AzTrials
AzTrials

Oropharyngeal CarcinomaNCT07548268

Transoral and Cervical Ultrasound of Patients With Suspected Oropharyngeal Cancer

A study testing Ultrasound of the oropharynx in people with Oropharyngeal Carcinoma and Ultrasound, run by Tobias Todsen at 4 sites in Denmark.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Introduction The current diagnostic approach for patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer involves a combination of clinical examination, tissue sampling, and relevant cross-sectional imaging. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Oropharyngeal Carcinoma, Ultrasound
What is being tested?
Ultrasound of the oropharynx
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
180 participants
Where
4 sitesDenmark
Study dates
20 Aug 2025to 1 May 2027
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

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

  • Referred to outpatient cancer clinic with one of the following:
  • A scan (MR, CT, PET/CT) suggesting malignancy in the oropharynx. This being asymmetric metabolic activity on PET/CT, a tumor or asymmetry of the palatine and lingual tonsils on MR and CT (7).
  • Tumor suspicious findings (erosion/ulcus, tonsil asymmetry/hypertrophy).
  • Tumor-suspicious symptoms (pain of the oropharynx)
  • > 18 years of age.
  • Ability to understand and give informed consent.

Who cannot join

  • • Prior oropharyngeal cancer
  • Prior radiation to the head and neck area

Trial locations and contacts

4 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Denmark4 sites, 4 recruiting
  • Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital

    Aarhus

    Thomas Kjærgaard, MD, PHD, associate professor, 0045 29915664

    Not yet recruiting
  • Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery & Audiology

    Copenhagen, 2100

    Amalie Posselt, MD, 0045 29915664, amalie.hartvig.pall@regionh.dk

    Recruiting
  • Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery & Audiology Northzealand Hospital

    Hillerød

    Amalie Posselt, MD, 0045 29915664

    Not yet recruiting
  • Department of ORL - Head & Neck Surgery and Audiology, Zealand University Hospital,

    Køge

    Amalie Posselt, MD, 0045 29915664

    Not yet recruiting

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

Official title: Surgeon-performed Transoral and Cervical Ultrasound of the Palatine and Lingual Tonsils in Patients With Suspected Oropharyngeal Cancer - a Research Proposal for a Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction The current diagnostic approach for patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer involves a combination of clinical examination, tissue sampling, and relevant cross-sectional imaging. Previous studies have shown that transoral and cervical ultrasound (US) of the palatine and lingual tonsils has a better diagnostic accuracy than clinical investigation and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer, but it has not been established whether adding this scan to the diagnostic workup has a clinical impact.

Methods A randomized controlled study, including 170 patients at four different Head and Neck Hospital departments in Denmark. One group receives standard diagnostics (control group), and the other group receives standard diagnostics supplemented by transoral and cervical ultrasound of the lingual and palatine tonsils. The diagnostic accuracy, number of correct biopsies, number of imaging modalities ordered, and time to final diagnosis are noted.

Conclusion This randomized controlled study examines whether the implementation of transoral and cervical ultrasound of the palatine and lingual tonsils in patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer will improve the diagnostic accuracy and have a clinical impact. This concerns more accurate initial diagnoses, more correct biopsies, fewer unnecessary scans, and fewer visits to the outpatient clinic.

Read the detailed description

Introduction The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is rising globally. The diagnostic approach for patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer includes clinical examination and tissue samples in the outpatient clinic (biopsies), followed by relevant cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and sometimes 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT)).

It can be challenging to distinguish small oropharyngeal cancers from benign unilateral tonsil hypertrophy by clinical examination and relevant cross-sectional imaging. Small tumors of the palatine- or lingual tonsils may appear as normal oropharyngeal lymphoid tissue in the clinic and on CT and MRI scans, and normal tonsillar asymmetry can resemble an oropharyngeal cancer. The enhanced metabolic activity of the lingual and palatine tonsils on a PET-CT can blur abnormal activity from a small tumor, and increased one-sided metabolic activity due to inflammation raises suspicion of malignancy. This results in expensive, and, in some cases, painful additional interventions such as biopsies, diagnostic surgeries, and additional cross-sectional imaging.

