Diagnostic Self EvaluationNCT03224910
Diagnostic Efficiency of Touch Imprints Versus Smears
An observational study of Diagnostic Self Evaluation, run by University of Mississippi Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Cytopathologists work along with radiologist in the diagnosis of lesions. Rapid on site interpretation (ROSE) of fine needle aspiration (FNA) smears of radiologically suspicious lesions is a common clinical practice. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Diagnostic Self Evaluation
- What is being tested?
- Cytologic techniques used for rapid on site interpretation
- How many people
- 47 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 18 Jul 2017to 2 May 2018
- How long will I take part?
- 6 Years
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Any patient that has required a fine needle aspiration or needle core biopsy at UMMC to diagnose a lesion regardless of the age, sex or any other condition.
Who may be able to join
- 1. Computerized tomography (CT)-Guided Fine needle aspiration (FNA) /Needle core biopsy (NCB) specimens from any site.2. Ultrasound (US) guided FNA/NCB.
Who cannot join
- 1. Specimens obtained through endoscopic fine needle aspirations.2. US-guided specimens from thyroid3. Exfoliative specimens like sputum or urine4. Gynecologic cytology specimens.5. Outside cytology consult cases6. Pathologist performed FNA's
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Jackson, Mississippi, 39216
About this study
Official title: Diagnostic Efficiency of Needle Core Biopsy Touch Imprints Versus Fine Needle Aspiration Smears at the Time of Rapid on Site Interpretation
Cytopathologists work along with radiologist in the diagnosis of lesions. Rapid on site interpretation (ROSE) of fine needle aspiration (FNA) smears of radiologically suspicious lesions is a common clinical practice. In the last years, the investigators have seen trend towards needle core biopsies of radiologically suspicious lesions. The investigators want to analyze the challenges of rapid on site interpretation of touch imprints (TI) of needle core biopsies (NCB) versus fine needle aspiration smears.
Read the detailed description
This is a retrospective study in which the investigators will analyze the quality of the smears and the touch imprints, the cellularity, the cytomorphologic features of the specimens and the presence of adequate material for ancillary studies. The specimens will be searched through the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Pathology Laboratory information system (Copath), from January 2011 to December 2017. The retrospective cases (January 2011 up to now) will be retrieved using natural language search of fine needle aspiration and touch imprints. The slides of those cases will be reviewed and the cytomorphologic features will be described.
- Conditions
- Diagnostic Self Evaluation
- Being tested
- Cytologic techniques used for rapid on site interpretation
- Keywords
- FNA, smears, imprints, ROSE
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cytologic techniques used for rapid on site interpretationOther
Diagnostic efficiency of touch imprints of needle core biopsies vs smears of fine needle aspirations during rapid on-site interpretation
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of cases with enough diagnostic features on the FNA smears and/or touch imprints of NCB.
All the cytology cases with rapid on site examination (ROSE) of FNA smears and/or touch imprints of needle core biopsies from January 1st/2011 to December 31st/ 2017, will be retrieved using the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Pathology Laboratory information system (Copath). The investigators will review the cases and get a number of cases with enough diagnostic features (based on the cytomorphologic features of the cells, quality of the smears and touch imprints, and the cellularity) on each case.
Measured: January 2011 to December 2017
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Jul 2017
- Study start18 Jul 2017
- Primary completion2 May 2018
- Study completion2 May 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Diagnostic Self EvaluationStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 47 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 6 Years
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Mississippi Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Maria F. Gonzalez, University of Mississippi Medical Center
- Investigators
- Maria F Gonzalez, MD, Principal investigator, University of Mississippi Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03224910
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2017-0076
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 18 Jul 2017
- Last updated
- 7 May 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Gupta NJ, Wang HH. Increase of core biopsies in visceral organs--experience at one institution. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Nov;39(11):791-5. doi: 10.1002/dc.21456. Epub 2010 Oct 19.
PubMed 20960472Aisner DL, Sams SB. The role of cytology specimens in molecular testing of solid tumors: techniques, limitations, and opportunities. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Jun;40(6):511-24. doi: 10.1002/dc.22820.
