Pancreas AdenocarcinomaNCT01774162
EUS-guided Fine Needle Biopsy With a New Core Histology Needle Versus Conventional Fine Needle Aspiration
A study testing Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology. and Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology in people with Pancreas Adenocarcinoma and Pancreas Neoplasms, run by University of Alberta at 2 sites in Canada.
Trial summary
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-established tool for the diagnosis and staging of many gastrointestinal conditions, including but not limited to, malignant and pre-malignant neoplasms of the pancreas, esophagus, rectum, and submucosal tumors developing along the gastrointestinal tract. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pancreas Adenocarcinoma, Pancreas Neoplasms, Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor
- What is being tested?
- Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology. and Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 57 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesCanada
- Study dates
- Sep 2011to Jun 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adult patient 18 years or older
- Able to read and write English
- Undergoing EUS for the evaluation of: i) pancreas mass ii) intra-abdominal mass iii) suspected submucosal tumor iv) esophageal cancer staging v) other lymph node assessment
Who cannot join
- No detectable lesion
- lesion inaccessible to EUS guided biopsy
- Lesion determined to not require tissue sampling
- Pancreas lesion is predominantly cystic
- coagulopathy with a known clotting factor deficiency or an uncorrectable INR > 1.5, PTT > 40, platelet count < 50,000
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
Canada2 sites
Royal Alexandria Hospital
Edmonton, Alberta, T5H 3V9
University of Alberta Hospital
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2X8
About this study
Official title: Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy With a New Core Histology Needle Versus Conventional Fine Needle Aspiration.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-established tool for the diagnosis and staging of many gastrointestinal conditions, including but not limited to, malignant and pre-malignant neoplasms of the pancreas, esophagus, rectum, and submucosal tumors developing along the gastrointestinal tract. EUS is the most sensitive test for the detection of focal lesions within the pancreas and is the most accurate method for diagnosing pancreas cancer. A biopsy method for tissue sampling via EUS called fine needle aspiration (FNA) was developed that enables a small needle to be passed into the lesion of interest under ultrasound guidance, obtaining cellular material for cytology. EUS-FNA is currently recommended for the diagnosis of cystic and solid mass lesions within and adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Yet in certain clinical circumstances, it is more desirable and sometimes necessary to obtain a core tissue biopsy for histology rather than the cellular material for cytology obtained with EUS-FNA. Furthermore, histology may generally increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA compared to cytology. It is with these aims in mind that a new type of needle, the fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) device was developed to enable core tissue sampling. Since a comparison of these to methods has yet to be made, the aim of this study is to perform a direct comparison of the sampling adequacy and diagnostic yield of the new EUS-FNB needle with the conventional EUS-FNA needle.
Read the detailed description
Background:
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-established tool for the diagnosis and staging of many gastrointestinal conditions, including but not limited to, malignant and pre-malignant neoplasms of the pancreas, esophagus, rectum, and submucosal tumors developing along the gastrointestinal tract. EUS provides endoscopic video imaging within the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract combined with ultrasound images via a transducer positioned at the tip of the endoscope. This diagnostic ability is enhanced by a biopsy method called fine needle aspiration (FNA). FNA via EUS (EUS-FNA) enables a small needle to be passed into a lesion of interest under ultrasound guidance, obtaining cellular material for cytology analysis. EUS-FNA is currently recommended for the confirmation of locally advanced pancreas adenocarcinoma, for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumors as well as autoimmune pancreatitis, for the characterization of submucosal tumors of the GI tract, and for the determination of malignant lymph node status in the staging of various cancers.
While EUS-FNA has an impressive technical success rate between 90-95%, the diagnostic accuracy is less robust for mass lesions, and in particular for pancreatic masses, for which the sensitivity and specificity is 75% and 100% respectively, translating into a negative predictive value of only 72%. And in the setting of chronic pancreatitis, a condition that is itself a major risk factor for the development of cancer and in which focal, non-malignant nodules often develop that may mimic tumors, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA may only be 54-74%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is of particular importance for pancreas adenocarcinoma and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors because the 5-year survival rates are only 5% and 32% respectively. Thus, it is crucial that patients found to have a focal mass lesion have a reliable test that effectively excludes malignancy. Currently, EUS-FNA does not have the necessary negative predictive value in order to do so because the sensitivity of the test is too low. This means that a positive result on FNA confirms malignancy but that a negative result is unable to exclude it with confidence. This conundrum tends to leave the patient in the unfortunate position of having to often return for multiple investigations to perform repeat EUS-FNA when the clinical suspicion for a mass lesion remains high but the cytology result is thought to be falsely negative.
