Colon Polyps and AdenomasPhase 2NCT01549535
Polyp Detection With The Peerscope System™
A Phase 2 study testing Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy system in people with Colon Polyps and Adenomas and Colon Cancer, run by PeerMedical Ltd. at 6 sites in 3 countries.
Trial summary
The PeerScope System consists of Peer Medical camera heads, endoscopes, video system, light source and other ancillary equipment. The system is intended for endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation of the digestive tract. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colon Polyps and Adenomas, Colon Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy system
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 197 participants
- Where
- 6 sitesin 3 countries
- Study dates
- Feb 2012to Jul 2013
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Subject between the ages of 18 and 70
- The patient is undergoing colonoscopy for screening, for surveillance in follow-up of previous polypectomy or for diagnostic workup;
- Written informed consent must be available before enrollment in the trial
- For women with childbearing potential, adequate contraception
Who cannot join
- Patients with a history of colonic resection;
- Patients with known (or newly diagnosed) inflammatory bowel disease;
- Patients with a personal history of polyposis syndrome;
- Patients with suspected chronic stricture potentially precluding complete colonoscopy;
- Patients with diverticulitis or toxic megacolon;
- Patients with a history of radiation therapy to abdomen or pelvis;
- Patients with acute lower GI bleeding
- Patients who are currently enrolled in another clinical investigation in which the intervention might compromise the safety of the patient's participation in this study.
Trial locations and contacts
6 sites in 3 countries.
6 sites in 3 countries
Israel3 sites
Carmel Medical Center
Haifa
Elisha Medical Center
Haifa
The Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center
Tel Aviv
United States2 sites
North Shore Gasstroenterology Assoiates, P.C.
New York, New York
Southshore Gasstroenterology, P.C
New York, New York
About this study
Official title: Polyp Detection With The Peerscope System™: A Randomized Tandem Colonoscopy Study
The PeerScope System consists of Peer Medical camera heads, endoscopes, video system, light source and other ancillary equipment. The system is intended for endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation of the digestive tract. The PeerScope system model B is indicated for use for endoscopy and endoscopic treatment within the lower digestive tract (including the anus, rectum, sigmoid colon, colon and ileocecal valve) of adults patients.
Objective:To compare the additional diagnostic yield obtained by using the PeerScope System™ extended view vs. the diagnostic yield obtained by the Standard view colonoscopy.
In addition, time measurements including time to cecum, time for withdrawal and overall procedure time will be analyzed and reported for each group.
Read the detailed description
Design:
Patients who are scheduled for screening, surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy will be recruited to the study and randomized to one of two groups. Each enrolled subject will undergo two "back-to-back" procedures.
Subjects in Group A (study group) will undergo a Standard view colonoscopy followed immediately by a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy. Subjects in Group B (control group) will undergo a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy followed immediately by a Standard view colonoscopy.
Results from the two groups will be analyzed and compared, with primary outcome measures being detection rates for total polyps and detection rates for adenomas. Secondary outcome measures will include withdrawal time, total procedure time and characteristics of polyps detected, including size and histological results.
Subjects will be followed through a 24 hour and a 7 days telephone interview for analysis of unexpected adverse events. Clinical results will be analyzed using various statistical measures of significance.
Study Design:
Multi-center study with up to 196 patients. No. of Patients:
Up to 196 treated patients will be enrolled into the study. Primary Performance Endpoint:
- Standard view colonoscopy adenoma overall detection rate compared to the extended view overall adenoma detection rate using the PeerScope System™
- Standard view colonoscopy overall polyp detection rate compared to the extended view overall polyp detection rate using the PeerScope System™.
Safety Analysis:
Incidence of device-related and procedure-related serious adverse events. Incidence of complications using PeerScope System™
Known complications include:
- Perforation;
- Severe abdominal pain;
- Infection;
- Bleeding (other than expected minor bleeding due to therapeutic procedures e.g. polypectomy);
- Inducing inflammation of diverticulum
- Arrhythmia, bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia
- Death
Secondary Endpoints / Other Outcomes:
- Performance of therapeutic interventions, such as biopsies, polypectomies, APC etc.
- Procedure time. The following will be recorded: a. Time for intubation to the cecum. b. Time for withdrawal from the cecum to the anal verge. c. Total procedure time A stopwatch will be used for stopping the timing of the procedure for any polypectomy performed and then restarting once the polypectomy is completed, meaning that purely procedure time is measured
- Sedation dosage
- Patient satisfaction. Patient's pain at the end of the procedure will be recorded using VAS scale. Results of 24 hour telephone follow-up to assess for post-procedural patient satisfactory will be recorded on the CRF.
