Reported trial results for Liver Cancer

52 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT04358185 · results posted 4 May 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04358185) enrolled 19 participants, all of whom received a drug called itacitinib. The trial was looking at two main things: how often participants experienced unwanted medical events (called adverse events) while taking the drug, and whether the tumours responded to treatment in people with a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Fifteen of the 19 participants completed the study, and four did not. The reported data shows that 14 out of 19 participants experienced at least one adverse event considered potentially related to the study drug. When it came to tumour response — assessed by looking at CT scan measurements using a standard scoring system — the reported data shows that no participants had a complete response (complete disappearance of tumours) and no participants had a partial response (tumours shrinking by at least 30%). Seven participants were recorded as having stable disease (tumours neither growing significantly nor shrinking enough to count as a response), and eight participants had progressive disease (tumours continued to grow or new ones appeared). For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that the median time before disease progressed or death occurred was 3.5 months, and the median overall survival — that is, the midpoint of how long participants lived from the time they entered the study — was 7.4 months. No results were reported for the translational and genetic sub-studies listed in the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03755791 · results posted 11 December 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03755791) enrolled 837 people across three groups: 432 received a combination of two medicines called cabozantinib and atezolizumab, 188 received cabozantinib on its own, and 217 received a medicine called sorafenib (the comparison group). The trial was measuring two main things: how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called progression-free survival, or PFS — the time from the start of treatment until scans showed the disease had grown or a new spot appeared, or the person died), and how long participants lived overall (called overall survival, or OS). The reported data shows that, for the main comparison of the combination treatment versus sorafenib, the median PFS — meaning the point at which half the participants in each group had experienced disease progression or death — was 6.80 months in the cabozantinib-plus-atezolizumab group compared with 4.21 months in the sorafenib group. For overall survival, the reported median was 16.46 months in the combination group versus 15.51 months in the sorafenib group. For the secondary measure looking at cabozantinib alone versus sorafenib, the reported median PFS was 5.82 months versus 4.27 months respectively. It is worth noting that no participants were recorded as having "completed" the study in the formal sense, as defined by the trial's own criteria, and all participants were listed as "not completed." These figures are simply the numbers recorded and reported for each group — they describe what was observed in this particular group of trial participants. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04941287 · results posted 23 May 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 57 people across two groups. Twenty-nine participants were in Arm A, receiving a combination of three medicines (cobimetinib, atezolizumab, and varlilumab), and 28 participants were in Arm B, receiving two of those medicines (atezolizumab and varlilumab). The trial was measuring how many people's tumours shrank or disappeared, how long it took for the disease to progress, and how long participants survived overall. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome of tumour response — meaning tumours that either disappeared completely or shrank by at least 30% — zero participants in Arm A and one participant in Arm B met that marker. The reported data also shows that the median time before the disease progressed (or death occurred, whichever came first) was 2.40 months in Arm A and 1.84 months in Arm B. For overall survival, the reported median time from enrolment to death or last contact was 183 days in Arm A and 157 days in Arm B. Two secondary outcomes — changes in certain immune cells (T-cells) and how the drugs moved through the body — were listed but no data was reported for those measures. Regarding serious unwanted effects (graded 3, 4, or 5 on a standard medical scale, meaning more severe), the reported data shows these were experienced by a number of participants in both groups, though the exact breakdown by grade across the two arms varied. Data on T-cell population changes and drug clearance rates were not reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04340193 · results posted 26 November 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04340193) enrolled 26 people in total across three groups: 9 participants received a combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and a procedure called TACE (a treatment that delivers medicine directly to liver tumours via blood vessels); 9 received nivolumab combined with TACE; and 8 received TACE alone. The trial was primarily focused on tracking participants' safety experiences — specifically recording any unwanted medical events, serious medical events, deaths, treatment drop-outs due to side effects, and abnormal blood test results. The reported data shows that all participants across all three groups — 9, 9, and 8 respectively — experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence during the study). Serious adverse events, meaning events that were life-threatening, required hospitalisation, or caused significant disability, were recorded in 7 of 9 participants in the nivolumab + ipilimumab + TACE group, 6 of 9 in the nivolumab + TACE group, and 2 of 8 in the TACE-only group. Deaths from any cause during the study were reported in 2 participants in each of the two combination-therapy groups, and none in the TACE-only group. Three participants in the nivolumab + ipilimumab + TACE group stopped their study treatment due to an adverse event, compared with 1 each in the other two groups. Abnormal thyroid blood test results and severe laboratory abnormalities (graded as serious or life-threatening on a standard scale) were also recorded across the groups, with the specific numbers varying by test type and group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02649868 · results posted 11 July 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 17 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. The trial involved people with tumours in the liver who were being treated with a procedure called bead embolisation, where tiny beads are delivered through a blood vessel into the liver. The trial was measuring whether these beads — which are designed to show up on imaging — could actually be seen on a type of specialised X-ray called cone beam CT, and whether the pattern of where the beads spread in the liver matched a computer-predicted map of that spread. The reported data shows that for the first part of the imaging analysis, all 17 participants had their bead visibility and blood flow (perfusion) patterns assessed, with the number reported as not matching the predicted pattern recorded as zero. For the second part of the analysis — which used a more detailed computer software comparison of the actual versus predicted spread of beads — the reported data shows that 12 participants had this analysis completed, again with zero recorded for a non-match category. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not fully explain what each individual measurement value represents in terms of a match or mismatch outcome, so the precise meaning of these numbers is limited by how the data was reported. The reported data does not include any secondary outcome measures, so no further figures are available beyond what is described above. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03211416 · results posted 29 May 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 37 people, all of whom received a combination of two medicines — sorafenib tosylate and pembrolizumab. Twenty-seven participants completed the study, while 10 did not. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants showed a reduction in their tumour — either a partial response (tumour shrank) or a complete response (tumour could no longer be detected) — using a standardised set of criteria for assessing tumour changes. The reported data shows that 8 out of the evaluable participants had a recorded tumour response (partial or complete), while 19 did not. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows a median overall survival — meaning the point at which half the participants were still alive — of 17.1 months. The reported time to tumour progression — meaning the median time before the tumour started growing again — was 3.7 months. The trial also looked at changes in certain immune system cells before and after treatment; one measure showed a ratio of 1.17 (meaning a slight average increase post-treatment compared to pre-treatment), while the data for a second immune cell measure was not reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01516710 · results posted 10 May 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 280 people in total — 147 assigned to open liver resection (traditional surgery with a large cut) and 133 assigned to laparoscopic liver resection (keyhole surgery using small cuts and a camera). Most participants completed the study: 143 in the open surgery group and 129 in the keyhole surgery group, with 4 people in each group not completing it. The trial was comparing the two surgical approaches across a range of measures, with the main focus being on complications occurring within the first 30 days after the operation. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — complications rated at "Accordion grade 2 or higher" (meaning complications serious enough to require some form of treatment or intervention) — 44 complications were recorded in the open surgery group compared to 24 in the keyhole surgery group. These are the raw numbers as submitted; the trial does not report further breakdown of what those complications were in this dataset. The reported data shows that the six secondary outcomes — including 5-year survival, recurrence patterns, cancer-related surgical results, quality of life after surgery, and immune system responses to the surgery — had no numerical results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures are not available to describe here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02762266 · results posted 12 March 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two treatments for liver tumours: Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE), a procedure that delivers chemotherapy directly to a tumour via its blood supply, and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT), a type of highly targeted radiation treatment. Six people were enrolled in each group (12 in total). In the TACE group, only 4 of the 6 who started actually received treatment and completed the study, while 2 did not complete it. In the SBRT group, all 6 who started received treatment and completed the study. