Pancreas NeoplasmsNCT02327065
Prospective Multi-center, Single Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial of EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA on Solid Occupying Lesion
A study testing EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra) and EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore) in people with Pancreas Neoplasms and Lymphatic Metastasis, run by Huazhong University of Science and Technology at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnosis accuracy of FNA and FNB biopsy on pancreatic, retroperitoneal, mediastinum and pelvic cavity solid occupying lesions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pancreas Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Neoplasm Metastases
- What is being tested?
- EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra) and EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 408 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- Dec 2014to May 2016
- 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
- All patients referred for EUS tissue sampling who provide informed consent
Who cannot join
- Coagulopathy which is not corrected
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Tongji hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Wuhan, Hubei, 430030
Bin Cheng, Doctor, 86-027-8366-3333, bcheng@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn
Jinlin Wang, Doctor, 86-027-8366-3333, 417661238@qq.com
About this study
Official title: Prospective Multi-center, Single Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial of EUS-FNB(Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Biopsy ) and EUS-FNA(Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration ) on Solid Occupying Lesion
The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnosis accuracy of FNA and FNB biopsy on pancreatic, retroperitoneal, mediastinum and pelvic cavity solid occupying lesions.
Read the detailed description
The study subjects are divided into two groups: the EUS-FNA(22G EchoTip Ultra needles) Group and EUS-FNB group(22G EchoTip ProCore needles).Take the malignant occupying lesion diagnosis accuracy as the research major indicator to compare the EUS-FNB group and EUS-FNA group as optimal efficiency test. Take the class I error a=0.05, class II error β=0.15, power=0.85. Suppose the malignancy diagnosis accuracy is 80%, while that of FNB is 93%. The two trial groups be randomly allocated in 1:1, suppose the malignancy cases take 70% of the whole case, and considering the shedding factors , extra 20% cases should be included. So the estimated cases numbers is 204 cases for EUS-FNB group and 204 cases for EUS-FNA group, totally 408 cases in this trial.
Done by professional statistical people with randomized block grouping method and SAS 9.2 statistical software to generate randomized serial number(001-408)for the two groups in 1:1 manner. The serial numbers are the randomized grouping numbers for the trial patients, block capacity is 8, totally 51 randomized block. The randomized grouping will be generated in duplicate copies and sealed. One copy send to trial centers for patient allocating, and the another copy be saved by the trial applicant unit. Every trail centers will be responsible for the screening of qualified patients, rank them in visit time to get the randomized grouping number so as to determine them goes to the EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB.The research people and patients in all trial centers should not know the the randomized grouping number and relevant groups. The group name will be sealed under scratch card. Every trial patients will get a unique randomized number, and it will not change through out the whole trial.
Use the inclusion and exclusion criteria to observe the patients and do relative inspections, and confirm if the patients qualified or not to the trial. Record the result of last time test before the treatment. Although it is better to get the informed consent before doing all kinds of observation and tests, if for some reason, the medical imaging examination has completed, as long as the imaging examination was done within 3 weeks before the needle biopsy, it can still be collect as baseline data (imaging examination can be done at other hospitals, but the trial center should issue a new evaluation report 1 week before the patient join the trial group); other lab test items done at 2 weeks before the needle biopsy can still be collect as baseline data for pre-research use, but these tests should be done at the trail center hospital so as to guarantee the data trace ability.
The investigators will do the needle passes for 4 times for all of them:the 1-2 needle passes with Slow-Pull and the 3-4 needle passes with Vacuum suction.If no core tissues obtained or the operator/onsite pathologist determine insufficient specimen after the operations above, then remedy procedures will be done, the operator use proper puncture method to continue the remedy biopsy.After the first round of needle biopsy, if the trial patient cannot be diagnosed, by getting the agreement of the patient, the patient will be cross-over to another trial group and do needle biopsy again on the same lesion 1 week later with the method mentioned above.Without knowing the needle biopsy type, the cytologist and pathologist evaluate the specimen quality and make diagnosis. Every specimen will be independently evaluated and diagnosed by 2 experts. If the 2 experts have different judgments, then these two experts discuss together and make the final diagnose discussion. If the same sample has 2 or more cytology smear slides, than take the highest score slide as the result.Follow up (outpatient follow up or telephone follow up) the patients at 1 week, 12 weeks and 36 weeks after the needle biopsy and collect the patients clinical data and confirm their final diagnosis.
