer Campus, Grand Paris | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gustave Roussy Institut | Villejuif | 94000 | France |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
55 patients were included (28-Apr-2022 and 20-Jan-2023) at the IGR (Villejuif/France). The date of the last patient FU visit is 27-APR-2024.
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Intervention With the EPIONE® Device | Patients treated by percutaneous CT-guided procedures in the abdomen with the EPIONE® device EPIONE® CT-Guided Percutaneous procedures: The EPIONE device is a user controlled, stereotactic accessory intended to assist in the planning and manual advancement of one or more instruments, as well as in verification of instrument position during Computed Tomography (CT) guided percutaneous procedures. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
55 patients were included but 54 were analysed (1 patient was registered under 2 inclusion n°: n°3 and n°55. Patient n°55 was included due to tumor recurrence but was subsequently withdrawn from the study after consultation with the principal investigator, as the protocol does not account for the evaluation of secondary efficacy outcomes).
Among the 54 patients analysed: 30 males (55.6%) and 24 females (44.4%) representing 61 lesions which required 108 needle insertions during 56 procedures.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Intervention With the EPIONE® Device | Patients treated by percutaneous CT-guided procedures in the abdomen with the EPIONE® device EPIONE® CT-Guided Percutaneous procedures: The EPIONE device is a user controlled, stereotactic accessory intended to assist in the planning and manual advancement of one or more instruments, as well as in verification of instrument position during Computed Tomography (CT) guided percutaneous procedures. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Technical Success | Number of targets reached ; the target is considered to have been reached when the needle is positioned accurately enough to allow the planned procedure to be performed (by patient) | The Screened, ITT, PP and Safety populations were identical, each comprising 54 patients | Posted | Number | Participants | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
|
The safety population is composed of the 54 included patients who were followed until 2 months (88.9% of patients) and 10 months (72,2% of patients).
Intensity, Category, Action, Causality, outcome, patient and procedural risk modifier, adverse event preventability and management of each adverse event were classified according to SIR classification (Khalilzadeh and al.2017 / Sacks and al.2003). The adverse event category (serious or not) was from the ISO 14155-1.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Intervention With the EPIONE® Device | Patients treated by percutaneous CT-guided procedures in the abdomen with the EPIONE® device EPIONE® CT-Guided Percutaneous procedures: The EPIONE device is a user controlled, stereotactic accessory intended to assist in the planning and manual advancement of one or more instruments, as well as in verification of instrument position during Computed Tomography (CT) guided percutaneous procedures. |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polynephritis requiring prolonged hospitalization | Renal and urinary disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjacent structure thermal lesion | Surgical and medical procedures | Non-systematic Assessment |
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MESSNER Laetitia, Chief Clinical officer | quantum surgical | 0448194050 | clinical.department@quantumsurgical.com |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Oct 3, 2022 | Jul 1, 2025 | Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Nov 9, 2022 | Feb 6, 2025 | SAP_001.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
Detail of the number/nature of adjustments performed after the initial insertion of the needle
| Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
| Post-intervention Ablation Success | Minimal Ablation Margin(s) measure(s) if applicable (mm) | Until Visit 4 - Routine FU visit at 10 months |
| Local Tumor Recurrence | Evaluation of the local tumor progression following the ablation (if applicable) | Until Visit 4 - Routine FU visit at 10 months |
| Operator Satisfaction | 5-point Likert scale: very Dissatisfied/dissatisfied/neutral/satisfied/highly satisfied | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
| Adverse Events Related to Device or Procedure | Safety of the device | Until Visit 4 - Routine FU visit at 10 months |
| Device Dysfunction | Evaluation of the device dysfunction | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention |
| Lack of Efficacy |
|
| ablation not performed |
|
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Primary | Technical Success | Number of targets reached ; the target is considered to have been reached when the needle is positioned accurately enough to allow the planned procedure to be performed (by lesion) | The Screened, ITT, PP and Safety populations were identical, each comprising 61 lesions. | Posted | Number | lesions | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention | Lesions | Lesions |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Needle Placement Accuracy | accuracy of the needle placement: deviation between the planned and actual needle position once inserted | Not Posted | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention | Participants |
| Secondary | Number and Nature of Needle Adjustments to Reach the Target | Detail of the number/nature of adjustments performed after the initial insertion of the needle | Not Posted | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention | Participants |
| Secondary | Post-intervention Ablation Success | Minimal Ablation Margin(s) measure(s) if applicable (mm) | Not Posted | Until Visit 4 - Routine FU visit at 10 months | Participants |
| Secondary | Local Tumor Recurrence | Evaluation of the local tumor progression following the ablation (if applicable) | Not Posted | Until Visit 4 - Routine FU visit at 10 months | Participants |
| Secondary | Operator Satisfaction | 5-point Likert scale: very Dissatisfied/dissatisfied/neutral/satisfied/highly satisfied | Not Posted | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention | Participants |
| Secondary | Adverse Events Related to Device or Procedure | Safety of the device | Not Posted | Until Visit 4 - Routine FU visit at 10 months | Participants |
| Secondary | Device Dysfunction | Evaluation of the device dysfunction | Not Posted | Visit 2 - D0 The day of the intervention | Participants |
| 0 |
| 54 |
| 3 |
| 54 |
| 4 |
| 54 |
| Hospitalization for large abscess in the thermoablation area, requiring drainage | Infections and infestations | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Hemorrhagic pleural effusion | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Fever | Surgical and medical procedures | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Pneumothorax with drainage | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
From the protocol:
"Prior to submitting the results of this study for publication or presentation, the Investigator will allow the Sponsor 30 days in which to review and comment upon the publication manuscript. The Sponsor agrees that before he publishes any results of this study, he shall provide the Investigators at least 30 days for full review of the publication manuscript"