Celiac Plexus BlockNCT07865286
Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Versus Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block in Patients With Intractable Upper Abdominal Pain
A study testing Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block and Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block in people with Celiac Plexus Block, run by Assiut University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Upper abdominal pain is a common and often debilitating symptom in patients with pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, and is frequently under-treated by standard opioid therapy despite dose escalation and associated side effects [1]. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Celiac Plexus Block
- What is being tested?
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block and Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 1 Dec 2026to 30 Jun 2029
- 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
- 1. Age: ≥ 18 years 2. Diagnosis: Histologically or cytologically confirmed upper abdominal malignancy, including:
- Pancreatic cancer
- Gastric cancer
- Duodenal cancer
- Biliary tract cancer (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer)
- Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) 3. Chronic Abdominal Pain: Intractable upper abdominal pain attributed to the underlying disease 4. Pain Severity: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score ≥ 4/10 on at least 50% of days in the preceding 4 weeks, despite optimal medical therapy 5. Stable Analgesic Regimen: For ≥ 4 weeks prior to enrollment 6. Performance Status: ECOG 0-2 7. Informed Consent: Willing and able to provide written informed consent
Who cannot join
- 1. Age: < 18 years 2. Coagulopathy: INR > 1.5 or platelet count < 50,000/μL, or use of anticoagulants that cannot be safely withheld per procedure guidelines 3. Allergy: Known allergy to local anesthetics or corticosteroids 4. Pregnancy: Intrauterine pregnancy or breastfeeding 5. Altered Anatomy: Anatomical variation, prior surgery, or interposed structures precluding safe performance of either procedure.
- -
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Upper abdominal pain is a common and often debilitating symptom in patients with pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, and is frequently under-treated by standard opioid therapy despite dose escalation and associated side effects [1]. In chronic pancreatitis, abdominal pain is present in the great majority of patients and is often the dominant factor driving impaired quality of life, with celiac plexus block considered an interventional option for temporary relief [2]. Pain arising from both malignant and benign upper abdominal pathology is transmitted through the celiac plexus, an autonomic plexus located in the retroperitoneum at the root of the celiac trunk, making it a rational target for pain-relieving intervention in either disease process [3]. Two image-guided approaches have been developed to interrupt this pathway: the percutaneous route, performed under fluoroscopic or CT guidance [5], and the endoscopic ultrasound-guided route, performed transgastrically at the time of upper endoscopy, which allows direct visualization of the celiac plexus and may reduce the risk of injury to adjacent structures compared with the percutaneous approach [3,9]. Neurolytic celiac plexus block has been shown to improve pain relief in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer [6], while EUS-guided celiac plexus block has similarly demonstrated efficacy in relieving pain associated with chronic pancreatitis [7]. Direct comparisons between the two approaches, however, remain limited: existing trials and meta-analyses in both chronic pancreatitis [2,8] and pancreatic cancer [4,9] show inconsistent superiority of one technique over the other, and the choice between them in practice has historically relied more on institutional expertise than on robust head-to-head evidence
Read the detailed description
Primary objective To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided versus percutaneous (ultrasound-guided) celiac plexus block in controlling pain in patients with upper gastrointestinal malignancies (pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma) and chronic pancreatitis.
Secondary Objectives
- To compare the degree and duration of pain relief achieved by EUS-guided versus percutaneous celiac plexus block, assessed by a validated pain scale, over a 6-month follow-up period.
- To compare the impact of each technique on health-related quality of life, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (all patients) with the PAN26 module (pancreatic cancer patients only).
- Conditions
- Celiac Plexus Block
- Being tested
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block, Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block
- Keywords
- celiac plexus block
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus BlockProcedure or surgery
Celiac plexus block via endoscopic ultrasound
Percutaneous Celiac Plexus BlockProcedure or surgery
Celiac plexus block via percutaneous route image guided
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| EUS guided celiac plexus block | Active comparator | Participants receive celiac plexus block under endoscopic ultrasound guidance. Receives: Procedure: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block |
| Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block | Active comparator | Participants receive celiac plexus block via percutaneous approach. Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
Pain intensity assessed using the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate worse pain. Comparison based on mean change from baseline between the EUS-guided and percutaneous groups.
Measured: Time Frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Pain intensity assessed using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate worse pain. Comparison based on mean change from baseline between groups.
Measured: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure
Incidence of Procedure-Related Adverse Events
Number and percentage of participants experiencing procedure-related adverse events (e.g., bleeding, infection, hypotension, diarrhea, retroperitoneal hematoma), graded according to CTCAE v5.0 and compared between the EUS-guided and percutaneous groups
Measured: Through 12 weeks post-procedure
Secondary outcomes (5)
Duration of Pain Relief
Time from procedure to loss of at least 50% reduction in pain score (NRS/VAS) from baseline, reported in weeks.
Measured: Up to 12 weeks post-procedure
Patient Satisfaction with Treatment
Assessed using a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.
Measured: 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-procedure
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
Assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse).
Measured: 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-procedure
Functional Disability as Assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Functional disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index, scored as a percentage from 0% to 100%. Higher scores indicate greater disability.
Measured: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Change in Quality of Life as Assessed by the EQ-5D-5L
Health-related quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression; 5 severity levels each), together with the EQ Visual Analog Scale (0-100, higher = better self-rated health).
Measured: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Oct 2026
- Study start1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion30 Dec 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2029 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Celiac Plexus BlockStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Assiut UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assiut University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ahmed Elhussiny Salah Mahmoud, Assiut University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07865286
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- celiac plexus block
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 19 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 8 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Yoon WJ, Oh Y, Yoo C, Jang S, Cho SS, Suh JH, Choi SS, Park DH. EUS-Guided Versus Percutaneous Celiac Neurolysis for the Management of Intractable Pain Due to Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 1;9(6):1666. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061666.