During the trial, if severe adverse event occurs, the trialed center must take immediate actions necessary to guarantee the trialed patients' safety. Once severe adverse event occurs, the researchers should inform the trial applicant and the trail center's ethics committee within 24 hours after the researchers gets to know the adverse event. And the researchers should also fax the report to State Food and Drug Administration of China and the local provincial food and drug administration. After receiving the report, the applicant should inform other clinical trial centers within 24 hours. All the severe adverse events should be filed at group leader medical center and other trial centers.
CRF(Case Report Form ) will be filled by the researchers, every involved patient must have the CRF(Case Report Form ) filled. This will be audited by clinical monitor and handed over to data administrator to input and manage data, the first copy will be kept by the applicant, the second copy will go to the trial center, and the third copy will be kept by the trail researchers.The data input and management will be taken care by specially assigned person. In order to guarantee the data accuracy, data input will be done twice by two independent data administrators, by computerized and manual verifying, hand over the data to statistical experts to do blind check and statistic analyzing.For the questions and doubts within the case report form, the data administrator make DRQ and via the clinical monitor asking the researchers. The researchers will answer and feed back as soon as possible. According to the researchers answer, data administrator will do the data modifying, confirming or inputting, and when necessary send out DRQ again.After blind audition and confirming that the established data base is correct, major researchers, applicant and the statistic analyzing people lock the data. The locked data will not be changed, and the data base will be handed over to statistical analyzer to do the statistic analyze according to the statistic analyzing plan. Problems found after data locking can be modified during the statistic analyzing procedure.This will be done by specialized statistic analyzing people according to the predetermined statistic analyzing plan. The statistic analyze will be carried out according to intention principle confirmed full analysis set and per-protocol set principle. After completing the statistic analyzing, the statistic analyzer issue the statistic analysis report and send this to major researchers to write the study report.
Statistic analyzing plan:⑴ General principle:① all the statistic tests are use the two-tailed-test method, P<0.05 will be thought as the tested difference is statistical significance. ② the quantitative indicator description will calculate the Mean and Standard deviation. The classification indicator description will describe the cases and percentage of all types of cases. ⑵ Statistic analyzing method:① for the measurement data, compare it with the baseline value at selection period, use paired t-test or symbol rank sum test to compare with the before-after-difference within the group.② for the counting data, use x2 test to compare the groups. ⑶ Shedding analysis:Comparison of groups'total shedding rates and the shedding rates caused by adverse events will use x2 test or Fisher's exact test method. ⑷ The baseline value's equilibrium analysis: Use group t test or x2 test to compare the demography info and vital signs, disease history, and basic treatment and other indicators of baseline value, so as to measure the balance of the groups. The baseline evaluation will be done on FAS(full analysis set) and PPs(per-protocol set). ⑸ Effectiveness analysis:The major indicator of effectiveness analysis is the diagnostic accuracy on malignant disease, and the indicators of second effectiveness include the percentage of Grade A specimen and complications rate etc. while the two groups rate and the Youden index comparison will use approximate normal Z test or use central effect x2 test.(6) Safety analysis:Use x2 test or Fisher's exact test to compare the adverse event/adverse reaction (include biopsy complications) rates between the groups. And use table to describe the adverse events during this trial project; the lab test results before and after the trial, the normal/abnormal changing condition and the relationship with this trial research when abnormal changes happened.