In order to overcome the current limitations of EUS-FNA cytology, the new EchoTip® ProCore™ fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle was developed in order obtain core tissue samples for both histology and cytology. This is important because histology is expected to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided biopsy compared to cytology. In addition, in certain clinical circumstances it is more desirable and sometimes necessary to obtain a core tissue biopsy for histology rather than cellular material for cytology obtained with EUS-FNA.
In addition to the assessment of mass lesions in the pancreas, there are several other clinical areas in which the acquisition of core tissue samples for histology may prove superior to cytology from conventional EUS-FNA. For instance, EUS is part of the standard-of-care for the staging of esophageal cancer and histology may improve the sensitivity of EUS-biopsies for the determination of lymph node metastases. Also, although EUS is the preferred method for the work-up of submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract, the value of EUS-FNA for differentiating the various subtypes of lesions is often limited, typically because FNA provides insufficient cellular material to reliably do so. Finally, it is clear that cytology from EUS-FNA is inadequate for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and that a core biopsy sample for histology is needed. We expect the new EchoTip® ProCore™ FNB needle to potentially prove superior to FNA in all of these areas.
Study Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine if the new EchoTip® ProCore™ needle (FNB for histology) is superior to the current standard EchoTip® Ultra™ needle (FNA for cytology) for the diagnosis of focal, solid lesions for which biopsy sampling during EUS is clinically indicated. In particular, the objective is to compare the sampling adequacy of FNB with that of FNA for solid mass lesions within the pancreas, for submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract and for the malignant status of lymph nodes as part of esophageal cancer staging. The sampling adequacy will be determined according to the ability of the pathologist to provide a definitive diagnostic interpretation based on the sample provided.
Study Design This is a prospective, comparative trial examining the use of the new EchoTip® ProCore™ FNB needle with the existing EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle stratified by lesion type (solid pancreas lesion, intra-abdominal mass, submucosal tumor, suspected metastatic lymph node). Both the FNB and FNA needle will be used in each lesion with randomization to needle type for first pass, alternating subsequent passes; thus each lesion will serve as its own internal control.
Methods Consecutive patients referred for EUS assessment of a solid lesion requiring FNA will be approached regarding study enrollment. Only those patients for whom EUS-FNA is clinically necessary will be selected. Consenting patients will undergo the standard EUS examination as indicated based on their lesion subtype, which will not differ from the EUS exam they would receive if they choose to not participate. Participating patients who have a lesion visualized during EUS that is technically amenable to FNA will then have their lesion biopsied by both FNB and FNA needles. The choice of needle size (19g or 22g) will be left to the clinical discretion of the endoscopist. However, the same needle size must be used for both the FNB and FNA needles.
Patients will be randomized to the type of needle used for the first pass into the lesion, with subsequent passes alternating between needle types. For the EchoTip® ProCore™ FNB needle, if a good sample is obtained (as assessed by the endoscopist performing the EUS examination) with the first pass, no further passes will be made. If the sample obtained with the first pass is considered likely insufficient or if no tissue was acquired, a second pass will then be performed. Regardless of what is obtained after the second needle pass, no additional passes will be made using the FNB. The core tissue obtained by the FNB needle will be placed in formalin and sent for histology analysis.
For the conventional EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle, a minimum of 2 passes will be performed. In cases in which a cytotechnologist is present, no feedback will be given to the endoscopist until after the 2nd pass. In cases where no cytotechnologist is present, up to 4 separate passes will be made, or fewer if the endoscopist is satisfied with the sample obtained. The sample obtained with the FNA needle will be placed on slides and also in cytology media (according to our standard clinical protocols).
The histology and cytology specimens will be sent to the pathology department at each site where the interpretation of samples will be done in the usual fashion as per standard clinical care. The pathologist will first describe the biopsy specimen in terms of the "adequacy of the sample for pathologist interpretation" - i.e. the ability of the pathologist to provide a definitive diagnostic interpretation based on the sample provided. Next, the pathologist will provide the diagnostic interpretation itself.
- Being tested
- Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology., Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology
- Keywords
- Endoscopic Ultrasound, Fine needle aspiration, Fine needle biopsy, ProCore
- Medical subject headings
- Pancreatic Neoplasms, Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, Lymphoma
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology.Device
Also called EchoTip® ProCore™ ultrasound FNB needle, Fine needle biopsy
EUS-guided biopsy of each solid lesion using the EchoTip® ProCore™ ultrasound FNB needle for histology.
Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytologyDevice
Also called EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle, Fine needle aspiration
EUS-guided biopsy of each solid lesion using the EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle for cytology.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| FNA for cytology | Active comparator | Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology Receives: Device: Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology |
| FNB core biopsy for histology | Experimental | Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology. Receives: Device: Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Sampling Adequacy
The ability of the pathologist to provide a definitive diagnostic interpretation (definitely positive, definitely negative or indeterminate reading) based on the tissue provided for a given lesion of interest.
Measured: at time of procedure
Secondary outcomes (5)
Sampling adequacy by lesion subtype
The sampling adequacy as defined in the primary outcome measure stratified by lesion subtype (pancreas, other intra-abdominal mass, liver mass, submucosal tumor, lymph node)
Measured: at time of procedure
Diagnostic yield
The diagnosis obtained by FNA or FNB needle compared to the final diagnosis made by either FNA or FNB needle, subsequent surgery, or expert consensus at the end of the data collection period
Measured: at time of procedure
Diagnostic yield by lesion subtype
The diagnosis obtained by the FNA or FNB needle compared to the final diagnosis obtained by either FNA or FNB needle, subsequent surgery or expert consensus regarding clinical diagnosis at the end of the data collection period.
Measured: at time of procedure
Diagnostic agreement between FNA and FNB needles
The measure of agreement between diagnoses obtained by FNA and FNB needles for assessment of metastatic lymph nodes
Measured: at time of procedure
Adverse events
Any adverse events including bleeding, fever, infection, pancreatitis, EUS-induced perforation, and sedation related complications occurring after both FNA and FNB biopsies.
Measured: at time of procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jan 2013 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2011
- Primary completionJun 2012
- Study completionJun 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (31)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pancreas AdenocarcinomaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of AlbertaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 57 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alberta
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Christopher Teshima, University of Alberta
- Investigators
- Christopher W Teshima, MD,FRCPC, Principal investigator, University of Alberta
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01774162
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Pro00022017
- Status last verified
- Jan 2013
- First submitted
- 18 Jan 2013
- Last updated
- 23 Jan 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Saftoiu A, Vilmann P. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. J Clin Ultrasound. 2009 Jan;37(1):1-17. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20534.
PubMed 18932265Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992 Mar-Apr;38(2):172-3. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(92)70385-x. No abstract available.
PubMed 1568614Maluf-Filho F, Dotti CM, Halwan B, Queiros AF, Kupski C, Chaves DM, Nakao FS, Kumar A. An evidence-based consensus statement on the role and application of endosonography in clinical practice. Endoscopy. 2009 Nov;41(11):979-87. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215192. Epub 2009 Oct 28.
PubMed 19866396Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997 Apr;112(4):1087-95. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70164-1.
PubMed 9097990Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM. Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Apr;63(4):622-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.05.024.
PubMed 16564863Barawi M, Gottlieb K, Cunha B, Portis M, Gress F. A prospective evaluation of the incidence of bacteremia associated with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Feb;53(2):189-92. doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.108966.
PubMed 11174290Levy MJ, Norton ID, Wiersema MJ, Schwartz DA, Clain JE, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wilson WR, Zinsmeister AR, Jondal ML. Prospective risk assessment of bacteremia and other infectious complications in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 May;57(6):672-8. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.204.
PubMed 12709695Janssen J, Konig K, Knop-Hammad V, Johanns W, Greiner L. Frequency of bacteremia after linear EUS of the upper GI tract with and without FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Mar;59(3):339-44. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02707-x.
PubMed 14997128Smith EH. Complications of percutaneous abdominal fine-needle biopsy. Review. Radiology. 1991 Jan;178(1):253-8. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984314.
PubMed 1984314Micames C, Jowell PS, White R, Paulson E, Nelson R, Morse M, Hurwitz H, Pappas T, Tyler D, McGrath K. Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Nov;58(5):690-5. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02009-1.
PubMed 14595302Hirooka Y, Goto H, Itoh A, Hashimoto S, Niwa K, Ishikawa H, Okada N, Itoh T, Kawashima H. Case of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor in which endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy caused dissemination. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Nov;18(11):1323-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2003.03040.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 14535994Paquin SC, Gariepy G, Lepanto L, Bourdages R, Raymond G, Sahai AV. A first report of tumor seeding because of EUS-guided FNA of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Apr;61(4):610-1. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(05)00082-9. No abstract available.