PubMed 22619126Padmanabhan V, Barkan G, and Nayar R. Cytopathology + More | Assessing needle core biopsy adequacy-survey of practices. http://www.captodayonline.com/assessing-needle-core-biopsy-adequacy-survey-practices-516/
Rekhtman N, Kazi S, Yao J, Dogan S, Yannes A, Lin O, Silk M, Silk T, Durack JC. Depletion of Core Needle Biopsy Cellularity and DNA Content as a Result of Vigorous Touch Preparations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Jul;139(7):907-12. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0392-OA. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
PubMed 25521802Dogan S, Becker JC, Rekhtman N, Tang LH, Nafa K, Ladanyi M, Klimstra DS. Use of touch imprint cytology as a simple method to enrich tumor cells for molecular analysis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jul;121(7):354-60. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21292. Epub 2013 Apr 10.
PubMed 23576371Mangia A, Chiriatti A, Chiarappa P, Incalza MA, Antonaci G, Pilato B, Simone G, Tommasi S, Paradiso A. Touch imprint cytology in tumor tissue banks for the confirmation of neoplastic cellularity and for DNA extraction. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Jun;132(6):974-8. doi: 10.5858/2008-132-974-TICITT.
PubMed 18517281Hahn PF, Eisenberg PJ, Pitman MB, Gazelle GS, Mueller PR. Cytopathologic touch preparations (imprints) from core needle biopsies: accuracy compared with that of fine-needle aspirates. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Nov;165(5):1277-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.5.7572518.
PubMed 7572518Chandan VS, Zimmerman K, Baker P, Scalzetti E, Khurana KK. Usefulness of core roll preparations in immediate assessment of neoplastic lung lesions: comparison to conventional CT scan-guided lung fine-needle aspiration cytology. Chest. 2004 Sep;126(3):739-43. doi: 10.1378/chest.126.3.739.
PubMed 15364750
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Diagnostic Efficiency of Needle Core Biopsy Touch Imprints Versus Fine Needle Aspiration Smears at the Time of Rapid on Site Interpretation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03224910
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2017-0076
- Conditions
- Diagnostic Self Evaluation
- Keywords
- FNA, smears, imprints, ROSE
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 47 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Mississippi Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 18 Jul 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 2 May 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 May 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Jul 2017 (actual)
- 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.
Cytopathologists work along with radiologist in the diagnosis of lesions. Rapid on site interpretation (ROSE) of fine needle aspiration (FNA) smears of radiologically suspicious lesions is a common clinical practice. In the last years, the investigators have seen trend towards needle core biopsies of radiologically suspicious lesions. The investigators want to analyze the challenges of rapid on site interpretation of touch imprints (TI) of needle core biopsies (NCB) versus fine needle aspiration smears.
Detailed description
This is a retrospective study in which the investigators will analyze the quality of the smears and the touch imprints, the cellularity, the cytomorphologic features of the specimens and the presence of adequate material for ancillary studies. The specimens will be searched through the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Pathology Laboratory information system (Copath), from January 2011 to December 2017. The retrospective cases (January 2011 up to now) will be retrieved using natural language search of fine needle aspiration and touch imprints. The slides of those cases will be reviewed and the cytomorphologic features will be described.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Target follow-up
- 6 Years
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Any patient that has required a fine needle aspiration or needle core biopsy at UMMC to diagnose a lesion regardless of the age, sex or any other condition.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 1. Computerized tomography (CT)-Guided Fine needle aspiration (FNA) /Needle core biopsy (NCB) specimens from any site.2. Ultrasound (US) guided FNA/NCB.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 1. Specimens obtained through endoscopic fine needle aspirations.2. US-guided specimens from thyroid3. Exfoliative specimens like sputum or urine4. Gynecologic cytology specimens.5. Outside cytology consult cases6. Pathologist performed FNA's
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cytologic techniques used for rapid on site interpretationDiagnostic efficiency of touch imprints of needle core biopsies vs smears of fine needle aspirations during rapid on-site interpretation | Other | – |
Primary outcome
Number of cases with enough diagnostic features on the FNA smears and/or touch imprints of NCB.