- Conditions
- Pancreas Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Neoplasm Metastases, Unknown Primary Neoplasm Metastasis
- Being tested
- EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra), EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore)
- Keywords
- EUS, FNA, FNB
- Medical subject headings
- Pancreatic Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Neoplasm Metastasis, Neoplasms, Unknown Primary
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra)Device
Also called EchoTip Ultra needle
FNA,Fine needle aspiration
EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore)Device
Also called EchoTip ProCore needle
FNB,Fine needle biopsy
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| EUS-FNA Group | Active comparator | FNA,Fine needle aspiration Receives: Device: EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra) |
| EUS-FNB Group | Active comparator | FNB,Fine needle biopsy Receives: Device: EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Diagnostic Yield on malignancy
The investigators' primary outcome measure is to compare the the diagnostic yield (%) on malignancy of EUS-FNA to EUS-FNB
Measured: 18 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Blood contamination and cellularity in specimens obtained by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB with Slow-pull or suction
The amount of blood contamination and cellularity at each sample according to EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB with slow-pull or suction will be measured.
Measured: 18 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Dec 2014 (estimated)
- Study startDec 2014
- Primary completionAug 2015 (estimated)
- Study completionMay 2016 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pancreas NeoplasmsStudies 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 408 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Bin Cheng, Huazhong University of Science and Technology
- Investigators
- Bin Cheng, Doctor, Principal investigator, Tongji Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02327065
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2014tj1212
- Status last verified
- Dec 2014
- First submitted
- 11 Dec 2014
- Last updated
- 30 Dec 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
DeWitt J, Jowell P, Leblanc J, McHenry L, McGreevy K, Cramer H, Volmar K, Sherman S, Gress F. EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic metastases: a multicenter experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 May;61(6):689-96. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(05)00287-7.
PubMed 15855973Puli SR, Batapati Krishna Reddy J, Bechtold ML, Ibdah JA, Antillon D, Singh S, Olyaee M, Antillon MR. Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2008 May 21;14(19):3028-37. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.3028.
PubMed 18494054Puri R, Vilmann P, Sud R, Kumar M, Taneja S, Verma K, Kaushik N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of suspected tuberculosis in patients with isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Endoscopy. 2010 Jun;42(6):462-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1244133. Epub 2010 Apr 29.
PubMed 20432206Wiersema 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 9097990Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, Ikenberry SO, Lehman GA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Mar;45(3):243-50. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70266-9.
PubMed 9087830Affolter KE, Schmidt RL, Matynia AP, Adler DG, Factor RE. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Apr;58(4):1026-34. doi: 10.1007/s10620-012-2439-2. Epub 2012 Oct 21.
PubMed 23086117Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, Abdulkader I, Monges G, Costamagna G, Arcidiacono P, Biermann K, Rindi G, Bories E, Dogloni C, Bruno M, Dominguez-Munoz JE. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1189-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.053. Epub 2011 Mar 21.
PubMed 21420083Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH, Kim KM, Shin JU, Lee JK, Lee KT, Jang KT. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 May;77(5):745-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.009. Epub 2013 Feb 21.
PubMed 23433878Layfield LJ, Schmidt RL, Hirschowitz SL, Olson MT, Ali SZ, Dodd LL. Significance of the diagnostic categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014 Apr;42(4):292-6. doi: 10.1002/dc.23078. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
PubMed 24578254Cheng B, Zhang Y, Chen Q, Sun B, Deng Z, Shan H, Dou L, Wang J, Li Y, Yang X, Jiang T, Xu G, Wang G. Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1314-1321. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.07.010. Epub 2017 Jul 19.
PubMed 28733257Wang J, Wu X, Yin P, Guo Q, Hou W, Li Y, Wang Y, Cheng B. Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016 Apr 12;17:198. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1316-2.
