BiopsyNCT06541470
Image-Guided Pleural Needle Biopsy in Pleural Diseases
A study testing Cutting needle biopsy and Abrams needle biopsy in people with Biopsy and Diagnosis, run by Eskisehir Osmangazi University at 5 sites in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
In recent observational studies show that ultrasound guidance generally increases the success of pleural needle biopsies, it has been shown that the diagnostic success of needle biopsies is compromised and increased when the presence of pleural fluid is associated with a pleural lesion or pleural thickening or pleural… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Biopsy, Diagnosis, Pleura; Exudate
- What is being tested?
- Cutting needle biopsy and Abrams needle biopsy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 148 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 11 Feb 2021to 2 Jun 2024
- 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 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Evidence of exudative pleural effusion for which a specific diagnosis could not be established by clinical, radiological, laboratory, and cytological examination
- Patients who do not have a high risk of side effects or contraindications for the procedures in question (without bleeding diathesis, who can be positioned appropriately for the biopsy procedure)
- Willingness to participate in the study
- Willingness to undergo an invasive procedure
- Willingness to undergo written consent for randomization and participation in the study.
Who cannot join
- Presence of parapneumonic effusion
- Patients with consciousness problems
- Any contraindication to pleural biopsy (patients with pathology in the chest wall biopsy site (infection) that would preclude biopsy, patients who are taking blood thinners (anticoagulants/antiaggregants) and cannot be interrupted for the procedure to be performed or can be interrupted by bridging with another blood thinner.)
- Any other systemic disease that could interfere with thoracic computed tomography or ultrasonography assessment.
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 1 country.
5 sites in 1 country
Turkey (Türkiye)5 sites
ESOGU Medical Faculty Department of Chest Diseases
Eskişehir, Meselik - Eskisehir, 26040
Muzaffer Metintas
Eskişehir, Meselik, 26040
Selma Metintas
Eskişehir, Meselik, 26040
ESOGU Lung and Pleural Cancers Clinical and Research Center
Eskişehir, Meselik, 26220
Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty Department of Chest Diseases
Eskişehir, Tepebaşı, 260140
About this study
Official title: IMAGE-GUIDED PLEURAL NEEDLE BIOPSY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF PLEURAL DISEASES: ABRAMS NEEDLE OR CUTTING NEEDLE
In recent observational studies show that ultrasound guidance generally increases the success of pleural needle biopsies, it has been shown that the diagnostic success of needle biopsies is compromised and increased when the presence of pleural fluid is associated with a pleural lesion or pleural thickening or pleural nodular lesions. There is no evidence to support a common view on which needle is appropriate in which situation in terms of diagnostic success, reliability of benign diagnoses, and safety of side effects. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the diagnostic yield of the Abrams biopsy needle and the cutting biopsy needle in US-guided pleural needle biopsy to determine which needle is appropriate in which situation. As a result of the study, the diagnostic yield of the cutting needle was found to be higher in cases with pleural thickening of 1 cm or more, and the diagnostic yield of the Abrams needle was found to be higher in patients with pleural thickening of less than 1 cm.
Read the detailed description
AIM A significant proportion of the most common exudative pleural effusions, approximately 40-50%, remain undiagnosed despite repeated thoracentesis and associated diagnostic procedures, including cytology. Histopathological analysis is often required for definitive diagnosis in these patients. For histopathological examination, medical thoracoscopy is generally considered to be the most effective and reliable method of obtaining tissue. However, many studies have shown that image-guided/assisted pleural needle biopsies also have a high diagnostic yield.
In recent years, respiratory physician-guided thoracic ultrasound (TUS) has become increasingly popular due to its contribution to managing pleural disease. TUS successfully guide pleural needle biopsies. Although the observational studies show that ultrasound guidance generally increases the success of needle biopsies, it has been shown that the diagnostic success of needle biopsies is compromised and increased when the presence of pleural fluid is associated with a pleural lesion or pleural thickening or pleural nodular lesions. There is no evidence to support a common view on which needle is appropriate in which situation in terms of diagnostic success, reliability of benign diagnoses, and safety of side effects. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the diagnostic yield of the Abrams biopsy needle and the cutting biopsy needle in US-guided pleural needle biopsy to determine which needle is appropriate in which situation.
