Safety and Efficacy of amplitude-modulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Importance: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Despite the recent approval of several new agents, long-term disease control remains elusive for most patients. Administration of 27.12 MHz radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) by means of a spoon-shaped antenna (TheraBionic P1 device) placed on the anterior part of the tongue results in systemic delivery of low and safe levels of RF EMF from head to toe. Objective: To report treatment outcomes and adverse events associated with treatment with the TheraBionic P1 device in comparison to suitable historical placebo and actively treated controls. Design: Pooled case series with comparison to historical controls. Participants: Patients with advanced HCC receiving this treatment, 18 real-world patients and 41 patients from a previously reported phase II study. Historical controls from previously conducted clinical trials. Interventions: Three hours daily treatment with the TheraBionic P1 device compared with standard of care as received by historical controls in the previously conducted trials. Main outcomes and measures: Overall survival (OS), time to progression, response rate, and adverse events in the combined pooled patients and in appropriate subgroups comparable to the historical control groups. Results: In the pooled treatment group, median OS of patients with Child-Pugh A disease (n = 32) was 10.36 (95% CI 5.42–14.07) months, 4.44 (95% CI 1.64–7.13) months for patients with Child-Pugh B disease (n = 25), and 1.99 (95% CI 0.76–3.22) months for patients with Child-Pugh C disease (n = 2). Median OS for Child-Pugh A patients was 2.62 (33.9%) months longer than the 7.74 months OS of comparable historical controls (p = 0.036). The 4.73 (95% CI 1.18–8.28) months median OS for Child-Pugh B patients receiving TheraBionic P1 device as first line therapy is slightly higher than the 4.6 months median OS of historical controls receiving Sorafenib as first line therapy. Only grade 1 mucositis and fatigue were reported by patients using the device, even among Child-Pugh B and C patients. No patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment of advanced HCC with the TheraBionic P1 device is well tolerated, even in patients with severely impaired liver function, and results in improved overall survival compared to historical controls without any significant adverse events, even after many years of continuous treatment. This treatment modality appears to be well suited for patients who have failed or are intolerant to currently approved therapies.

[1]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[2]  A. Gajra,et al.  Use of Real-World Evidence to Support FDA Approval of Oncology Drugs. , 2020, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[3]  J. Ferlay,et al.  International trends in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence, 1978–2012 , 2020, International journal of cancer.

[4]  H. Lee,et al.  Effectiveness and Safety of Nivolumab in Child–Pugh B Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World Cohort Study , 2020, Cancers.

[5]  Yulei N. Wang,et al.  Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  J. Llovet,et al.  Randomized trials and endpoints in advanced HCC: Role of PFS as a surrogate of survival. , 2019, Journal of hepatology.

[7]  D. Absher,et al.  Tumour-specific amplitude-modulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields induce differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma via targeting Cav3.2 T-type voltage-gated calcium channels and Ca2+ influx , 2019, EBioMedicine.

[8]  M. Kudo,et al.  Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[9]  J. Knox,et al.  Sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma-a meta-analysis. , 2018, European journal of cancer.

[10]  Gisela Schwab,et al.  Cabozantinib in Patients with Advanced and Progressing Hepatocellular Carcinoma , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  M. Kudo,et al.  Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial , 2018, The Lancet.

[12]  Masatoshi Kudo,et al.  Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial , 2017, The Lancet.

[13]  Sarah T. Jewell,et al.  The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review , 2016, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[14]  E. Basch,et al.  Methods for Implementing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) Measures of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials. , 2016, Clinical therapeutics.

[15]  D. Absher,et al.  Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  N. Kuster,et al.  Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[17]  D. Amadori,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Sorafenib in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh A versus B Cirrhosis. , 2011, Gastrointestinal cancer research : GCR.

[18]  Niels Kuster,et al.  Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: Discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach , 2009, Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR.

[19]  S. Paggi,et al.  Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma , 2008 .

[20]  Dieter Häussinger,et al.  Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  D. Amadori,et al.  Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  D. Absher,et al.  Tumour-specific amplitude-modulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields induce differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma via targeting Cav3.2 T-type voltage-gated calcium channels and Ca2+ influx , 2019, EBioMedicine.

[24]  Yoon-Koo Kang,et al.  Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[25]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[26]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.