PubMed 27071386
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Dec 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Multi-center, Single Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial of EUS-FNB(Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Biopsy ) and EUS-FNA(Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration ) on Solid Occupying Lesion
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02327065
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2014tj1212
- Conditions
- Pancreas Neoplasms, Lymphatic Metastasis, Neoplasm Metastases, Unknown Primary Neoplasm Metastasis
- Keywords
- EUS, FNA, FNB
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 408 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Dec 2014
- Primary completion
- Aug 2015 (estimated)
- Study completion
- May 2016 (estimated)
- First posted
- 30 Dec 2014 (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 purpose of this study is to compare the diagnosis accuracy of FNA and FNB biopsy on pancreatic, retroperitoneal, mediastinum and pelvic cavity solid occupying lesions.
Detailed description
The study subjects are divided into two groups: the EUS-FNA(22G EchoTip Ultra needles) Group and EUS-FNB group(22G EchoTip ProCore needles).Take the malignant occupying lesion diagnosis accuracy as the research major indicator to compare the EUS-FNB group and EUS-FNA group as optimal efficiency test. Take the class I error a=0.05, class II error β=0.15, power=0.85. Suppose the malignancy diagnosis accuracy is 80%, while that of FNB is 93%. The two trial groups be randomly allocated in 1:1, suppose the malignancy cases take 70% of the whole case, and considering the shedding factors , extra 20% cases should be included. So the estimated cases numbers is 204 cases for EUS-FNB group and 204 cases for EUS-FNA group, totally 408 cases in this trial.
Done by professional statistical people with randomized block grouping method and SAS 9.2 statistical software to generate randomized serial number(001-408)for the two groups in 1:1 manner. The serial numbers are the randomized grouping numbers for the trial patients, block capacity is 8, totally 51 randomized block. The randomized grouping will be generated in duplicate copies and sealed. One copy send to trial centers for patient allocating, and the another copy be saved by the trial applicant unit. Every trail centers will be responsible for the screening of qualified patients, rank them in visit time to get the randomized grouping number so as to determine them goes to the EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB.The research people and patients in all trial centers should not know the the randomized grouping number and relevant groups. The group name will be sealed under scratch card. Every trial patients will get a unique randomized number, and it will not change through out the whole trial.
Use the inclusion and exclusion criteria to observe the patients and do relative inspections, and confirm if the patients qualified or not to the trial. Record the result of last time test before the treatment. Although it is better to get the informed consent before doing all kinds of observation and tests, if for some reason, the medical imaging examination has completed, as long as the imaging examination was done within 3 weeks before the needle biopsy, it can still be collect as baseline data (imaging examination can be done at other hospitals, but the trial center should issue a new evaluation report 1 week before the patient join the trial group); other lab test items done at 2 weeks before the needle biopsy can still be collect as baseline data for pre-research use, but these tests should be done at the trail center hospital so as to guarantee the data trace ability.
The investigators will do the needle passes for 4 times for all of them:the 1-2 needle passes with Slow-Pull and the 3-4 needle passes with Vacuum suction.If no core tissues obtained or the operator/onsite pathologist determine insufficient specimen after the operations above, then remedy procedures will be done, the operator use proper puncture method to continue the remedy biopsy.After the first round of needle biopsy, if the trial patient cannot be diagnosed, by getting the agreement of the patient, the patient will be cross-over to another trial group and do needle biopsy again on the same lesion 1 week later with the method mentioned above.Without knowing the needle biopsy type, the cytologist and pathologist evaluate the specimen quality and make diagnosis. Every specimen will be independently evaluated and diagnosed by 2 experts. If the 2 experts have different judgments, then these two experts discuss together and make the final diagnose discussion. If the same sample has 2 or more cytology smear slides, than take the highest score slide as the result.Follow up (outpatient follow up or telephone follow up) the patients at 1 week, 12 weeks and 36 weeks after the needle biopsy and collect the patients clinical data and confirm their final diagnosis.
During the trial, if severe adverse event occurs, the trialed center must take immediate actions necessary to guarantee the trialed patients' safety. Once severe adverse event occurs, the researchers should inform the trial applicant and the trail center's ethics committee within 24 hours after the researchers gets to know the adverse event. And the researchers should also fax the report to State Food and Drug Administration of China and the local provincial food and drug administration. After receiving the report, the applicant should inform other clinical trial centers within 24 hours. All the severe adverse events should be filed at group leader medical center and other trial centers.
