AzTrials
AzTrials

Pleural Effusion, MalignantNCT03270215

The Added Value of CT Scanning in Patients With an Unilateral Pleural Effusion

An observational study of Pleural Effusion, Malignant, run by Naestved Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

To investigate the diagnostic power of computed tomography for discriminating malignant from nonmalignant causes to pleural effusions in consecutive patients with no malignant cells found at a cytological examination and a chest x-ray not suspicious of malignancy. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 16 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Pleural Effusion, Malignant
What is being tested?
Computed tomography
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
How many people
232 participants
Where
1 siteDenmark
Study dates
1 Oct 2017to 30 Jan 2019
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 16 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: All patients with a unilateral pleural effusion of unknown origin

Who may be able to join

  • Thoracocentesis
  • Chest X-ray and
  • CT-scanning are performed

Who cannot join

  • Lung cancer
  • Other thoracic malignancy

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Denmark1 site
  • Naestved Hospital

    Næstved, 4700

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

Official title: The Added Value of CT Scanning for Discriminating Malignant From Non-malignant Causes in Patients With an Unilateral Pleural Effusion

To investigate the diagnostic power of computed tomography for discriminating malignant from nonmalignant causes to pleural effusions in consecutive patients with no malignant cells found at a cytological examination and a chest x-ray not suspicious of malignancy. The investigators hypothesised that the combination improves the chance of detecting the cause of the pleural effusion.

Read the detailed description

Objectives

  1. Is CT-scanning better than chest x-ray plus a thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?
  2. What is the added value of a CT-scanning to chest x-ray plus thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?

The above measured as, true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio -, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.

Study design A retrospective diagnostic study including consecutive patients with a unilateral pleural effusion. Thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT findings are categorised as either normal (i.e. not suggestive of any aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion), suggestive of other lung pathology or suggestive of malignancy (i.e. representing a possible aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion). The final diagnosis is extracted from the patients' electronic medical records. When no diagnosis is found, two investigators agree on a consensus diagnosis based on all investigation results. If no reasonable diagnosis can be established based on the findings, the patient case is categorised as having no final diagnosis.

The investigators follow the STARD guideline for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.

Patients The investigators will include consecutive patients presenting with a unilateral pleural effusion between 01 January 2013 and 31 December 2016. The patients will be identified searching the hospitals administrative patient system for the procedure code thoracocentesis (KTGA30).

Departments of Respiratory Medicine at Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde and Naestved Hospital, Region Zealand, Denmark, participate in this study. Both hospitals are a large tertiary hospital with specialised functions. Patients older than 16 years are included, irrespective of smoking history and comorbidities, if both thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and a CT-scanning are performed. Exclusion criteria are previously diagnosed lung cancer, thoracic malignancy or incomplete data.

Data Relevant data on demographics, descriptive data, symptoms, medical history and diagnostic workup will be extracted from electronic medical records, and registered in the individual patient's case report file (CRF). The CRF is stored using Excel on an encrypted USB-key, the USB-key will be stored behind double lock (room plus cupboard). Background-variables will be utilised to describe the study population and for explorative research. Only study coordinators will have access to data. Computers, as well as a back-up, will be stored and kept in a locked cupboard in a locked room. Only study coordinators possess relevant keys.

Statistics Data will be presented as frequencies and/or mean ± standard deviation (SD). Test characteristics will be compared using McNemar's test with a Bonferroni correction. An alpha level of 0.05 is considered significant. Test characteristics for thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT-scanning and the combination of the three will be calculated. Test characteristics are true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio-, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.

The combined sensitivity of two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B)

The combined specificity for two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The specificity of test A x specificity of test B

The combined sensitivity of three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B + sensitivity of test C - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B x sensitivity of test C)

The combined specificity for three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The specificity of test A x specificity of test B x sensitivity of test C For data analysis, we use STATA (StataCorp LLC, Version 15.0, College Station, Texas, USA).

Ethics The study is retrospective and observational and thus will not affect the included patients. Before any study-related activity, the protocol and study must be approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and the local Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics. All results will be stored and analysed by computer, and the investigators secure the patients' anonymity according to the national laws. The data are anonymized and stored after completion of the study and data containing personal identification numbers will be kept behind double-lock at the department.

Keywords
Computed Tomography, Specificity, Sensitivity
Medical subject headings
Pleural Effusion, Malignant, Hypersensitivity

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Computed tomographyProcedure or surgery

    The diagnostic power to discriminate malignant from nonmalignant causes of e pleural effusion

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Specificity

    TN / (TN+FP)

    Measured: 1 year

Secondary outcomes (6)
  1. Diagnostic accuracy

    (TP+TN) / (TP+TN+FP+FN)

    Measured: 1 year

  2. Likelihood ratio +

    LR+ = sensitivity / (1-specificity)

    Measured: 1 year

  3. Likelihood ratio -

    LR- = (1-sensitivity) / specificity

    Measured: 1 year

  4. Positive predictive value

    PPV =TP / (TP+ FP)

    Measured: 1 year

  5. Negative predictive value

    TN/ (TN + FN)

    Measured: 1 year

  6. Sensitivity

    TP / (TP + FN)

    Measured: 1 year

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted1 Sep 2017
  2. Study start1 Oct 2017
  3. Primary completion31 Jan 2018
  4. Study completion30 Jan 2019

Resources

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
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
232 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03270215
Sponsor's protocol ID
CT-UPE
Status last verified
Dec 2020
First submitted
30 Aug 2017
Last updated
17 Dec 2020
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Pleural Effusion, Malignant, run by Naestved Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.

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 2 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 17 Dec 2020. 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 Denmark. 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?

Specificity (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 17 Dec 2020.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in