METHODS This study was a prospective, randomized, parallel-group study. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were followed for the study protocol. The study was conducted in the Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, and Lung and Pleural Cancer Research and Clinical Center from June 2022 to June 2023. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Eskisehir Osmangazi University (03.03. 2022/01) and the Ministry of Health ((E-66175679-514.04.01-800014) and was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients were thoroughly informed before randomization, and their written consent was obtained.
The study included one hundred and seventy-four patients who met the inclusion criteria. Before randomization, all patients underwent contrast-enhanced omputed tomography (CT).
The patients were divided into two groups: The cutting needle group (group A) and the Abrams needle group (group B). Randomization was performed on the subjects enrolled in the study. Block randomization was used with a sequence of 6.
Needle biopsies were performed in the pulmonary endoscopy suite. The biopsy was performed on the endoscopy table. Biopsy was performed using the freehand technique under US guidence. First, the pleural lesion/thickening area the needle could reach was determined as the entry point with the convex probe. The needle entry site was marked on the patient's chest wall immediately before the biopsy. The entry site was then assessed for the safety of the procedure concerning injury to major blood vessels and viscera using the US technique. Tissue sampling was performed according to standard cutting and Abrams needle procedures. After the biopsy procedures, pneumothorax was checked by the US, bleeding complications were checked by Doppler US, and control thoracentesis was performed if necessary.
Patients whose histopathological analyses after needle biopsy did not provide a specific diagnosis and whose diagnosis was reported as fibrinous pleuritis (non-specific pleuritis) were referred for medical or video thoracoscopy, depending on their preference. Patients who has fibrinous pleuritis were followed for at least 12 months. Patients with recurrent symptoms and clinical or radiological signs of disease were re-evaluated during the follow-up period, and invasive diagnostic procedures were repeated as needed. Patients who died or were lost to follow-up during this period were excluded from the analyses.
Histopathological analysis were performed by the same pathologist in the Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty Pathology Department with histologic and immonohistochemical investigations.
Statistical analysis:
Study data were recorded in a purpose-designed case report form. A specific database was created, and SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois) was used for statistical analysis. Patient characteristics were reported as means and percentages using descriptive statistics. The t-test, χ2 test, and two-sided Fisher's exact test were used to compare the groups. The primary endpoint of this study was the determination of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), negative likelihood ratio (LR), and accuracy values with their confidence intervals (CIs) and complication rates of both methods concerning the diagnosis of pleural disease. These values were determined using MedCalc statistical software (version 19.1.16, MedCalc Software Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium). In the post hoc power analysis, the power of the study was calculated as 95%. ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis was performed to show the effect of dropouts in the randomized groups.
- Conditions
- Biopsy, Diagnosis, Pleura; Exudate
- Being tested
- Cutting needle biopsy, Abrams needle biopsy
- Keywords
- Pleura,, Biopsy, Ultrasonography
- Medical subject headings
- Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cutting needle biopsyProcedure or surgery
Effectivity, reliability and safety of pleural needle biopsy in histopathological diagnosis of pleural diseases.
Abrams needle biopsyProcedure or surgery
Effectivity, reliability and safety of pleural needle biopsy in histopathological diagnosis of pleural diseases.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Cutting needle biopsy | Other | Patients with pleural disease underwent US-assisted cutting needle biopsy. Receives: Procedure: Cutting needle biopsy |
| Arm B: Abrams needle biopsy | Other | Patients with pleural disease underwent US-assisted Abrams needle biopsy. Receives: Procedure: Abrams needle biopsy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Diagnostic yield of pleural needle biopsy
Diagnostic accuracy, sensitiviy and -LR of pleural needle biopsies with cutting or Abrams needle biopsy.
Measured: 12 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Safety of pleural needle biopsy
Determining of the complications for pleural needle biopsies with cutting or Abrams needle biopsy.