CRF(Case Report Form ) will be filled by the researchers, every involved patient must have the CRF(Case Report Form ) filled. This will be audited by clinical monitor and handed over to data administrator to input and manage data, the first copy will be kept by the applicant, the second copy will go to the trial center, and the third copy will be kept by the trail researchers.The data input and management will be taken care by specially assigned person. In order to guarantee the data accuracy, data input will be done twice by two independent data administrators, by computerized and manual verifying, hand over the data to statistical experts to do blind check and statistic analyzing.For the questions and doubts within the case report form, the data administrator make DRQ and via the clinical monitor asking the researchers. The researchers will answer and feed back as soon as possible. According to the researchers answer, data administrator will do the data modifying, confirming or inputting, and when necessary send out DRQ again.After blind audition and confirming that the established data base is correct, major researchers, applicant and the statistic analyzing people lock the data. The locked data will not be changed, and the data base will be handed over to statistical analyzer to do the statistic analyze according to the statistic analyzing plan. Problems found after data locking can be modified during the statistic analyzing procedure.This will be done by specialized statistic analyzing people according to the predetermined statistic analyzing plan. The statistic analyze will be carried out according to intention principle confirmed full analysis set and per-protocol set principle. After completing the statistic analyzing, the statistic analyzer issue the statistic analysis report and send this to major researchers to write the study report.
Statistic analyzing plan:⑴ General principle:① all the statistic tests are use the two-tailed-test method, P<0.05 will be thought as the tested difference is statistical significance. ② the quantitative indicator description will calculate the Mean and Standard deviation. The classification indicator description will describe the cases and percentage of all types of cases. ⑵ Statistic analyzing method:① for the measurement data, compare it with the baseline value at selection period, use paired t-test or symbol rank sum test to compare with the before-after-difference within the group.② for the counting data, use x2 test to compare the groups. ⑶ Shedding analysis:Comparison of groups'total shedding rates and the shedding rates caused by adverse events will use x2 test or Fisher's exact test method. ⑷ The baseline value's equilibrium analysis: Use group t test or x2 test to compare the demography info and vital signs, disease history, and basic treatment and other indicators of baseline value, so as to measure the balance of the groups. The baseline evaluation will be done on FAS(full analysis set) and PPs(per-protocol set). ⑸ Effectiveness analysis:The major indicator of effectiveness analysis is the diagnostic accuracy on malignant disease, and the indicators of second effectiveness include the percentage of Grade A specimen and complications rate etc. while the two groups rate and the Youden index comparison will use approximate normal Z test or use central effect x2 test.(6) Safety analysis:Use x2 test or Fisher's exact test to compare the adverse event/adverse reaction (include biopsy complications) rates between the groups. And use table to describe the adverse events during this trial project; the lab test results before and after the trial, the normal/abnormal changing condition and the relationship with this trial research when abnormal changes happened.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| EUS-FNA Group | Active comparator | Device: EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra)FNA,Fine needle aspiration |
| EUS-FNB Group | Active comparator | Device: EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore)FNB,Fine needle biopsy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All patients referred for EUS tissue sampling who provide informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Coagulopathy which is not corrected
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 |
|---|---|---|
| EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra)Also: EchoTip Ultra needleFNA,Fine needle aspiration | Device | EUS-FNA Group |
| EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore)Also: EchoTip ProCore needleFNB,Fine needle biopsy | Device | EUS-FNB Group |
Primary outcome
Diagnostic Yield on malignancy
Time frame: 18 months
The investigators' primary outcome measure is to compare the the diagnostic yield (%) on malignancy of EUS-FNA to EUS-FNB
1 secondary outcome
Blood contamination and cellularity in specimens obtained by EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB with Slow-pull or suction
Time frame: 18 months
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Dec 2014.