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured was whether participants experienced cancer growth in the same liver area that had been treated (called "local progression"). According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, zero participants in either group had a local progression event recorded during the study period. For all of the secondary measures — which included things like how long participants went without cancer spreading outside the liver, survival time, and results broken down by tumour size — the data was not reported (recorded as "NA" in the submitted results). It is worth noting that this was a very small trial with only 12 participants in total, and many of the planned measurements were not reported in the submitted data, so the picture the results paint is incomplete. The reported data shows only the figures that were submitted; no conclusions about broader groups of patients can be drawn from this information alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04102098 · results posted 18 November 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04102098) enrolled 668 people in total — 334 in an "Active Surveillance" group (meaning they were monitored without receiving the study treatment) and 334 in a group that received a combination of two medicines called atezolizumab and bevacizumab. The trial was studying people who had been treated for liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) and was looking at whether adding these medicines after treatment might affect how long people remained free of the cancer coming back, and how long they lived overall. The reported data shows that for the main outcome being measured — how long participants went without their cancer returning or dying, assessed over a period measured in months — the submitted results listed "NA" (not available) for both groups. This means that particular figure was not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. The reported data also shows that none of the secondary outcomes — including overall survival, time to cancer recurrence, and recurrence-free survival rates at 24 and 36 months — had numerical results submitted. It is worth noting that 81 participants from the Active Surveillance group crossed over to receive the combination treatment at some point during the trial, though no outcome numbers were reported for this crossover period either. Because no numerical results were submitted for any of the outcome measures in this dataset, it is not possible to describe what the trial found in terms of actual figures — the data simply was not reported in the structured results available on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02795429 · results posted 3 July 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02795429) looked at two medicines used together — capmatinib and spartalizumab — in people with advanced cancer. The trial had two stages: a first stage (Phase Ib) to find a safe dose by testing three different dose levels of capmatinib (200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg twice daily), each combined with a fixed dose of spartalizumab, and a second stage (Phase II) that compared the combination at the highest dose against spartalizumab given on its own. In total, 89 people took part across all five groups — 6, 10, and 11 people in the three Phase Ib dose-finding groups, and 32 and 30 people respectively in the two Phase II groups. No participants were recorded as having "completed" the study, meaning all participants left the study early for various reasons (such as their condition progressing or side effects), which is not unusual in this type of cancer trial. The reported data shows that in the dose-finding stage, all participants experienced at least one adverse event (an unwanted health change recorded during treatment). More severe events — described as "serious adverse events" — were reported in 5 out of 6 people in the lowest-dose group, 7 out of 10 in the middle-dose group, and all 10 out of 11 in the highest-dose group. A specific type of severe reaction called a "dose-limiting toxicity" (a side effect serious enough that it might stop a dose from being used) was reported in 0 people at the two lower doses and 1 person at the highest dose. Regarding the main goal of the second stage — measuring how many participants' tumours shrank meaningfully (called the "overall response rate") — the reported data shows that 9.4% of participants in the combination group and 10.0% of participants in the spartalizumab-only group had their tumours shrink to a degree that met the trial's definition of a response. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01730937 · results posted 3 July 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01730937) enrolled 193 people with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) who also had a blood clot in a major liver vessel — a condition known as tumour thrombosis. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 97 received the drug sorafenib on its own, and 96 received a type of targeted radiation called SBRT (stereotactic body radiotherapy) followed by sorafenib. The trial's main goal was to measure how long participants lived overall, and it also tracked how quickly the cancer progressed, quality of life, and side effects. The reported data shows that the median overall survival — that is, the midpoint at which half the participants in each group had died — was 12.3 months for those who received sorafenib alone, and 15.85 months for those who received SBRT followed by sorafenib. For the secondary measures, at the two-year mark, 66.3% of the sorafenib-alone group and 56.4% of the SBRT-then-sorafenib group had experienced disease progression (meaning their cancer had worsened or spread). When looking at progression-free survival at two years (staying alive without the cancer worsening), the reported figures were 5.49% for sorafenib alone and 9.22% for SBRT followed by sorafenib. Regarding the blood clot in the vessel, 0 participants in the sorafenib-alone group and 2 in the SBRT group showed a complete resolution of the clot, while partial improvement was seen in 6 and 22 participants respectively. On quality of life, the reported data shows that 6 months after starting treatment, 10% of participants in the sorafenib-alone group and 35% in the SBRT-then-sorafenib group reported an improvement of at least 5 points on a standard quality-of-life questionnaire for liver cancer patients (with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Side effects were recorded across both groups, with the most common being moderate-to-severe (grade 3) events, reported in 49 participants on sorafenib alone and 51 on SBRT followed by sorafenib; serious (grade 4) events occurred in 10 and 9 participants respectively, and grade 5 events (death attributed to a side effect) were recorded in 6 and 2 participants respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03586973 · results posted 18 April 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a drug called cabozantinib (taken as a 60 mg daily dose) in two separate groups of cancer patients — Cohort A, which had 20 participants, and Cohort B, which had 14 participants. The main thing the trial was measuring was how many people in each group went at least 24 weeks without their disease getting worse or dying — this is called the "progression-free survival rate" at 24 weeks. The trial also tracked several secondary measures: how long on average participants went without their disease worsening (progression-free survival), how many participants' tumours shrank by a meaningful amount (objective response rate), how many had their disease either shrink or stay stable (disease control rate), and how long participants lived overall (overall survival). The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the 24-week progression-free survival rate — approximately 59.8% of participants in Cohort A and 16.7% in Cohort B were still free from disease progression or death at the 24-week mark. For the secondary measures, the reported median time without disease worsening was 7.4 months in Cohort A and 3.6 months in Cohort B. The proportion of participants whose tumours shrank meaningfully was reported as 5.0% in Cohort A and 0.0% in Cohort B. The disease control rate — meaning tumours that either shrank or stayed stable — was reported as 85.0% in Cohort A and 64.3% in Cohort B. The reported median overall survival was 19.3 months in Cohort A and 9.9 months in Cohort B. Notably, the data shows that zero participants in either group were recorded as having formally "completed" the study per the trial's own milestone definitions, though what this means in context was not further explained in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03684811 · results posted 25 January 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03684811) enrolled 93 participants across nine groups (called cohorts), testing a drug called FT-2102 in people with different types of cancer, including brain tumours and solid tumours. The cohorts received different doses or schedules of the drug. The trial was measuring two main things: how many participants experienced a serious drug-related side effect serious enough to limit the dose (called a "dose-limiting toxicity"), and how many participants' tumours showed a measurable response to the treatment. Notably, the reported data shows that none of the participants were recorded as having "completed" the study — all participants were listed under "not completed," though no further explanation for this is provided in the submitted data. The reported data shows that, for the dose-limiting toxicity outcome, the number of participants who experienced such an event varied by cohort: zero out of 26 in Cohort 1A, two out of 6 in Cohort 1B, zero out of 23 in Cohort 3A, and one out of 6 in Cohort 5A. For the tumour response outcome, the numbers were small across all groups: two participants in Cohort 1A and one in Cohort 2A showed a response, while zero