By far the most common sublocation of oropharyngeal cancers is the palatine and lingual tonsils. Advances in ultrasound (US) technology and smaller high-frequency (>15 MHz) transducers make the palatine and lingual tonsils more accessible for examination. This is done by using a transoral approach, where the transducer can reach the palatine and lingual tonsil directly with access via the oral cavity. Garset-Zamani et al. describe how transoral and cervical US of the palatine and lingual tonsils have a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than clinical examination and MRI in patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer.

Cervical US for oropharyngeal cancer diagnostics is demonstrated in several studies. Coquia et al. describe how cervical US can be used to visualize tumors in the lingual and palatine tonsils, advocating for its possibility to fill a gap in tumor characterization, adding information gathered by MR and CT.

US is a low-cost, easily accessible, radiation-free dynamic imaging modality. No previous randomized trials have investigated whether the addition of cervical and transoral US improves the diagnostic accuracy and has a clinical impact. Possible clinical benefits include more accurate initial diagnoses, improved biopsy accuracy, fewer unnecessary scans, fewer outpatient clinic visits, and fewer diagnostic surgeries. In summary, achieving a more precise diagnosis with fever interventions. Should this research prove successful, it could lead to the implementation of US of the palatine and lingual tonsils in the outpatient cancer clinic and substantial advancements in oropharyngeal cancer management.

Research question In patients referred to the outpatient cancer clinic suspected of oropharyngeal cancer, does a clinical examination including transoral and cervical ultrasound, compared with a standard clinical examination alone, improve diagnostic accuracy and have a clinical impact?

Methods

Study design A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial investigates transoral and cervical US for detecting primary tumors in patients referred for suspicion of oropharyngeal cancer.

The second Surgeon-Performed Oropharyngeal Transoral UltraSonography (SPOT-US-2) is a randomized controlled study of patients seen in the outpatient cancer clinic on suspicion of oropharyngeal cancer. This study compares the standard diagnostic workup to the standard diagnostic workup supplemented by transoral and cervical ultrasound of the lingual and palatine tonsils.

Patients are included and examined at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and maxillofacial Surgery, Køge, Department of Otolaryngology, North Zealand Hospital, Hillerød, and Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

In Denmark, patients are referred to the head and neck outpatient cancer clinic by their general practitioner, a private head and neck practitioner, or a doctor from another specialty when symptoms or objective findings suggest malignancy. All patients referred with a suspected malignancy in Denmark are entitled to a free diagnostic workup.

Patients aged 18 years or older referred to the outpatient cancer clinic on suspicion of oropharyngeal cancer can be included in the study. The suspicion of oropharyngeal cancer includes relevant symptoms, relevant objective findings, or an incidental finding of a possible oropharyngeal malignancy on a scan. Patients are excluded if they have previously had oropharyngeal cancer or radiation to the head and neck area. Patients will be screened for eligibility before their first clinical workup in the outpatient cancer clinic.

A selected group of ENT surgeons will perform the ultrasound scans. All surgeons participating in US scanning will receive verbal and hands-on education on US of the palatine and lingual tonsils.

To establish valid inclusion criteria and minimize bias, the investigators aim to screen all eligible patients before their inclusion. When screening, the investigators want to obtain information from the medical records of all patients suspected of oropharyngeal cancer.

Information from medical records include

  • Central personal registry number
  • Age
  • Sex
  • Clinical diagnosis: suspected oropharynx cancer. Based on what of the following:
  • Tonsil asymmetry
  • Visible tumor tissue
  • Ulcus, erosion, exudative lesions
  • NBI dots
  • A firm tonsil palpated compared to the contralateral side
  • Suspected pathologic lymph node on US of the neck
  • A scan (MR, CT, PET/CT) suggesting oropharyngeal malignancy
  • Patient symptoms
  • Pain in the oropharynx
  • A sense of increased amount of tissue in the oropharynx
  • The given international classification of diseases (ICD) Code
  • Included/ excluded.
  • If not included reasons for this:
  • Not offered inclusion.
  • Did not wish to participate.
  • Inclusion criteria are met.
  • Final pathology diagnosis in freeze section, formalin, and cytology
  • Histopathologic tumor type (keratinizing/non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma, salivary gland carcinoma, lymphoma, other types), HPV-type, and p16 status of the primary tumor
  • Tumor location:
  • Palatine tonsil left/right
  • Lingual tonsil left/right
  • Uvula
  • Ventral soft palate
  • Posterior and lateral pharyngeal walls at the oropharyngeal level
  • Epiglottic vallecula
  • Time from the patient is seen at the outpatient clinic until the beginning of treatment
  • Number of standard image modalities ordered for diagnostics
  • Symptomatology and time to admission
  • Alcohol and tobacco consumption
  • Imaging results (MRI, CT, PET/CT)
  • TNM classification
  • Treatment plan
  • Previous cancer diagnosis