- Results publication: PubMed 15855973DeWitt J, Jowell P, Leblanc J, McHenry L, McGreevy K, Cramer H, Volmar K, Sherman S, Gress F. EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic metastases: a multicenter experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 May;61(6):689-96. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(05)00287-7.
- Results publication: PubMed 18494054Puli SR, Batapati Krishna Reddy J, Bechtold ML, Ibdah JA, Antillon D, Singh S, Olyaee M, Antillon MR. Endoscopic ultrasound: it's accuracy in evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy? A meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2008 May 21;14(19):3028-37. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.3028.
- Results publication: PubMed 20432206Puri R, Vilmann P, Sud R, Kumar M, Taneja S, Verma K, Kaushik N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of suspected tuberculosis in patients with isolated mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Endoscopy. 2010 Jun;42(6):462-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1244133. Epub 2010 Apr 29.
- Results publication: 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 9087830Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, Ikenberry SO, Lehman GA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Mar;45(3):243-50. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70266-9.
- Results publication: PubMed 23086117Affolter KE, Schmidt RL, Matynia AP, Adler DG, Factor RE. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Apr;58(4):1026-34. doi: 10.1007/s10620-012-2439-2. Epub 2012 Oct 21.
- Results publication: PubMed 21420083Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, Abdulkader I, Monges G, Costamagna G, Arcidiacono P, Biermann K, Rindi G, Bories E, Dogloni C, Bruno M, Dominguez-Munoz JE. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1189-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.053. Epub 2011 Mar 21.
- Results publication: PubMed 23433878Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH, Kim KM, Shin JU, Lee JK, Lee KT, Jang KT. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 May;77(5):745-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.009. Epub 2013 Feb 21.
- Results publication: PubMed 24578254Layfield LJ, Schmidt RL, Hirschowitz SL, Olson MT, Ali SZ, Dodd LL. Significance of the diagnostic categories "atypical" and "suspicious for malignancy" in the cytologic diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014 Apr;42(4):292-6. doi: 10.1002/dc.23078. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 28733257Cheng B, Zhang Y, Chen Q, Sun B, Deng Z, Shan H, Dou L, Wang J, Li Y, Yang X, Jiang T, Xu G, Wang G. Analysis of Fine-Needle Biopsy vs Fine-Needle Aspiration in Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Abdominal Masses: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1314-1321. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.07.010. Epub 2017 Jul 19.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27071386Wang J, Wu X, Yin P, Guo Q, Hou W, Li Y, Wang Y, Cheng B. Comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) in the diagnosis of solid lesions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016 Apr 12;17:198. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1316-2.
Related trials for Pancreas Neoplasms
RecruitingPhase 3
HRS 4642 Injection Combined With AG Versus Placebo Combined With AG Therapy in First-Line Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
KRAS G12D-Mutant Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer in the First-line Setting
RecruitingObservational study
Obtaining Solid Tumor Tissue From People Having Biopsy or Surgery for Certain Types of Cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms, Gastric Neoplasms
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study to Learn About Study Medicine ALTA3263 in Adults With Advanced Solid Tumors With KRAS Mutations
Cancer, PDAC - Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
RecruitingObservational study
Solid Tumor Analysis for HLA Loss of Heterozygosity (LOH) and Apheresis for CAR T- Cell Manufacturing
Solid Tumor, Adult, Colorectal Cancer
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
Testing Cabozantinib in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine and Carcinoid Tumors
Functioning Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor, Intermediate Grade Lung Neuroendocrine Neoplasm
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.
Bin Cheng, Doctor principal investigator
Tongji Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing EUS-FNA (EchoTip Ultra) and EUS-FNB (EchoTip ProCore) in people with Pancreas Neoplasms and Lymphatic Metastasis, run by Huazhong University of Science and Technology at 1 site in China.
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 1 inclusion and 1 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Dec 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Bin Cheng, Doctor (86-027-8366-3333, bcheng@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Diagnostic Yield on malignancy (time frame: 18 months). 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 NCT02327065, which also lists 11 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 30 Dec 2014.