PubMed 15812422LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT, McGrath K, Imperiale T, Tao LC, Vallery S, DeWitt J, Sherman S, Collins E. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):475-81. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02863-3.
PubMed 15044881Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Jun;98(6):1289-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07472.x.
PubMed 12818271Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Feb;51(2):184-90. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(00)70416-0.
PubMed 10650262
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Jan 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy With a New Core Histology Needle Versus Conventional Fine Needle Aspiration.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01774162
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Pro00022017
- Keywords
- Endoscopic Ultrasound, Fine needle aspiration, Fine needle biopsy, ProCore
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 57 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AlbertaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2011
- Primary completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Jan 2013 (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.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-established tool for the diagnosis and staging of many gastrointestinal conditions, including but not limited to, malignant and pre-malignant neoplasms of the pancreas, esophagus, rectum, and submucosal tumors developing along the gastrointestinal tract. EUS is the most sensitive test for the detection of focal lesions within the pancreas and is the most accurate method for diagnosing pancreas cancer. A biopsy method for tissue sampling via EUS called fine needle aspiration (FNA) was developed that enables a small needle to be passed into the lesion of interest under ultrasound guidance, obtaining cellular material for cytology. EUS-FNA is currently recommended for the diagnosis of cystic and solid mass lesions within and adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Yet in certain clinical circumstances, it is more desirable and sometimes necessary to obtain a core tissue biopsy for histology rather than the cellular material for cytology obtained with EUS-FNA. Furthermore, histology may generally increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA compared to cytology. It is with these aims in mind that a new type of needle, the fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) device was developed to enable core tissue sampling. Since a comparison of these to methods has yet to be made, the aim of this study is to perform a direct comparison of the sampling adequacy and diagnostic yield of the new EUS-FNB needle with the conventional EUS-FNA needle.
Detailed description
Background:
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a well-established tool for the diagnosis and staging of many gastrointestinal conditions, including but not limited to, malignant and pre-malignant neoplasms of the pancreas, esophagus, rectum, and submucosal tumors developing along the gastrointestinal tract. EUS provides endoscopic video imaging within the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract combined with ultrasound images via a transducer positioned at the tip of the endoscope. This diagnostic ability is enhanced by a biopsy method called fine needle aspiration (FNA). FNA via EUS (EUS-FNA) enables a small needle to be passed into a lesion of interest under ultrasound guidance, obtaining cellular material for cytology analysis. EUS-FNA is currently recommended for the confirmation of locally advanced pancreas adenocarcinoma, for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms and neuroendocrine tumors as well as autoimmune pancreatitis, for the characterization of submucosal tumors of the GI tract, and for the determination of malignant lymph node status in the staging of various cancers.
While EUS-FNA has an impressive technical success rate between 90-95%, the diagnostic accuracy is less robust for mass lesions, and in particular for pancreatic masses, for which the sensitivity and specificity is 75% and 100% respectively, translating into a negative predictive value of only 72%. And in the setting of chronic pancreatitis, a condition that is itself a major risk factor for the development of cancer and in which focal, non-malignant nodules often develop that may mimic tumors, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA may only be 54-74%. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA is of particular importance for pancreas adenocarcinoma and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors because the 5-year survival rates are only 5% and 32% respectively. Thus, it is crucial that patients found to have a focal mass lesion have a reliable test that effectively excludes malignancy. Currently, EUS-FNA does not have the necessary negative predictive value in order to do so because the sensitivity of the test is too low. This means that a positive result on FNA confirms malignancy but that a negative result is unable to exclude it with confidence. This conundrum tends to leave the patient in the unfortunate position of having to often return for multiple investigations to perform repeat EUS-FNA when the clinical suspicion for a mass lesion remains high but the cytology result is thought to be falsely negative.
In order to overcome the current limitations of EUS-FNA cytology, the new EchoTip® ProCore™ fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle was developed in order obtain core tissue samples for both histology and cytology. This is important because histology is expected to increase the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided biopsy compared to cytology. In addition, in certain clinical circumstances it is more desirable and sometimes necessary to obtain a core tissue biopsy for histology rather than cellular material for cytology obtained with EUS-FNA.