The tumor type will be specified as benign or malignant, and subtyped according to histological type. The final diagnosis will be the binary histopathology diagnosis, as the presence or absence of an oropharyngeal cancer. The location of the cancer, HPV, P16 status, and T-stage will be noted. All patients diagnosed with the absence of oropharyngeal cancer will have their medical charts reviewed six months after inclusion to confirm their initial benign diagnosis. Clinical T-stage in the control and intervention groups will be compared. The clinical T stage will be compared to MRI. The gold standard in T-stage evaluation is post-surgical histopathology or staging at MDT conferences for non-surgical patients.

Statistics Sample size: A non-randomized study by Garset-Zamani et al. found a diagnostic accuracy of 86% using transoral US compared to 68% by clinical examination. The power calculation is performed in R. The power is 80%, and the significance level is 0.05.

A sample size of 170 (85*2) patients is estimated. The inclusion period for 170 patients is set at three years, as patients will be included only by ENT surgeons with relevant transoral US experience.

The final analysis of the data will be conducted using RStudio. Descriptive statistics for the intervention and control groups will be generated and compared. Descriptive statistics for the medical records of patients screened but not included in the study will also be compared with those of patients included in the study. This includes sex, age, smoking, initial symptoms, reason for referral, final diagnosis, and cancer location. Measures of diagnostic accuracy include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy. Sensitivity is defined as the true positives divided by the number of patients with a verified histopathologic tumor diagnosis. The true positives are defined as patients with verified histopathologic tumor diagnosis and US with tumor suspicion. Specificity is the number of true negatives divided by the number of patients evaluated to be cancer-free. True negatives are defined as US results in patients assessed as cancer-free without tumor suspicion at six months follow-up. Fisher's exact test will be used for categorical variables, including diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the number of correct diagnoses in the outpatient clinic, the number of patients with initial positive biopsies, the number of patients with standard imaging performed, and the number of patients with diagnostic surgery performed. A two-sample t-test will be used to compare the total number of biopsies performed, the tumor size, and the time from initial examination to confirmed diagnosis.

The investigators will perform a subgroup analysis of patients seen on suspicion of cancer in the palatine tonsils, the lingual tonsil, referrals due to an incidental finding on a scan, and tonsil asymmetry without other suspicious findings.

Ethics US is a non-invasive diagnostic imaging modality and is considered safe. Transoral US may cause momentary discomfort, which is reduced by local anesthetic spray. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol is approved by the Medical Ethics Committees (MREC), trial number 2501276.

Conclusion This study examines whether the implementation of transoral and cervical US of the palatine and lingual tonsils in patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer will have a clinical impact. This concerns more accurate initial diagnoses, more correct biopsies, fewer unnecessary scans, fewer diagnostic surgeries and fewer visits to the outpatient clinic. A key strength is the randomized controlled trial design, which allows us to assess the effects of adding US to the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer.

If our hypothesis is confirmed, these findings could lead to significant improvements in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer. This study can determine if transoral US should be implemented as a routine examination for these patients.

Being tested
Ultrasound of the oropharynx
Medical subject headings
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms

What participants receive

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

  • Ultrasound of the oropharynxDiagnostic test

    Also called Transoral ultrasound

    Ultrasound of the oropharynx in patients with suspected oropharyngeal cancer

Study groups in NCT07548268
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Diagnostics with ultrasound of the oropharynxExperimentalDiagnosis with ultrasound of the oropharynx. This including transoral ultrasound and transcervical ultrasound of the suspected area. This beeing either the palatine or lingual tonsils or both. 2.4 Transoral and cervical US of the lingual and palatine tonsils In the intervention group, US of the palatine and lingual tonsils will be performed in the outpatient clinic during the standard clinical examination. The scan is needed solely for the area of concern. When suspicion involves the palatine tonsils, scanning is limited to them; the same applies to the lingual tonsils. Always scan the contralateral side as a reference. Transoral US will be performed with small high-frequency transducers. Cervical US will be performed with low-frequency, high-depth penetration transducers. The transoral and cervical US scans will be performed according to the previously published protocol by Garset-Zamani et al. The investigators will utilize various US machines, including the Arietta 850 US Mach
Receives: Diagnostic Test: Ultrasound of the oropharynx
Control groupNo interventionStandard clinical workup All patients will receive a standard clinical examination by a trained senior registrar or consultant ENT surgeon, regardless of trial arm allocation. All diagnostics will be aligned with the national guidelines for oropharyngeal cancer, including an head and neck surgeon-performed clinical examination (including fiberoptic laryngoscopy with narrow-band imaging and neck US), MRI/PET-CT, and biopsies. A biopsy is performed to obtain a diagnosis when the ENT surgeon identifies a suspicious area. The biopsy will be sent for a frozen section histopathological examination. Patients will undergo standard imaging (MR, PET/CT) for further confirmation of diagnosis if deemed relevant by the ENT surgeon. A final diagnosis, TNM stage, and treatment plan (surgery, radiotherapy, radio- and chemotherapy) are determined at the multidisciplinary team conference. Standard diagnostic workup for patients with a suspected oropharyngeal cancer.

What is being measured

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

  1. Diagnostic accuracy

    Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) in the control and intervention groups

    Measured: The follow-up time is six months from the day of study inclusion

Secondary outcomes (7)
  1. % Number of positive biopsies

    Number of patients recieving a sufficient biopsy during their visit in the outpatient clinic.

    Measured: On the day of the the first outpatient clinic visit.

  2. Tumor staging

    Compare the ultrasound and clinical estimated tumor staging with the final size estimate made at the MDT conference and on MRI

    Measured: From indclusion untill MDT conference

  3. Tumor size

    Comparison of tumor size in three dimensions (APxMLxCC) in mm in both groups and correlation with MRI measurements

    Measured: From inclusion untill MRI result is present. No later than 2 moths after inclusion

  4. Number of patients needing diagnostic surgery

    Comparison of the number of patients needing diagnostic surgery inthe intervention and control groups.

    Measured: From inclusion untill final diagnosis. No later than four moths after inclusion.

  5. Number of visits to the outpatient clinic

    Comparison of the number of visits the the outpatient clinic in the two study groups

    Measured: From initial visit in the outpatient clinic untill completed diagnostic work-up. No later than 6 months after initial examination in the outpatient clinic

  6. Time from initial examination in the outpatient clinic to confirmed diagnosis

    Comparison of the two trial arms in time from initial examination in the outpatient clinic to confirmed diagnosis.

    Measured: 6 moths follow up after the patients first visit to the outpatient clinic

  7. Number of standard imaging modalities (MR, CT, PET/CT) ordered to validate the diagnosis.

    Comparison between the two trial arms of the number of standard imaging modalities (MR, CT, PET/CT) ordered to validate the diagnosis. AT first visit in the outpatient clinic and in total.

    Measured: From first visit in the outpatient clinic until the diagnostic workup completed. No later than 6 months following the initial investigation in the outpatient clinic.

Timeline

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

  1. First posted23 Apr 2026
  2. Study start20 Aug 2025
  3. Primary completion1 Nov 2026 (estimated)
  4. Study completion1 May 2027 (estimated)

Resources

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
2.4 Randomization Patients will be randomized in two trial arms upon inclusion. Intervention group, trial arm A: Receive standard clinical examination (including flexible video-pharyngo-laryngoendoscopy and neck US) and transoral- and cervical US of the oropharynx. Control group, trial arm B: Receive standard clinical examination (including flexible video-pharyngo-laryngoendoscopy and neck US)
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
180 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07548268
Sponsor's protocol ID
VMK2501276
Status last verified
Apr 2026
First submitted
23 Jan 2026
Last updated
23 Apr 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Ultrasound of the oropharynx in people with Oropharyngeal Carcinoma and Ultrasound, run by Tobias Todsen at 4 sites 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 6 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Apr 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 4 sites 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?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Diagnostic accuracy (time frame: The follow-up time is six months from the day of study inclusion). 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 23 Apr 2026.

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