Time frame: January 2011 to December 2017
All the cytology cases with rapid on site examination (ROSE) of FNA smears and/or touch imprints of needle core biopsies from January 1st/2011 to December 31st/ 2017, will be retrieved using the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Pathology Laboratory information system (Copath). The investigators will review the cases and get a number of cases with enough diagnostic features (based on the cytomorphologic features of the cells, quality of the smears and touch imprints, and the cellularity) on each case.
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 7 May 2018.
- Background: PubMed 20960472Gupta NJ, Wang HH. Increase of core biopsies in visceral organs--experience at one institution. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Nov;39(11):791-5. doi: 10.1002/dc.21456. Epub 2010 Oct 19.
- Results publication: PubMed 22619126Aisner DL, Sams SB. The role of cytology specimens in molecular testing of solid tumors: techniques, limitations, and opportunities. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Jun;40(6):511-24. doi: 10.1002/dc.22820.
- Results publicationPadmanabhan V, Barkan G, and Nayar R. Cytopathology + More | Assessing needle core biopsy adequacy-survey of practices. http://www.captodayonline.com/assessing-needle-core-biopsy-adequacy-survey-practices-516/
- Results publication: PubMed 25521802Rekhtman N, Kazi S, Yao J, Dogan S, Yannes A, Lin O, Silk M, Silk T, Durack JC. Depletion of Core Needle Biopsy Cellularity and DNA Content as a Result of Vigorous Touch Preparations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Jul;139(7):907-12. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0392-OA. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
- Results publication: PubMed 23576371Dogan S, Becker JC, Rekhtman N, Tang LH, Nafa K, Ladanyi M, Klimstra DS. Use of touch imprint cytology as a simple method to enrich tumor cells for molecular analysis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013 Jul;121(7):354-60. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21292. Epub 2013 Apr 10.
- Results publication: PubMed 18517281Mangia A, Chiriatti A, Chiarappa P, Incalza MA, Antonaci G, Pilato B, Simone G, Tommasi S, Paradiso A. Touch imprint cytology in tumor tissue banks for the confirmation of neoplastic cellularity and for DNA extraction. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Jun;132(6):974-8. doi: 10.5858/2008-132-974-TICITT.
- Results publication: PubMed 7572518Hahn PF, Eisenberg PJ, Pitman MB, Gazelle GS, Mueller PR. Cytopathologic touch preparations (imprints) from core needle biopsies: accuracy compared with that of fine-needle aspirates. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Nov;165(5):1277-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.5.7572518.
- Results publication: PubMed 15364750Chandan VS, Zimmerman K, Baker P, Scalzetti E, Khurana KK. Usefulness of core roll preparations in immediate assessment of neoplastic lung lesions: comparison to conventional CT scan-guided lung fine-needle aspiration cytology. Chest. 2004 Sep;126(3):739-43. doi: 10.1378/chest.126.3.739.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Not yet recruiting
A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Meltz, a Digital Therapeutic Device, for Improving Panic Symptoms in Patients With Panic Disorder
Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia
Recruiting
Trial to Evaluate an Educational Video Series for Women in Breast Cancer Treatment
Breast Cancer Females, Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer
Recruiting
DIabetes GLycemic Assessment in Newly Confirmed Episodes
Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM), Obesity Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Health Surveillance at Constructor University Bremen (CUB)
Social Isolation or Loneliness, Anxiety
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Feasibility of Vision-Language Models for Detecting Physical Assistance as an Observable Criterion Defining GMFCS Levels in Children Aged 2 to 6 Years With Cerebral Palsy
Cerebral Palsy
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.
Maria F Gonzalez, MD principal investigator
University of Mississippi Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Diagnostic Self Evaluation, run by University of Mississippi Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 May 2018. 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 United States. 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?
Number of cases with enough diagnostic features on the FNA smears and/or touch imprints of NCB. (time frame: January 2011 to December 2017). 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 NCT03224910, which also lists 8 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 7 May 2018.