Measured: 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Aug 2024
- Study start11 Feb 2021
- Primary completion11 Feb 2024
- Study completion2 Jun 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for BiopsyStudies 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
- Model description
- Prospective randomized, parallel controlled
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 148 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Eskisehir Osmangazi University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Muzaffer Metintas, Eskisehir Osmangazi University
- Investigators
- Emre Celik, MD, Principal investigator, Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06541470
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 03.03.2022.01
- Status last verified
- Aug 2024
- First submitted
- 10 Jul 2024
- Last updated
- 7 Aug 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: INFORMATION ABOUT THE STUDY SUCH AS METHOD, CASES AND RESULTS WILL BE SENT IF REQUESTED.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Aug 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- IMAGE-GUIDED PLEURAL NEEDLE BIOPSY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF PLEURAL DISEASES: ABRAMS NEEDLE OR CUTTING NEEDLE
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06541470
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 03.03.2022.01
- Conditions
- Biopsy, Diagnosis, Pleura; Exudate
- Keywords
- Pleura,, Biopsy, Ultrasonography
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 148 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Eskisehir Osmangazi UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 11 Feb 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 11 Feb 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Jun 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Aug 2024 (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.
In recent observational studies show that ultrasound guidance generally increases the success of pleural needle biopsies, it has been shown that the diagnostic success of needle biopsies is compromised and increased when the presence of pleural fluid is associated with a pleural lesion or pleural thickening or pleural nodular lesions. There is no evidence to support a common view on which needle is appropriate in which situation in terms of diagnostic success, reliability of benign diagnoses, and safety of side effects. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the diagnostic yield of the Abrams biopsy needle and the cutting biopsy needle in US-guided pleural needle biopsy to determine which needle is appropriate in which situation. As a result of the study, the diagnostic yield of the cutting needle was found to be higher in cases with pleural thickening of 1 cm or more, and the diagnostic yield of the Abrams needle was found to be higher in patients with pleural thickening of less than 1 cm.
Detailed description
AIM A significant proportion of the most common exudative pleural effusions, approximately 40-50%, remain undiagnosed despite repeated thoracentesis and associated diagnostic procedures, including cytology. Histopathological analysis is often required for definitive diagnosis in these patients. For histopathological examination, medical thoracoscopy is generally considered to be the most effective and reliable method of obtaining tissue. However, many studies have shown that image-guided/assisted pleural needle biopsies also have a high diagnostic yield.
In recent years, respiratory physician-guided thoracic ultrasound (TUS) has become increasingly popular due to its contribution to managing pleural disease. TUS successfully guide pleural needle biopsies. Although the observational studies show that ultrasound guidance generally increases the success of needle biopsies, it has been shown that the diagnostic success of needle biopsies is compromised and increased when the presence of pleural fluid is associated with a pleural lesion or pleural thickening or pleural nodular lesions. There is no evidence to support a common view on which needle is appropriate in which situation in terms of diagnostic success, reliability of benign diagnoses, and safety of side effects. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the diagnostic yield of the Abrams biopsy needle and the cutting biopsy needle in US-guided pleural needle biopsy to determine which needle is appropriate in which situation.
METHODS This study was a prospective, randomized, parallel-group study. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were followed for the study protocol. The study was conducted in the Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, and Lung and Pleural Cancer Research and Clinical Center from June 2022 to June 2023. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Eskisehir Osmangazi University (03.03. 2022/01) and the Ministry of Health ((E-66175679-514.04.01-800014) and was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients were thoroughly informed before randomization, and their written consent was obtained.
The study included one hundred and seventy-four patients who met the inclusion criteria. Before randomization, all patients underwent contrast-enhanced omputed tomography (CT).
The patients were divided into two groups: The cutting needle group (group A) and the Abrams needle group (group B). Randomization was performed on the subjects enrolled in the study. Block randomization was used with a sequence of 6.
Needle biopsies were performed in the pulmonary endoscopy suite. The biopsy was performed on the endoscopy table. Biopsy was performed using the freehand technique under US guidence. First, the pleural lesion/thickening area the needle could reach was determined as the entry point with the convex probe. The needle entry site was marked on the patient's chest wall immediately before the biopsy. The entry site was then assessed for the safety of the procedure concerning injury to major blood vessels and viscera using the US technique. Tissue sampling was performed according to standard cutting and Abrams needle procedures. After the biopsy procedures, pneumothorax was checked by the US, bleeding complications were checked by Doppler US, and control thoracentesis was performed if necessary.