In addition to the assessment of mass lesions in the pancreas, there are several other clinical areas in which the acquisition of core tissue samples for histology may prove superior to cytology from conventional EUS-FNA. For instance, EUS is part of the standard-of-care for the staging of esophageal cancer and histology may improve the sensitivity of EUS-biopsies for the determination of lymph node metastases. Also, although EUS is the preferred method for the work-up of submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract, the value of EUS-FNA for differentiating the various subtypes of lesions is often limited, typically because FNA provides insufficient cellular material to reliably do so. Finally, it is clear that cytology from EUS-FNA is inadequate for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and that a core biopsy sample for histology is needed. We expect the new EchoTip® ProCore™ FNB needle to potentially prove superior to FNA in all of these areas.
Study Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine if the new EchoTip® ProCore™ needle (FNB for histology) is superior to the current standard EchoTip® Ultra™ needle (FNA for cytology) for the diagnosis of focal, solid lesions for which biopsy sampling during EUS is clinically indicated. In particular, the objective is to compare the sampling adequacy of FNB with that of FNA for solid mass lesions within the pancreas, for submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract and for the malignant status of lymph nodes as part of esophageal cancer staging. The sampling adequacy will be determined according to the ability of the pathologist to provide a definitive diagnostic interpretation based on the sample provided.
Study Design This is a prospective, comparative trial examining the use of the new EchoTip® ProCore™ FNB needle with the existing EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle stratified by lesion type (solid pancreas lesion, intra-abdominal mass, submucosal tumor, suspected metastatic lymph node). Both the FNB and FNA needle will be used in each lesion with randomization to needle type for first pass, alternating subsequent passes; thus each lesion will serve as its own internal control.
Methods Consecutive patients referred for EUS assessment of a solid lesion requiring FNA will be approached regarding study enrollment. Only those patients for whom EUS-FNA is clinically necessary will be selected. Consenting patients will undergo the standard EUS examination as indicated based on their lesion subtype, which will not differ from the EUS exam they would receive if they choose to not participate. Participating patients who have a lesion visualized during EUS that is technically amenable to FNA will then have their lesion biopsied by both FNB and FNA needles. The choice of needle size (19g or 22g) will be left to the clinical discretion of the endoscopist. However, the same needle size must be used for both the FNB and FNA needles.
Patients will be randomized to the type of needle used for the first pass into the lesion, with subsequent passes alternating between needle types. For the EchoTip® ProCore™ FNB needle, if a good sample is obtained (as assessed by the endoscopist performing the EUS examination) with the first pass, no further passes will be made. If the sample obtained with the first pass is considered likely insufficient or if no tissue was acquired, a second pass will then be performed. Regardless of what is obtained after the second needle pass, no additional passes will be made using the FNB. The core tissue obtained by the FNB needle will be placed in formalin and sent for histology analysis.
For the conventional EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle, a minimum of 2 passes will be performed. In cases in which a cytotechnologist is present, no feedback will be given to the endoscopist until after the 2nd pass. In cases where no cytotechnologist is present, up to 4 separate passes will be made, or fewer if the endoscopist is satisfied with the sample obtained. The sample obtained with the FNA needle will be placed on slides and also in cytology media (according to our standard clinical protocols).
The histology and cytology specimens will be sent to the pathology department at each site where the interpretation of samples will be done in the usual fashion as per standard clinical care. The pathologist will first describe the biopsy specimen in terms of the "adequacy of the sample for pathologist interpretation" - i.e. the ability of the pathologist to provide a definitive diagnostic interpretation based on the sample provided. Next, the pathologist will provide the diagnostic interpretation itself.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| FNA for cytology | Active comparator | Device: Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytologyFine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology |
| FNB core biopsy for histology | Experimental | Device: Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology.Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Adult patient 18 years or older
- Able to read and write English
- Undergoing EUS for the evaluation of: i) pancreas mass ii) intra-abdominal mass iii) suspected submucosal tumor iv) esophageal cancer staging v) other lymph node assessment
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- No detectable lesion
- lesion inaccessible to EUS guided biopsy
- Lesion determined to not require tissue sampling
- Pancreas lesion is predominantly cystic
- coagulopathy with a known clotting factor deficiency or an uncorrectable INR > 1.5, PTT > 40, platelet count < 50,000
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology.Also: EchoTip® ProCore™ ultrasound FNB needle, Fine needle biopsyEUS-guided biopsy of each solid lesion using the EchoTip® ProCore™ ultrasound FNB needle for histology. | Device | FNB core biopsy for histology |
| Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytologyAlso: EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle, Fine needle aspirationEUS-guided biopsy of each solid lesion using the EchoTip® Ultra™ FNA needle for cytology. | Device | FNA for cytology |
Primary outcome
Sampling Adequacy
Time frame: at time of procedure
The ability of the pathologist to provide a definitive diagnostic interpretation (definitely positive, definitely negative or indeterminate reading) based on the tissue provided for a given lesion of interest.