responses were recorded in Cohorts 1B, 3A, 4A, and 5A. The trial also tracked how the drug moved through the body (for example, how quickly it was absorbed into the bloodstream and how long it stayed there). These figures were recorded across two treatment cycles and varied between cohorts. The data for how long it took for half the drug to leave the bloodstream was listed as "not available" for all cohorts reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00980460 · results posted 28 December 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 236 children across five groups based on how advanced their liver tumour (hepatoblastoma) was: a Very Low-risk group (8 children), a Low-risk group (51 children), an Intermediate-risk group (105 children), and two High-risk groups (32 and 40 children respectively). Each group received a different treatment regimen suited to their risk level. The trial was measuring how many children remained free of disease events over five years, as well as tracking serious side effects and, for some groups, how the tumour responded after two rounds of treatment. The reported data shows that the estimated chance of being free from disease events at five years — meaning no disease return, progression, second cancer, or death — was 100% for the Very Low-risk group, around 87% for both the Low-risk and Intermediate-risk groups, and approximately 44% and 46% for the two High-risk groups. For serious (grade 3 or higher) non-blood-related side effects, the numbers of treatment cycles on which these were recorded varied across groups. In the Intermediate-risk group, 1 death was reported as possibly related to chemotherapy. For the two High-risk groups, the reported data shows that after two rounds of treatment, tumour shrinkage or disappearance was observed in a number of participants, with full disappearance seen in 3 participants in each High-risk group and partial shrinkage in 5 and 10 participants respectively. Regarding liver transplant referrals, 37 of the Intermediate-risk participants and 16 of the High-risk (Regimen H) participants were reported as successfully referred for transplant consultation. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03434379 · results posted 5 November 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03434379) compared two treatment approaches for liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma): a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab versus sorafenib alone. The trial was run in two parts — a global portion, which enrolled 336 people in the combination group and 165 in the sorafenib group, and a separate China extension, which enrolled 133 and 61 people in the same respective groups. The trial measured how long participants lived overall (called overall survival), how long it took for their cancer to grow or for them to die (called progression-free survival), and what proportion of participants had their tumours shrink by a meaningful amount (called objective response rate). The reported data shows the following for the global portion: in the sorafenib group, the median overall survival (the point at which half the group had died) was reported as 13.4 months, while a final median figure for the combination group was not calculable at the time of reporting (listed as "NA," meaning not yet reached). For how long it took for the cancer to worsen or death to occur, the sorafenib group had a reported median of around 4.3 months, compared with around 6.8 months in the combination group. For the China extension, the sorafenib group had a reported median overall survival of 11.4 months, while again the combination group's figure was not yet reached; progression-free survival was reported as approximately 3.2 months versus 5.7 months respectively. Regarding tumour shrinkage in the global group, the reported data shows that approximately 11.9% of people in the sorafenib group and 27.3% in the combination group had their tumours shrink by a meaningful amount under one measuring method, and 13.3% versus 33.2% under a second liver-specific measuring method. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02423343 · results posted 9 September 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a combination of two drugs — galunisertib and nivolumab — in people with advanced cancers. The trial had two stages: a smaller Phase 1b stage (15 participants spread across four groups) focused on finding the right dose, and a larger Phase 2 stage that included 25 people with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 1 person with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC). In total, 41 people started the trial and received at least one dose of the study drugs. The reported data shows that in the Phase 1b dose-finding stage, the highest dose tested that met the trial's pre-set safety threshold was 300 milligrams of galunisertib. The trial also measured how much of each drug was present in participants' blood at various points. For the Phase 2 stage, the trial tracked how long participants went without their cancer growing or spreading (called progression-free survival). The reported data shows this was approximately 5.26 months for the lung cancer group and 5.39 months for the liver cancer group. When looking at tumour responses in Phase 2, 24% of participants in the lung cancer group had their tumours shrink to a degree meeting the trial's definition of a meaningful response, while no participants in the liver cancer group met that threshold. No participants across any group were reported to have developed antibodies against nivolumab during the trial. It is worth noting that the liver cancer group had only one participant enrolled, so the reported data for that group is based on a very small number. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03256344 · results posted 9 June 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a combination of two medicines — talimogene laherparepvec (injected directly into tumours) and atezolizumab (given through a drip) — in people with two different types of cancer: triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 36 people were enrolled across both groups — 11 with TNBC and 25 with CRC. The trial was primarily measuring whether the combination caused any serious treatment-related side effects during an early observation window, known as "dose-limiting toxicities" (DLTs) — that is, side effects severe enough to potentially prevent the treatment from being given at its planned doses. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure, no participants in the TNBC group experienced a DLT, while 3 out of 25 participants in the CRC group did. For the secondary measure of how many participants showed tumour shrinkage (called the "objective response rate"), the reported figure was 10% (1 out of 10 assessed participants) in the TNBC group, and 0% in the CRC group. Looking at the best overall response across all participants, the reported data shows that in the TNBC group, 1 participant had a partial response (tumour shrank by 30% or more), 1 had stable disease, 3 had their cancer grow, and 3 were not evaluable. In the CRC group, no partial or complete responses were recorded, 1 had stable disease, 4 had their cancer grow, 14 had progressive disease, and 5 were not evaluable. Duration of response data for the TNBC group was not reported in the submitted results. The reported data also shows results for individual tumour lesions that were either injected or not injected with the treatment, though the numbers across both groups were very small and no complete disappearance of lesions was recorded in either group. It is worth noting that the vast majority of participants did not complete the trial — only 1 participant in the TNBC group and none in the CRC group were recorded as completing it, with the rest leaving early for reasons not detailed in this data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03111732 · results posted 15 April 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a combination of three medicines — pembrolizumab, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine — given together to people with a form of cancer. Eleven people entered the trial, six completed it, and five did not finish. The main thing the trial was measuring was how long participants went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"). The reported data shows that, on average (the median — meaning half of participants did better and half did worse), people went 4.54 months before their disease showed signs of progressing. For overall survival — how long participants lived after starting treatment — the reported median figure was 43 weeks. When looking at how tumours responded to the treatment, the data shows that no participants had a "complete response" (where all detectable signs of cancer disappeared), while 3 out of 11 participants had a "partial response" (where tumours shrank by at least 30%). The trial also recorded side effects (called adverse events) and how likely each was to be related to each of the three medicines. These were graded from mild (Grade 1) through to life-threatening (Grade 4). The reported data shows varying numbers of participants experienced side effects across all grades and across all three drugs, though the full breakdown of every grade and category was not completely reported in the submitted data. For example, for oxaliplatin, 4 out of 11 participants had side effects rated as "definitely related" at some grade level, while for pembrolizumab and capecitabine, zero participants were recorded in the "definitely related" category. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01033240 · results posted 8 April 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 163 people with advanced liver cancer. Participants were split into three groups: 55 received sorafenib alone (an existing treatment), 53 received sorafenib plus a lower dose of an investigational drug called CS-1008, and 55 received sorafenib plus a higher dose of CS-1008. The trial was primarily measuring how long it took for the cancer to progress (get worse or spread), and also looked at how long participants survived overall, how tumours responded to treatment, and what unwanted medical events occurred during the study. The reported data shows that the median time until the cancer progressed was 2.8 months in the sorafenib-only group, 3.0 months in the lower-dose CS-1008 combination group, and 3.9 months in the higher-dose CS-1008 combination group. For overall survival — meaning the time from entering the trial until death — the reported median figures were 8.2 months for the sorafenib-only group, 8.2 months for the lower-dose combination group, and 12.2 months for the higher-dose combination group. On tumour response, no complete disappearance of tumours was recorded in any group, and no confirmed partial responses (meaningful shrinkage) were reported in any group either. Regarding unwanted medical events that arose during treatment, the reported data shows these occurred in 54 of 55 participants in the sorafenib-only group, 52 of 53 in the lower-dose combination group, and 54 of 55 in the higher-dose combination group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02670122 · results posted 30 March 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 131 people who had been diagnosed with non-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (a form of liver cancer that could not be surgically removed). Of these, 127 completed the study and 4 did not. The trial was measuring safety-related events following a procedure called DEB-TACE — a technique where tiny drug-loaded beads are delivered directly to the tumour — as well as how tumours responded to the procedure over time and how long participants lived overall. The reported data shows that, out of 131 participants, 9 experienced what were classified as major complications, 29 experienced minor complications, and 0 deaths were recorded as being directly related to the procedure itself. Twelve participants experienced a severe form of "post-embolisation syndrome" — a term for a cluster of flu-like symptoms (such as fever, nausea, and pain) that can occur after this type of procedure. For tumour response, the data was assessed using a standardised imaging-based scoring system. The reported data shows that 90 participants showed an "objective response" (meaning their tumour appeared to shrink or show reduced activity on scans) at 6 months, 42 at 12 months, and 27 at 24 months. The reported median overall survival — meaning the point at which half of participants had passed away and half had not — was 22 months. It is worth noting that this trial had only one group of participants, so these numbers describe what was observed in that single group rather than a comparison between a treatment and a control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02548910 · results posted 18 March 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02548910) enrolled 62 participants in total — 31 in a "Phlebotomy" group (where blood was temporarily removed before surgery) and 31 in a "Control" group (no such removal). All 62 participants completed the study. The trial was primarily looking at whether the approach was practical to run (feasibility) and at how much blood was lost during surgery, measured by tracking changes in haemoglobin (a protein in red blood cells) levels before and after the operation. The reported data shows that the 62 participants recruited met the trial's feasibility target. For blood loss during surgery, the reported figures for the Phlebotomy group and the Control group were broadly similar across the different ways blood loss was estimated — for example, one calculation method gave approximately 862 mL for the Phlebotomy group and 872 mL for the Control group, while another method gave 761 mL versus 872 mL, and a third gave 1,116 mL versus 1,249 mL. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 1 participant in each group received a blood transfusion under one category of transfusion measured, with small numbers also reported in other transfusion sub-categories. Serious complications (graded at a severity level called Dindo-Clavien 3b or higher) were reported in 10 Phlebotomy and 15 Control participants under one measure, and 2 versus 3 under another. Two heart and circulation-related measurements taken during surgery (called CVP and Cardiac Index) were also reported and appeared similar between the two groups, though the data as submitted does not provide enough detail to break down all sub-measurements with full clarity. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03006926 · results posted 31 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03006926) involved 104 participants in total — 6 in an initial safety-checking phase (called the "DLT part") and 98 in a larger follow-on phase (called the "Expansion part"). All participants received a combination of two medicines: lenvatinib (either 12 mg or 8 mg daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg). The trial was studying liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) as a first-line treatment, and was measuring things like unwanted medical events that occurred during treatment, whether tumours shrank or disappeared, and how long any such responses lasted. The reported data shows that in the initial 6-person safety phase, all 6 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (an unwanted medical event that appeared or worsened after starting the study medicines), and 4 of those 6 experienced a serious adverse event (a more significant medical event, such as one requiring hospitalisation). Importantly, none of the 6 participants in this phase met the criteria for a "dose-limiting toxicity" — meaning none experienced the specific level of side effect that would have triggered a need to lower the dose before moving forward. In the larger 98-person expansion phase, 97 of 98 participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, and 73 experienced a serious adverse event. Across both phases combined, the reported data shows that 38% of participants had their tumours shrink or disappear according to one measuring system (mRECIST), and 46% according to another (RECIST v1.1), as assessed by independent reviewers. Among those whose tumours responded using the mRECIST measure, the reported median duration of that response was 16.7 months; the equivalent figure using RECIST v1.1 was not able to be calculated and was not reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02562755 · results posted 16 December 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02562755) enrolled 234 people in the Pexa-Vec followed by Sorafenib group and 225 people in the Sorafenib-alone group, for a total of 459 participants. The trial was measuring outcomes in people with liver cancer, comparing a combination approach (Pexa-Vec, a type of virus-based treatment, given first, followed by Sorafenib, a cancer medicine) against Sorafenib given on its own. The main thing the trial set out to measure was the Overall Response Rate — that is, the proportion of participants whose tumours showed a meaningful reduction or disappeared entirely on specialised scans. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome (Overall Response Rate), 19.2% of participants in the Pexa-Vec followed by Sorafenib group showed an overall response, compared with 20.9% of participants in the Sorafenib-alone group. These figures represent the share of people whose tumours either shrank by a meaningful amount or could no longer be detected on imaging scans. No secondary outcome measure data was included in the structured results provided, so those figures cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02966223 · results posted 25 September 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 20 people in a single group, all of whom underwent both MRI and HIDA scans (a type of imaging that looks at how well the liver is working). The trial was measuring changes in liver function before and three months after a treatment called Yttrium-90 (a form of internal radiation delivered to the liver). Specifically, it aimed to look at both regional changes (in particular areas of the liver) and global changes (across the whole liver), and to explore whether those changes were related to the dose of Yttrium-90 each person received. The reported data shows that of the 20 people who started the trial, only 5 completed it, while 15 did not complete it. Regarding the actual outcome measurements — the before-and-after liver function figures that the trial set out to capture — no numerical results were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for any of the three outcome measures (regional liver function change, global liver function change, or the relationship between liver function change and dose). Because those numbers were not included in the submitted results, it is not possible to describe what the scans showed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01246986 · results posted 7 August 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01246986) enrolled 204 people in total across seven groups, all of whom received at least one dose of the study drug. The trial was investigating a medicine called galunisertib (also referred to as LY2157299), given either on its own or alongside other medicines (sorafenib or ramucirumab), in people with liver cancer. The study was looking at two blood proteins — alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and TGF-β — to see whether changes in those proteins were linked to how long participants lived overall, and also at how quickly the cancer progressed. The reported data shows that, among participants whose AFP blood protein levels dropped by more than 20% within the first eight weeks of treatment, the middle ("median") overall survival time ranged from approximately 17.9 months to 24.2 months depending on which group they were in. For those whose TGF-β protein levels dropped by more than 20%, the reported median overall survival ranged from about 10.1 months to nearly 22.9 months across the groups measured. The reported data also shows that the time before the cancer showed signs of growing varied by group, ranging from around 7.1 weeks to 36.0 weeks. For overall survival measured in weeks across the main groups, the reported figures ranged from approximately 29.6 weeks to 89.6 weeks. A dose of 300 mg was reported as the recommended dose to carry forward into future larger trials, and the average rate at which the body cleared the drug was reported as 33.6 litres per hour. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01755767 · results posted 15 July 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01755767) enrolled 383 people in total with inoperable liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) who had already received one prior treatment. Participants were split into four groups based on the dose of the study drug, tivantinib, or a matching placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The main thing the trial was measuring was how long participants lived overall, specifically in those whose tumours showed high levels of a protein called MET. The reported data shows that, in the main group of interest (the 120 mg twice-daily dose), the middle point for overall survival — meaning the point at which half the participants had died and half were still alive — was 8.4 months for those taking tivantinib and 9.1 months for those taking the placebo. For progression-free survival (the time until the cancer was seen to grow or the person died), the reported figure was 2.1 months for the tivantinib group and 2.0 months for the placebo group. The reported data also shows survival rates at various time points; for example, at an early check-in roughly 86.6% of the tivantinib group and 85.9% of the placebo group were still alive, with both figures declining over later time points in a broadly similar pattern. Notably, no participants were recorded as having "completed" the study — all participants either withdrew or were not able to finish for other reasons, though the data does not specify further detail on this. The reported data also includes counts of unwanted events (side effects) experienced during treatment. In the 120 mg tivantinib group, 214 out of 226 participants reported at least one such event, compared with 108 out of 114 in the matching placebo group. Specific breakdowns for individual types of events were reported but the labels for those individual events were not included in the submitted data, so they cannot be described in further detail here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02576509 · results posted 26 June 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02576509) enrolled 743 people with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) — 371 assigned to receive nivolumab (a type of immunotherapy, given at 240 mg) and 372 assigned to receive sorafenib (a standard tablet treatment, given at 400 mg). The trial was primarily measuring how long participants lived overall, and also looked at secondary measures including how many participants' tumours shrank or disappeared, and how long it was before the disease got worse. The reported data shows that, based on statistical estimates, the median overall survival (that is, the midpoint survival time across the group) was approximately 16.4 months for the nivolumab group and 14.7 months for the sorafenib group. For the secondary measure of tumour shrinkage or disappearance (called the objective response rate), the reported figures were 15.4% of participants in the nivolumab group and 7.0% in the sorafenib group. The median time before the disease got worse (progression-free survival) was reported as approximately 3.7 months in the nivolumab group and 3.8 months in the sorafenib group. The trial also looked at these outcomes in subgroups based on a protein marker called PD-L1 found on tumour cells; those subgroup numbers varied across different cut-off levels, as reported in the data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01721954 · results posted 22 October 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 209 people with cancer — 105 in a group receiving a chemotherapy regimen called mFOLFOX6 combined with a procedure called SIRT (Selective Internal Radiation Therapy, a way of delivering radiation directly to liver tumours), and 104 in a group receiving mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy alone. The trial was primarily measuring how long people lived overall, and also tracking how long it was before their cancer showed signs of growing or spreading further. The reported data shows that for overall survival — the time from when someone joined the trial until death from any cause — the combined treatment group had a reported median of 25.9 months, compared with 25.0 months in the chemotherapy-alone group. (A "median" figure means half the people in that group lived longer than that number of months, and half did not reach it.) For progression-free survival — the time before the cancer showed signs of worsening — the reported median was 11.8 months in the combined treatment group and 11.2 months in the chemotherapy-alone group. It is worth noting that out of the 209 people who started the trial, only 35 in each group were recorded as having completed it, and the data does not explain the reasons for non-completion. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02200042 · results posted 28 August 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02200042) was set up to compare two approaches — radiation therapy versus observation (no radiation) — in people with a particular cancer condition. The trial aimed to measure how long participants lived overall (overall survival), as well as a range of other outcomes including whether the cancer spread to other parts of the body (distant metastases), whether it progressed locally or in nearby lymph nodes, how long people lived without the cancer getting worse (progression-free survival), and what side effects occurred. The reported data shows that only one participant was enrolled in the trial — assigned to the observation group — and that person did not complete the study. No participants were recorded as starting or completing the radiation therapy group. Because of the extremely low enrolment, the reported data shows no numerical results for any of the outcome measures — not for overall survival, cancer spread, progression, or side effects. For every outcome listed, the measurements section was left empty, meaning no figures were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02635347 · results posted 20 August 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a procedure called Remote Ischemic Conditioning (RIC) in people receiving a liver transplant. RIC involves briefly restricting and then restoring blood flow to a limb (such as an arm or leg) using a blood pressure cuff, with the aim of studying its effects around the time of transplant. The trial enrolled 31 people into the RIC group and compared them to a historical control group of 63 people (meaning a separate group whose records were reviewed rather than participants recruited at the same time). The main thing the trial was measuring was how many people in the RIC group were able to complete all six planned RIC sessions. The reported data shows that about 71% of people in the RIC group completed all six RIC sessions as planned. For pain experienced during the procedure, the reported median pain score (the middle value across all scores) was 5 out of 10, where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst pain imaginable. Six people in the RIC group withdrew their consent due to discomfort or pain in the leg, compared to zero in the historical control group. Regarding early problems with the transplanted liver in the first week, the reported data shows this occurred in approximately 23% of the RIC group and approximately 40% of the historical control group. Breathing difficulties requiring extended ventilator support were reported in approximately 33% of the RIC group and approximately 29% of the historical control group. Serious kidney injury (stages 2 or 3) was reported in approximately 20% of the RIC group and approximately 26% of the historical control group. It is important to note that because the two groups were not randomised or studied at the same time, direct comparisons between the RIC group and the historical control group should be interpreted with caution. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02435433 · results posted 17 May 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 399 participants across several groups. The two main comparison groups were 197 people who received ramucirumab plus best supportive care (meaning standard symptom management), and 95 people who received a placebo plus best supportive care. There were also smaller additional groups, including an open-label ramucirumab group (47 people) and two further cohorts of 39 and 21 people. The trial's main goal was to measure how long participants lived overall, and it also tracked a number of secondary measures including how long before the disease got worse, tumour response rates, and how the drug moved through the body. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of overall survival, participants in the ramucirumab group had a median survival time (meaning the point at which half the group had died and half were still alive) of 8.51 months, compared with 7.29 months in the placebo group. For progression-free survival — the time until the disease was observed to worsen or a participant died — the reported median was 2.83 months in the ramucirumab group and 1.61 months in the placebo group. The time until the disease was seen to grow on scans was reported as 3.02 months for the ramucirumab group and 1.61 months for the placebo group. The reported data shows that 4.6% of participants in the ramucirumab group had their tumour shrink significantly (a complete or partial response), compared with 1.1% in the placebo group. Blood level measurements of the drug were also recorded across multiple treatment visits, showing the levels of ramucirumab in the bloodstream at various points during treatment, though these figures relate to how the drug behaved in the body rather than to patient outcomes. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01766219 · results posted 15 May 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 17 people in total across three groups, each receiving different doses of an experimental drug called 6,8-bis[Benzylthio]Octanoic Acid (sometimes referred to as CPI-613). The three groups received doses of 2,300 mg/m², 1,200/3,000 mg/m², and 600/3,000 mg/m² respectively (the "mg/m²" figure refers to the amount of drug given relative to a person's body surface area). The trial was primarily measuring how long participants lived overall, and also tracked how long the disease took to worsen, how tumours responded to treatment, and how many participants experienced unwanted side effects. The reported data shows that for overall survival — that is, how long participants lived from the start of the trial — the median figure (the midpoint value for the group) was 4.7 months in the 2,300 mg/m² group (4 participants), 1.6 months in the 1,200/3,000 mg/m² group (2 participants), and 3.94 months in the 600/3,000 mg/m² group (11 participants). For how long it took the disease to worsen (called progression-free survival), the reported figures were 1.6 months, 0 months, and 2.5 months for the three groups respectively. When looking at how tumours responded, the data shows that in the 2,300 mg/m² group, no participants had a complete or partial response and 4 had progressive disease (worsening); in the 1,200/3,000 mg/m² group, 2 had stable disease and none had other measured responses recorded in the data; and in the 600/3,000 mg/m² group, 7 had progressive disease, 2 had stable disease, and 2 had a partial response. The reported data also shows that all participants in each group — 4, 2, and 11 respectively — were recorded as having experienced adverse events (unwanted