Patients whose histopathological analyses after needle biopsy did not provide a specific diagnosis and whose diagnosis was reported as fibrinous pleuritis (non-specific pleuritis) were referred for medical or video thoracoscopy, depending on their preference. Patients who has fibrinous pleuritis were followed for at least 12 months. Patients with recurrent symptoms and clinical or radiological signs of disease were re-evaluated during the follow-up period, and invasive diagnostic procedures were repeated as needed. Patients who died or were lost to follow-up during this period were excluded from the analyses.
Histopathological analysis were performed by the same pathologist in the Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty Pathology Department with histologic and immonohistochemical investigations.
Statistical analysis:
Study data were recorded in a purpose-designed case report form. A specific database was created, and SPSS version 15.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois) was used for statistical analysis. Patient characteristics were reported as means and percentages using descriptive statistics. The t-test, χ2 test, and two-sided Fisher's exact test were used to compare the groups. The primary endpoint of this study was the determination of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), negative likelihood ratio (LR), and accuracy values with their confidence intervals (CIs) and complication rates of both methods concerning the diagnosis of pleural disease. These values were determined using MedCalc statistical software (version 19.1.16, MedCalc Software Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium). In the post hoc power analysis, the power of the study was calculated as 95%. ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis was performed to show the effect of dropouts in the randomized groups.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Prospective randomized, parallel controlled
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Cutting needle biopsy | Other | Procedure: Cutting needle biopsyPatients with pleural disease underwent US-assisted cutting needle biopsy. |
| Arm B: Abrams needle biopsy | Other | Procedure: Abrams needle biopsyPatients with pleural disease underwent US-assisted Abrams needle biopsy. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Evidence of exudative pleural effusion for which a specific diagnosis could not be established by clinical, radiological, laboratory, and cytological examination
- Patients who do not have a high risk of side effects or contraindications for the procedures in question (without bleeding diathesis, who can be positioned appropriately for the biopsy procedure)
- Willingness to participate in the study
- Willingness to undergo an invasive procedure
- Willingness to undergo written consent for randomization and participation in the study.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Presence of parapneumonic effusion
- Patients with consciousness problems
- Any contraindication to pleural biopsy (patients with pathology in the chest wall biopsy site (infection) that would preclude biopsy, patients who are taking blood thinners (anticoagulants/antiaggregants) and cannot be interrupted for the procedure to be performed or can be interrupted by bridging with another blood thinner.)
- Any other systemic disease that could interfere with thoracic computed tomography or ultrasonography assessment.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting needle biopsyEffectivity, reliability and safety of pleural needle biopsy in histopathological diagnosis of pleural diseases. | Procedure or surgery | Arm A: Cutting needle biopsy |
| Abrams needle biopsyEffectivity, reliability and safety of pleural needle biopsy in histopathological diagnosis of pleural diseases. | Procedure or surgery | Arm B: Abrams needle biopsy |
Primary outcome
Diagnostic yield of pleural needle biopsy
Time frame: 12 months
Diagnostic accuracy, sensitiviy and -LR of pleural needle biopsies with cutting or Abrams needle biopsy.
1 secondary outcome
Safety of pleural needle biopsy
Time frame: 12 months
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 Aug 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. INFORMATION ABOUT THE STUDY SUCH AS METHOD, CASES AND RESULTS WILL BE SENT IF REQUESTED.
Related trials for Biopsy
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Development and Validation of a Biopsy Decision Model for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Based on Serological Markers and Endoscopic Features
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC)
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Spatial Needle Placement Strategies and Pathological Concordance in Prostate Biopsy: A National Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
Prostate Cancer, Prostatic Neoplasms
RecruitingObservational study
Imaging Studies to Check the Local Response of Prostate Cancer to Radiation Therapy
Prostatic Neoplasms, Prostate Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Role of Liquid Biopsies in HPV-associated Cancer Treatment Monitoring
Cervical Cancer, Cervical Dysplasia
Not yet recruiting
De-escalation of Axillary Dissection for Node-positive Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer by AJCC V8 Anatomic Stage, Breast Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Emre Celik, MD principal investigator
Eskisehir Osmangazi University Medical Faculty
5 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Cutting needle biopsy and Abrams needle biopsy in people with Biopsy and Diagnosis, run by Eskisehir Osmangazi University at 5 sites in Turkey (Türkiye).
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 5 inclusion and 4 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 Aug 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in Turkey (Türkiye). 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?
Diagnostic yield of pleural needle biopsy (time frame: 12 months). 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 7 Aug 2024.