Inclusion criteria:
- Subject between the ages of 18 and 70
- The patient is undergoing colonoscopy for screening, for surveillance in follow-up of previous polypectomy or for diagnostic workup;
- Written informed consent must be available before enrollment in the trial
- For women with childbearing potential, adequate contraception
Exclusion criteria:
- Patients with a history of colonic resection;
- Patients with known (or newly diagnosed) inflammatory bowel disease;
- Patients with a personal history of polyposis syndrome;
- Patients with suspected chronic stricture potentially precluding complete colonoscopy;
- Patients with diverticulitis or toxic megacolon;
- Patients with a history of radiation therapy to abdomen or pelvis;
- Patients with acute lower GI bleeding
- Patients who are currently enrolled in another clinical investigation in which the intervention might compromise the safety of the patient's participation in this study.
- Conditions
- Colon Polyps and Adenomas, Colon Cancer
- Being tested
- Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy system
- Medical subject headings
- Colonic Polyps, Adenoma, Colonic Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy systemDevice
Also called Colonoscopy, Polyp detection, Screening
endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation of the digestive tract, endoscopy and endoscopic treatment within the lower digestive tract (including the anus, rectum, sigmoid colon, colon and ileocecal valve) of adults patients
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group A (study group) | Active comparator | Subjects in Group A (study group) will undergo a Standard view colonoscopy followed immediately by a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy. Receives: Device: Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy system |
| Group B (control group) | Active comparator | Group B (control group) will undergo a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy followed immediately by a Standard view colonoscopy. Receives: Device: Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy system |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
polyp detection rate
Sample size calculation is based on detecting a difference in the adenoma overall detection rate and the overall polyp detection rate using the PeerScope System™ extended view as compared to Standard view colonoscopy.
Total sample size will be 196 patients. Each patient will undergo the procedure by the two devices: PeerScope System™ extended view and Standard view colonoscopy. The rational for this sample size is based on detecting a rate difference of 20% between the study devices.
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Mar 2012 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2012
- Primary completionMar 2013
- Study completionJul 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colon Polyps and AdenomasStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 197 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- PeerMedical Ltd.
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ian Gralnek, Prof., Principal investigator, Rambam Health Care CampusPeter Siersema, Prof., Principal investigator, UMC UtrechtErwin Santo, Prof., Principal investigator, The Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterOri Segol, Dr., Principal investigator, Carmel Medical CenterAlan Sloyer, Dr., Principal investigator, North Shore Gastroenterology Associates, P.C.Jay S. Fenster, Dr., Principal investigator, Southshore Gasstroenterology, P.C
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01549535
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CD-1158
- Status last verified
- Nov 2016
- First submitted
- 13 Feb 2012
- Last updated
- 25 Nov 2016
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, Segol O, Melhem A, Suissa A, Santo E, Sloyer A, Fenster J, Moons LM, Dik VK, D'Agostino RB Jr, Rex DK. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Mar;15(3):353-60. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70020-8. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
PubMed 24560453
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Nov 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Polyp Detection With The Peerscope System™: A Randomized Tandem Colonoscopy Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01549535
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CD-1158
- Conditions
- Colon Polyps and Adenomas, Colon Cancer
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 197 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- PeerMedical Ltd.Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- Feb 2012
- Primary completion
- Mar 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Mar 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The PeerScope System consists of Peer Medical camera heads, endoscopes, video system, light source and other ancillary equipment. The system is intended for endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation of the digestive tract. The PeerScope system model B is indicated for use for endoscopy and endoscopic treatment within the lower digestive tract (including the anus, rectum, sigmoid colon, colon and ileocecal valve) of adults patients.
Objective:To compare the additional diagnostic yield obtained by using the PeerScope System™ extended view vs. the diagnostic yield obtained by the Standard view colonoscopy.
In addition, time measurements including time to cecum, time for withdrawal and overall procedure time will be analyzed and reported for each group.
Detailed description
Design:
Patients who are scheduled for screening, surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy will be recruited to the study and randomized to one of two groups. Each enrolled subject will undergo two "back-to-back" procedures.
Subjects in Group A (study group) will undergo a Standard view colonoscopy followed immediately by a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy. Subjects in Group B (control group) will undergo a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy followed immediately by a Standard view colonoscopy.
Results from the two groups will be analyzed and compared, with primary outcome measures being detection rates for total polyps and detection rates for adenomas. Secondary outcome measures will include withdrawal time, total procedure time and characteristics of polyps detected, including size and histological results.
Subjects will be followed through a 24 hour and a 7 days telephone interview for analysis of unexpected adverse events. Clinical results will be analyzed using various statistical measures of significance.
Study Design:
Multi-center study with up to 196 patients. No. of Patients:
Up to 196 treated patients will be enrolled into the study. Primary Performance Endpoint:
- Standard view colonoscopy adenoma overall detection rate compared to the extended view overall adenoma detection rate using the PeerScope System™
- Standard view colonoscopy overall polyp detection rate compared to the extended view overall polyp detection rate using the PeerScope System™.