side effects), though the specific nature or severity of those events is not broken down further in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00724503 · results posted 26 March 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00724503) enrolled 267 people in the group receiving mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy combined with a procedure called SIRT (selective internal radiation therapy, which delivers radiation beads directly to liver tumours), and 263 people in the group receiving mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy alone. The trial was primarily measuring "progression-free survival" — that is, how many months passed before a participant's cancer showed signs of growing or spreading, or a new tumour appeared. The reported data shows that, on average, participants in the combination group went 10.7 months before their cancer showed signs of progression, compared with 10.2 months in the chemotherapy-alone group. For a secondary measure — the percentage of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount (either completely or partially) — the reported data shows 76.4% of participants in the combination group and 68.1% in the chemotherapy-alone group met that threshold. It is worth noting that a large number of participants did not complete the study in both groups (210 out of 267 and 220 out of 263 respectively), though the reasons for this were not detailed in the data provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01908426 · results posted 1 March 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01908426) enrolled 707 people in total — 470 received cabozantinib and 237 received a placebo (an inactive treatment used for comparison). The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long they went without their disease getting worse, and how many showed a measurable shrinkage in their tumour. Relatively few participants in each group were recorded as having "completed" the study (73 in the cabozantinib group and 26 in the placebo group), with the majority leaving the study early — most likely due to death or disease progression, which is common in trials of this kind. The reported data shows the following numbers for each outcome. For overall survival — meaning the time from joining the trial until death from any cause — the median (the midpoint value, where half of participants lived longer and half lived shorter) was reported as 10.2 months for the cabozantinib group and 8.0 months for the placebo group. For progression-free survival — the time until the disease was recorded as getting worse or until death — the reported median was 5.2 months for cabozantinib and 1.9 months for placebo. For objective response rate — the number of participants whose tumours shrank by a defined amount — 18 participants in the cabozantinib group and 1 participant in the placebo group met that threshold. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01761266 · results posted 25 September 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01761266) enrolled 954 people with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma) — 478 in the lenvatinib group and 476 in the sorafenib group. Both lenvatinib and sorafenib are medicines that had already been used for this type of cancer, and the trial was comparing them head-to-head. The main thing the trial was measuring was overall survival — that is, how long participants lived from the time they joined the trial. Several secondary measures were also tracked, including how long it took for the cancer to grow or spread, how many participants saw their tumours shrink, and how participants rated their quality of life over time. The reported data shows that the median overall survival (the point at which half the participants in each group had died) was 13.6 months in the lenvatinib group and 12.3 months in the sorafenib group. For progression-free survival — the time until the cancer was recorded as growing or the participant died, whichever came first — the reported median figures were 7.4 months for lenvatinib and 3.7 months for sorafenib. The time to first recorded disease progression (not counting deaths) was reported as 8.9 months for lenvatinib and 3.7 months for sorafenib. The proportion of participants whose tumours shrank by a meaningful amount (the objective response rate) was reported as 24.1% for lenvatinib and 9.2% for sorafenib. Regarding quality of life, the reported time until a clinically meaningful worsening was similar in both groups across the questionnaires used — generally ranging from around 1.7 to 5.5 months depending on the specific scale measured, with figures broadly comparable between the two groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01015833 · results posted 2 May 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 356 people with liver cancer across two groups. One group of 180 people received a combination of two medicines — doxorubicin hydrochloride and sorafenib tosylate — while the other group of 176 people received sorafenib tosylate on its own. The trial's main goal was to measure how long participants lived overall, and it also tracked how long it took for the cancer to get worse, the best response their tumours showed to treatment, and what serious side effects occurred. The reported data shows that the median overall survival — that is, the midpoint survival time, where half of participants lived longer and half lived shorter — was 8.9 months in the combination-treatment group and 10.5 months in the sorafenib-only group. For progression-free survival (the time until the cancer showed signs of growing or spreading), the reported figures were 4.0 months and 3.9 months respectively, and the time to progression specifically was 4.1 months versus 3.8 months. The best overall response rate — meaning the proportion of patients whose tumours shrank meaningfully at any point — was reported as 7.3% in the combination group and 3.3% in the sorafenib-only group. Regarding serious side effects (graded as severe or worse and at least possibly linked to the study treatment), the reported data shows varying percentages across different types of side effects in both groups, with some side effects appearing more commonly in one group than the other, though the data as submitted does not label each individual side-effect category by name. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01939223 · results posted 20 October 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01939223) enrolled 25 people in total — 14 in the group receiving Regorafenib 160 mg and 11 in the placebo group. The trial was designed to measure two things: first, how long participants remained free of their disease returning after treatment (called "disease-free survival"), and second, how long participants lived overall ("overall survival"). Only 1 participant in the Regorafenib group and none in the placebo group were recorded as having completed the study; the remaining participants did not complete it, though the reasons are not detailed in the data provided here. The reported data shows that no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for either the primary outcome (disease-free survival) or the secondary outcome (overall survival). In other words, while the trial tracked how long people went without their disease coming back and how long they lived, the actual figures for both of these measures were not reported in the structured results data available. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  Read the full trial page

• NCT00881751 · results posted 11 September 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 95 people across two groups — 47 in Arm I and 48 in Arm II. The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long they went before experiencing a significant setback (such as their condition getting worse or having to stop treatment due to serious side effects), how many serious unwanted medical events occurred, and what proportion of participants showed a response to treatment as seen on medical scans. The reported data shows that when it came to overall survival — the length of time from the start of treatment until death from any cause — both groups had the same reported figure of 8.55 months. For "event-free survival" (the time before a major setback such as disease progression or withdrawal from the study), Arm I reported 4.37 months and Arm II reported 2.76 months. Regarding serious adverse events (significant medical problems that were tracked and recorded), Arm I reported 48 such events and Arm II reported 39. The reported data also shows that 15% of participants in Arm I and 9% of participants in Arm II showed a measurable response to treatment on their scans. Five participants in Arm II did not complete the study, while all 47 participants in Arm I did; the reasons for non-completion were not detailed in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00335829 · results posted 28 August 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 26 people who all received a combination of two treatments: bevacizumab (a medicine given by injection) and a procedure called TACE (transarterial chemoembolisation, which delivers treatment directly to tumours in the liver). All 26 participants received bevacizumab, 25 went on to receive the TACE procedure, and 23 completed the study. The trial was measuring how long it took for tumours to grow or spread — a timepoint researchers call "time to tumour progression" (TTP) — as well as how long participants lived overall. The reported data shows that for the main (primary) outcome — time to progression of the specific tumours being directly treated — a result was not able to be calculated and is listed as not available. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that for tumours elsewhere in the liver that were not directly targeted, the median time to progression was 9.1 months. The median overall time to progression across all tumours was 7.2 months. When looking at specific time points, the reported data shows that 65% of participants had not experienced tumour progression at 6 months, and 23% had not at the one-year mark. For overall survival, the reported figures were a median of 10.8 months measured from the start of treatment, and 23.6 months measured from the original date of diagnosis. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01774344 · results posted 5 June 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01774344) enrolled 573 people in total — 194 were assigned to receive a placebo (an inactive treatment) and 379 were assigned to receive a medicine called regorafenib (160 mg). The trial was measuring how long participants lived overall, how long it took for their disease to get worse, and how their tumours responded to treatment. Participants were followed over time, and those still alive at the point of analysis were recorded at the date of their last contact. The reported data shows that the median overall survival — that is, the middle point at which half the participants in each group had died — was 237 days for the placebo group and 323 days for the regorafenib group. For the time it took for the disease to progress (get worse), the reported median was 45 days in the placebo group and 97–119 days in the regorafenib group (two different measurement methods were used, giving slightly different figures). Similarly, the median progression-free survival — the time from the start of the trial until disease worsening or death — was reported as 45 days for placebo and 95–102 days for regorafenib across the two measurement methods. Regarding tumour response, approximately 4–10.8% of participants in each group had their tumours shrink to a measurable degree, depending on the group and the measurement method used. The proportion of participants whose disease was recorded as controlled (either shrinking or staying stable) was around 34–36% in the placebo group and around 65% in the regorafenib group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01343901 · results posted 25 April 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 210 people, all of whom received the drug bevacizumab. Of these, 205 were included in the main analysis, and 97 completed the study, while 113 did not complete it. The trial was looking at what happened to signs of cancer spread (metastatic disease) in people with colorectal cancer — specifically, whether those signs became undetectable either after an operation to remove the spread (called secondary resection) or without an operation at all. The reported data shows that among participants who had surgery to remove all detectable areas of cancer spread, 84.6% had no detectable metastatic disease afterwards. A separate figure of 4.4% was reported for participants whose cancer spread became undetectable without any surgery. For the secondary measurements, the reported data shows that at the start of the study, 41.6% of participants had high blood pressure, 13.9% had other heart or blood vessel conditions, 7.5% had gastrointestinal conditions, and 52.9% had some other recorded medical history or condition. Regarding previous treatments, 29.1% of participants had received treatment before surgery (neoadjuvant treatment) and 52.7% had received treatment after a prior surgery (adjuvant treatment). On average, participants received approximately 14.4 cycles (rounds) of bevacizumab over the course of the study, and 96.1% of participants received at least one chemotherapy treatment during the study period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00576056 · results posted 28 December 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 19 people, all of whom received a combination of two treatments: TACE (a procedure that delivers cancer-fighting medicine directly to a tumour's blood supply) and sorafenib (a tablet-based medicine). The trial was looking at two things: how long people went without their disease getting worse (called "progression-free survival"), and how long people lived overall after starting treatment. The reported data shows that, on average, participants went approximately 174 days — roughly five and a half months — before their disease progressed (got worse) or they passed away. The reported average overall survival — meaning the time from starting treatment until death — was approximately 156 days, or just over five months. Of the 19 people who started the trial, only 5 completed it, while 14 did not complete it; the reasons for not completing were not detailed in the data provided here. It is worth noting that this was a small trial with just 19 participants, which means these figures represent a limited group of people. No safety data or side-effect figures were included in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those details are not available to report here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00597909 · results posted 31 March 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00597909) involved three groups of participants (Arm 1, Arm 2, and Arm 3). The trial was measuring how well a treatment worked for a condition assessed using something called the West Haven Criteria — a scale used to grade levels of confusion or brain-related changes. The study looked at how quickly participants reached a milder grade on that scale and how long they stayed there, among other related measures. The reported data shows that the number of participants recorded as starting, completing, or not completing the study was zero across all three arms. No numerical results were reported for any of the outcome measures — neither the primary measure (time to reach a milder grade on the West Haven scale lasting at least four hours) nor any of the secondary measures (such as the proportion of participants who improved by one or two grades, or time spent in an improved state). The data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov does not include any actual measurements or findings for this trial. Because no results data was reported, it is not possible to describe what the trial found about any of its intended outcomes. This may mean the trial did not proceed as planned, was discontinued, or that results were simply not submitted to the registry — but the reason for this is not stated in the available data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01549275 · results posted 8 October 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 105 people with a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Participants were divided into two groups based on how advanced their cancer was at the start of the study: 76 people had earlier-stage disease (classified as stage IIIA or below) and 29 had more advanced disease (stage IIIB or above). The trial was looking at whether the speed at which cancer cells grown in a laboratory from each patient's sample matched the stage of their cancer — and later, whether it related to how their disease progressed over the following six months. The reported data shows that, for the primary measurement, 21 out of 29 people in the more advanced cancer group had rapidly growing cells in their lab samples, compared with 29 out of 76 in the earlier-stage group. Among those with rapidly growing cells, the researchers recorded what types of cells were proliferating: in the more advanced group, 14 had rapidly growing HCC (cancer) cells alongside a type of supporting cell called cancer-associated fibroblasts, and 7 had rapidly growing cancer cells alone. In the earlier-stage group, 9 had both cell types growing rapidly and 20 had only the supporting fibroblast cells growing rapidly. For the secondary measurement, the reported data shows results for 104 participants with complete follow-up information, split across five subgroups based on their cancer stage and the type of treatment they received — curative surgery or ablation, a procedure called chemoembolization (TACE, which delivers chemotherapy directly to the tumour's blood supply), or supportive care only. The numbers of participants who experienced either a worsening in their cancer stage or an HCC-related death within six months were reported for each subgroup, but some specific figures within those subgroups were not fully detailed in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01375569 · results posted 17 March 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01375569) enrolled 11 people with a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. All 11 participants completed the study. The trial was investigating a treatment called TRC105, and the main thing researchers were measuring was how long participants went without their cancer growing or spreading — known as "time to tumour progression." A secondary measure recorded how many participants experienced any unwanted health events (called adverse events) during the study. The reported data shows that the median time to tumour progression — that is, the middle value of how long it took before cancer showed signs of growing — was 12 weeks. To give some context, the trial set a specific checkpoint at 4 months (roughly 16–17 weeks), looking at what proportion of participants were still progression-free at that point, though a single summary figure of 12 weeks was what was reported. For the secondary outcome, the reported data shows that all 11 out of 11 participants experienced at least one adverse event of some kind during the study. A full breakdown of what those events were can be found in the adverse events section of the ClinicalTrials.gov record, as the summary data provided here does not detail them further. It is worth noting that this was a small study with only 11 participants, so the numbers above reflect a very limited group of people. No comparison group was included in the data reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01821963 · results posted 6 March 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01821963) enrolled only one participant. The study was testing a combination of three medications — pegylated interferon alfa 2a, ribavirin, and telaprevir — in people with hepatitis C who were waiting for a liver transplant. The main thing the trial aimed to measure was whether participants had no detectable hepatitis C virus in their blood 12 weeks after receiving a liver transplant. A secondary measure looked at whether the virus remained undetectable 12 weeks after completing the full 48-week course of treatment. The reported data shows that the single participant who started the trial did not complete it. Because only one person was enrolled and that person did not finish the study, no results were recorded for the primary outcome measure (virus levels 12 weeks after transplant). The reported data also shows no results were recorded for the secondary outcome measure (virus levels 12 weeks after the treatment period ended). In other words, the trial did not generate any numerical findings for either of its two key measurements. Given that the trial enrolled just one participant and no outcome data was reported, the ClinicalTrials.gov record does not provide any meaningful findings about how this combination of treatments performed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01264952 · results posted 1 January 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 16 people in total across three groups: 6 participants who had multiple liver tumours that had spread to both sides of the liver at different times (Group I), 2 participants whose tumours spread at the same time as their original cancer diagnosis (Group II), and 8 participants who had three or fewer liver tumours that could not be surgically removed (Group III). All 16 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring the side effects of a treatment called electrochemotherapy — a procedure that uses electrical pulses to help deliver cancer-fighting medication into tumour cells — and also looking at how tumours responded to the treatment using scans and tissue samples. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — toxicity (meaning harmful or unpleasant effects directly linked to the electrochemotherapy procedure) — zero events were recorded across all three groups. For the secondary outcomes, tumour response was measured using standard imaging criteria. The reported data shows that in Group I, 10 tumour lesions showed a response; in Group II, 1 lesion showed a response; and in Group III, 10 lesions showed a response. Separately, non-serious unwanted events (side effects that were not classified as severe) were recorded in 3 participants in Group I, 2 participants in Group II, and 7 participants in Group III. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 16 participants, and some details — such as the full breakdown of individual tumour responses — were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00692770 · results posted 1 December 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,114 people — 556 in the sorafenib (Nexavar) group and 558 in the placebo group — all of whom had been treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (a type of liver cancer) and were being monitored to see whether the cancer would come back. The trial was primarily measuring "recurrence-free survival" — that is, how long participants went without their cancer returning or without dying — as assessed by an independent panel of radiologists reviewing scan images. The reported data shows that the median recurrence-free survival (the point at which half the participants had experienced a recurrence or death) was 1,014 days in the sorafenib group and 1,026 days in the placebo group. For the secondary measure of time to recurrence alone (not counting deaths), the reported figures were 1,172 days for the sorafenib group and 1,089 days for the placebo group. Overall survival figures were not able to be estimated from the data at the time of reporting. The trial also measured participants' self-reported quality of life using two standard questionnaires. On both tools, the placebo group recorded slightly higher scores than the sorafenib group — for example, on the general health scale (out of 100), the placebo group averaged 80.2 compared with 77.2 in the sorafenib group, and on the liver-cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (out of 180), the placebo group averaged 143.8 compared with 138.7 in the sorafenib group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01035229 · results posted 27 October 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01035229) enrolled 546 people in total — 362 received everolimus (a medicine) alongside best supportive care, and 184 received a placebo (an inactive treatment) alongside best supportive care. The trial's main goal was to measure **overall survival** — that is, how long participants lived from the time they joined the study. A number of secondary goals were also tracked, including how long it took for the cancer to progress, how many participants had their disease stay stable or shrink, changes in physical functioning, and quality of life over time. The reported data shows that, for overall survival (the primary measure), the everolimus group had a reported median of 7.56 months, compared with 7.33 months in the placebo group. For time to tumour progression (how long before the cancer grew), the reported figures were 2.96 months in the everolimus group and 2.60 months in the placebo group. The reported data shows that 56.1% of participants in the everolimus group and 45.1% in the placebo group had their disease recorded as controlled (meaning it either shrank or stayed stable) at some point during treatment. The time until participants' physical functioning scores worsened by at least one category was reported as 4.27 months for everolimus and 4.47 months for placebo. For quality-of-life scores, the time until a meaningful drop was recorded was reported as 2.86 months in the everolimus group and 3.45 months in the placebo group. A blood-level measurement of the medicine (called Cmin — the lowest level of the drug in the blood between doses) was also reported for those on everolimus: 16.14 ng/mL for those on the 7.5 mg dose and 9.32 ng/mL for those on the 5 mg dose. The data was not reported separately for placebo participants for this measure, as it applied only to those taking the active medicine. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02013830 · results posted 6 June 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 45 people, all of whom received a combination of two medicines: bevacizumab and capecitabine. The trial had one treatment group only — there was no comparison group. The main thing the trial set out to measure was how many participants showed a measurable shrinkage or disappearance of their tumour (called an "objective response") based on standard imaging criteria. A number of secondary measures were also tracked, including how many people had their disease stay stable or shrink (called "disease control"), how long it took for the disease to progress, and how many participants were still alive over time. Of the 45 people who started, 15 completed the study and 30 did not complete it for various reasons. The reported data shows that 9.1% of participants had an objective response — meaning their tumour shrank or disappeared by the measurements used. When stable disease was included alongside those responses, 52.3% of participants were reported to have achieved "disease control." For time to disease progression — the length of time from starting treatment until the disease began to grow again or a participant died — the reported median (middle value across all participants) was 2.8 months. The reported data shows that 77.8% of participants experienced a progression event during the study, and 24% of participants were still progression-free at the 12-month mark. Separately, 77.8% of participants were recorded as having died during the study period for the overall survival measure. It is worth noting that this was a single-arm trial with no comparison group, so the numbers above describe what was observed in these 45 participants only. No comparison to another treatment or placebo was made within this study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00901901 · results posted 30 September 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 720 people in total — 362 in one group who received sorafenib combined with erlotinib, and 358 in a second group who received sorafenib combined with a placebo (an inactive substitute). The trial was primarily measuring how long participants lived overall after being randomly assigned to one of the two groups. It also tracked several secondary measures, including how long it took for tumours to show signs of growing on scans, how many participants had their disease stabilise or shrink, and how participants rated their own quality of life during the study. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of overall survival, participants in the sorafenib-plus-erlotinib group survived a median of 289 days from the start of the trial, compared with 259 days in the sorafenib-plus-placebo group. (A "median" means half the people in the group reached that point and half did not.) For the time until tumours showed signs of growing on scans, the reported median was 97 days in the combination group and 122 days in the placebo group. When looking at disease control — meaning the number of people whose tumours completely disappeared, shrank, or stayed stable — the reported data shows 159 out of 362 participants in the erlotinib group and 188 out of 358 in the placebo group met that measure. For a separate measure called "duration of response" (how long a response to treatment lasted among those who did respond), the reported figures were 297 days in the erlotinib group and 168 days in the placebo group. Quality-of-life scores, rated by participants themselves on standard questionnaires, were broadly similar between the two groups across the measurement points reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00855218 · results posted 24 September 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 154 people in the sorafenib-plus-TACE group and 153 people in the placebo-plus-TACE group (TACE is a procedure that delivers treatment directly to liver tumours through their blood supply). The trial was measuring how long it took for liver cancer to get worse after treatment, how long participants survived overall, and how tumours responded — comparing the combination of the drug sorafenib with TACE against a dummy pill (placebo) plus TACE. Notably, zero participants in either group were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, meaning all participants either left the study early or it was stopped before a formal completion point was reached. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — the time until the cancer was confirmed to have progressed (grown or spread) by an independent review — the sorafenib-plus-TACE group had a reported median of 169 days, compared with 166 days in the placebo-plus-TACE group. For overall survival (how long participants lived), the data was not reported for either group. For the time until progression became untreatable, the sorafenib-plus-TACE group had a reported figure of 95 days, while the placebo-plus-TACE group had 224 days. The time to vascular invasion or spread outside the liver was also not reported for either group. The reported data shows that when tumour responses were assessed by an independent review panel, 55 people in the sorafenib-plus-TACE group and 43 in the placebo-plus-TACE group had a measurable response of some kind (complete or partial shrinkage). Among those, 20 versus 17 people respectively showed a complete disappearance of detectable tumour, and 35 versus 26 showed a partial reduction. Stable disease (tumour neither growing nor shrinking enough to count as a response) was recorded in 52 versus 56 people, progressive disease in 20 versus 36 people, and results could not be assessed in 27 versus 18 people. Similar patterns were seen when the treating doctors made their own assessments. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full Liver Cancer page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.