5 secondary outcomes
Sampling adequacy by lesion subtype
Time frame: at time of procedure
Diagnostic yield
Time frame: at time of procedure
Diagnostic yield by lesion subtype
Time frame: at time of procedure
Diagnostic agreement between FNA and FNB needles
Time frame: at time of procedure
Adverse events
Time frame: at time of procedure
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 23 Jan 2013.
- Background: PubMed 18932265Saftoiu A, Vilmann P. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. J Clin Ultrasound. 2009 Jan;37(1):1-17. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20534.
- Background: PubMed 1568614Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, Hancke S. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992 Mar-Apr;38(2):172-3. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(92)70385-x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 19866396Maluf-Filho F, Dotti CM, Halwan B, Queiros AF, Kupski C, Chaves DM, Nakao FS, Kumar A. An evidence-based consensus statement on the role and application of endosonography in clinical practice. Endoscopy. 2009 Nov;41(11):979-87. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215192. Epub 2009 Oct 28.
- Background: PubMed 9097990Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997 Apr;112(4):1087-95. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70164-1.
- Background: PubMed 16564863Eloubeidi MA, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM. Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Apr;63(4):622-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.05.024.
- Background: PubMed 11174290Barawi M, Gottlieb K, Cunha B, Portis M, Gress F. A prospective evaluation of the incidence of bacteremia associated with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Feb;53(2):189-92. doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.108966.
- Background: PubMed 12709695Levy MJ, Norton ID, Wiersema MJ, Schwartz DA, Clain JE, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Wilson WR, Zinsmeister AR, Jondal ML. Prospective risk assessment of bacteremia and other infectious complications in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 May;57(6):672-8. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.204.
- Background: PubMed 14997128Janssen J, Konig K, Knop-Hammad V, Johanns W, Greiner L. Frequency of bacteremia after linear EUS of the upper GI tract with and without FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Mar;59(3):339-44. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02707-x.
- Background: PubMed 1984314Smith EH. Complications of percutaneous abdominal fine-needle biopsy. Review. Radiology. 1991 Jan;178(1):253-8. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984314.
- Background: PubMed 14595302Micames C, Jowell PS, White R, Paulson E, Nelson R, Morse M, Hurwitz H, Pappas T, Tyler D, McGrath K. Lower frequency of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA vs. percutaneous FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Nov;58(5):690-5. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02009-1.
- Background: PubMed 14535994Hirooka Y, Goto H, Itoh A, Hashimoto S, Niwa K, Ishikawa H, Okada N, Itoh T, Kawashima H. Case of intraductal papillary mucinous tumor in which endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy caused dissemination. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Nov;18(11):1323-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2003.03040.x. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 15812422Paquin SC, Gariepy G, Lepanto L, Bourdages R, Raymond G, Sahai AV. A first report of tumor seeding because of EUS-guided FNA of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Apr;61(4):610-1. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(05)00082-9. No abstract available.
Related trials for Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
RecruitingPhase 1/2
A Study of GKL-006 Injection in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer, Ductal Adenocarcinoma of Pancreas
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Hypofractionated Stereotactic Body Radiation & Fluorouracil or Capecitabine for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Recurrent Pancreatic Carcinoma
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study of LY4337713 in Participants With FAP-Positive Solid Tumors
Ovarian Neoplasms, Breast Neoplasms
RecruitingObservational study
Collecting Blood Samples From Patients With and Without Cancer to Evaluate Tests for Early Cancer Detection
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study of Navlimetostat (BMS-986504) Monotherapy and in Combination With Other Agents in Participants With Advanced and/or Metastatic Solid Tumors With Homozygous MTAP Deletion (MountainTAP-5)
Solid Tumors
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.
Christopher W Teshima, MD,FRCPC principal investigator
University of Alberta
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Fine needle biopsy using ProCore needle for histology. and Fine needle aspiration using conventional FNA for cytology in people with Pancreas Adenocarcinoma and Pancreas Neoplasms, run by University of Alberta at 2 sites in Canada.
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 3 inclusion and 5 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 23 Jan 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in Canada. 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.
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?
Sampling Adequacy (time frame: at time of procedure). 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 NCT01774162, which also lists 31 linked publications.
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 23 Jan 2013.