Safety Analysis:
Incidence of device-related and procedure-related serious adverse events. Incidence of complications using PeerScope System™
Known complications include:
- Perforation;
- Severe abdominal pain;
- Infection;
- Bleeding (other than expected minor bleeding due to therapeutic procedures e.g. polypectomy);
- Inducing inflammation of diverticulum
- Arrhythmia, bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia
- Death
Secondary Endpoints / Other Outcomes:
- Performance of therapeutic interventions, such as biopsies, polypectomies, APC etc.
- Procedure time. The following will be recorded: a. Time for intubation to the cecum. b. Time for withdrawal from the cecum to the anal verge. c. Total procedure time A stopwatch will be used for stopping the timing of the procedure for any polypectomy performed and then restarting once the polypectomy is completed, meaning that purely procedure time is measured
- Sedation dosage
- Patient satisfaction. Patient's pain at the end of the procedure will be recorded using VAS scale. Results of 24 hour telephone follow-up to assess for post-procedural patient satisfactory will be recorded on the CRF.
Inclusion criteria:
- Subject between the ages of 18 and 70
- The patient is undergoing colonoscopy for screening, for surveillance in follow-up of previous polypectomy or for diagnostic workup;
- Written informed consent must be available before enrollment in the trial
- For women with childbearing potential, adequate contraception
Exclusion criteria:
- Patients with a history of colonic resection;
- Patients with known (or newly diagnosed) inflammatory bowel disease;
- Patients with a personal history of polyposis syndrome;
- Patients with suspected chronic stricture potentially precluding complete colonoscopy;
- Patients with diverticulitis or toxic megacolon;
- Patients with a history of radiation therapy to abdomen or pelvis;
- Patients with acute lower GI bleeding
- Patients who are currently enrolled in another clinical investigation in which the intervention might compromise the safety of the patient's participation in this study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group A (study group) | Active comparator | Device: Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy systemSubjects in Group A (study group) will undergo a Standard view colonoscopy followed immediately by a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy. |
| Group B (control group) | Active comparator | Device: Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy systemGroup B (control group) will undergo a PeerScope System™ extended view colonoscopy followed immediately by a Standard view colonoscopy. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Subject between the ages of 18 and 70
- The patient is undergoing colonoscopy for screening, for surveillance in follow-up of previous polypectomy or for diagnostic workup;
- Written informed consent must be available before enrollment in the trial
- For women with childbearing potential, adequate contraception
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Patients with a history of colonic resection;
- Patients with known (or newly diagnosed) inflammatory bowel disease;
- Patients with a personal history of polyposis syndrome;
- Patients with suspected chronic stricture potentially precluding complete colonoscopy;
- Patients with diverticulitis or toxic megacolon;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy systemAlso: Colonoscopy, Polyp detection, Screeningendoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation of the digestive tract, endoscopy and endoscopic treatment within the lower digestive tract (including the anus, rectum, sigmoid colon, colon and ileocecal valve) of adults patients | Device | Group A (study group), Group B (control group) |
Primary outcome
polyp detection rate
Time frame: 1 year
Sample size calculation is based on detecting a difference in the adenoma overall detection rate and the overall polyp detection rate using the PeerScope System™ extended view as compared to Standard view colonoscopy. Total sample size will be 196 patients. Each patient will undergo the procedure by the two devices: PeerScope System™ extended view and Standard view colonoscopy. The rational for this sample size is based on detecting a rate difference of 20% between the study devices.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Nov 2016.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 24560453Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, Segol O, Melhem A, Suissa A, Santo E, Sloyer A, Fenster J, Moons LM, Dik VK, D'Agostino RB Jr, Rex DK. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Mar;15(3):353-60. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70020-8. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
Related trials for Colon Polyps and Adenomas
Enrolling by invitation
Six Versus Twelve Month Index Follow-up After Large Colon Polyp Resection
Colon Polyp, Adenoma
Enrolling by invitation
Cold Snare Piecemeal Resection vs Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Colon Polyp, Colon Adenoma
RecruitingPhase 1
Testing for Safety and Colorectal Cancer Preventive Effects of ONC201
Colorectal Adenomatous Polyp, Colorectal Carcinoma
Recruiting
Performance and Safety of MiWEndo-assisted Colonoscopy (MiWEndo II)
Colorectal Cancer, Colorectal Polyp
RecruitingPhase 1/2
FOG-001 in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors
Cancer, Colorectal Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ian Gralnek, Prof. principal investigator
Rambam Health Care Campus
Peter Siersema, Prof. principal investigator
UMC Utrecht
Erwin Santo, Prof. principal investigator
The Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center
6 sites in 3 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Colonoscopy done with:PeerMedical System and Olympus/Pentax/Fuji colonoscopy system in people with Colon Polyps and Adenomas and Colon Cancer, run by PeerMedical Ltd. at 6 sites in 3 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Nov 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 6 sites in Israel, United States, Netherlands. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
polyp detection rate (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01549535, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Nov 2016.