PubMed 32492883Wong GY, Schroeder DR, Carns PE, Wilson JL, Martin DP, Kinney MO, Mantilla CB, Warner DO. Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block on pain relief, quality of life, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 Mar 3;291(9):1092-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.9.1092.
PubMed 14996778Moura RN, De Moura EG, Bernardo WM, Otoch JP, Bustamante FA, Albers DV, Silva GL, Chaves DM, Artifon EL. Endoscopic-ultrasound versus percutaneous-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2015 Oct-Dec;35(4):333-41.
PubMed 26802887
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Versus Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block in Patients With Intractable Upper Abdominal Pain
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07865286
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- celiac plexus block
- Conditions
- Celiac Plexus Block
- Keywords
- celiac plexus block
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Assiut UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 30 Dec 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2029 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 Oct 2026 (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.
Upper abdominal pain is a common and often debilitating symptom in patients with pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, and is frequently under-treated by standard opioid therapy despite dose escalation and associated side effects [1]. In chronic pancreatitis, abdominal pain is present in the great majority of patients and is often the dominant factor driving impaired quality of life, with celiac plexus block considered an interventional option for temporary relief [2]. Pain arising from both malignant and benign upper abdominal pathology is transmitted through the celiac plexus, an autonomic plexus located in the retroperitoneum at the root of the celiac trunk, making it a rational target for pain-relieving intervention in either disease process [3]. Two image-guided approaches have been developed to interrupt this pathway: the percutaneous route, performed under fluoroscopic or CT guidance [5], and the endoscopic ultrasound-guided route, performed transgastrically at the time of upper endoscopy, which allows direct visualization of the celiac plexus and may reduce the risk of injury to adjacent structures compared with the percutaneous approach [3,9]. Neurolytic celiac plexus block has been shown to improve pain relief in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer [6], while EUS-guided celiac plexus block has similarly demonstrated efficacy in relieving pain associated with chronic pancreatitis [7]. Direct comparisons between the two approaches, however, remain limited: existing trials and meta-analyses in both chronic pancreatitis [2,8] and pancreatic cancer [4,9] show inconsistent superiority of one technique over the other, and the choice between them in practice has historically relied more on institutional expertise than on robust head-to-head evidence
Detailed description
Primary objective To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided versus percutaneous (ultrasound-guided) celiac plexus block in controlling pain in patients with upper gastrointestinal malignancies (pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma) and chronic pancreatitis.
Secondary Objectives
- To compare the degree and duration of pain relief achieved by EUS-guided versus percutaneous celiac plexus block, assessed by a validated pain scale, over a 6-month follow-up period.
- To compare the impact of each technique on health-related quality of life, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 (all patients) with the PAN26 module (pancreatic cancer patients only).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| EUS guided celiac plexus block | Active comparator | Procedure: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus BlockParticipants receive celiac plexus block under endoscopic ultrasound guidance. |
| Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block | Active comparator | Procedure: Percutaneous Celiac Plexus BlockParticipants receive celiac plexus block via percutaneous approach. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- 1. Age: ≥ 18 years 2. Diagnosis: Histologically or cytologically confirmed upper abdominal malignancy, including:
- Pancreatic cancer
- Gastric cancer
- Duodenal cancer
- Biliary tract cancer (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer)
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 1. Age: < 18 years 2. Coagulopathy: INR > 1.5 or platelet count < 50,000/μL, or use of anticoagulants that cannot be safely withheld per procedure guidelines 3. Allergy: Known allergy to local anesthetics or corticosteroids 4. Pregnancy: Intrauterine pregnancy or breastfeeding 5. Altered Anatomy: Anatomical variation, prior surgery, or interposed structures precluding safe performance of either procedure.
- -
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus BlockCeliac plexus block via endoscopic ultrasound | Procedure or surgery | EUS guided celiac plexus block |
| Percutaneous Celiac Plexus BlockCeliac plexus block via percutaneous route image guided | Procedure or surgery | Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block |
Primary outcome
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
Time frame: Time Frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure
Pain intensity assessed using the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate worse pain. Comparison based on mean change from baseline between the EUS-guided and percutaneous groups.
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure
Pain intensity assessed using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain imaginable). Higher scores indicate worse pain. Comparison based on mean change from baseline between groups.
Incidence of Procedure-Related Adverse Events
Time frame: Through 12 weeks post-procedure
Number and percentage of participants experiencing procedure-related adverse events (e.g., bleeding, infection, hypotension, diarrhea, retroperitoneal hematoma), graded according to CTCAE v5.0 and compared between the EUS-guided and percutaneous groups
5 secondary outcomes
Duration of Pain Relief
Time frame: Up to 12 weeks post-procedure
Patient Satisfaction with Treatment
Time frame: 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-procedure
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
Time frame: 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-procedure
Functional Disability as Assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Change in Quality of Life as Assessed by the EQ-5D-5L
Time frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Oct 2026.
- Background: PubMed 32492883Yoon WJ, Oh Y, Yoo C, Jang S, Cho SS, Suh JH, Choi SS, Park DH. EUS-Guided Versus Percutaneous Celiac Neurolysis for the Management of Intractable Pain Due to Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 1;9(6):1666. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061666.
- Background: PubMed 14996778Wong GY, Schroeder DR, Carns PE, Wilson JL, Martin DP, Kinney MO, Mantilla CB, Warner DO. Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block on pain relief, quality of life, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 Mar 3;291(9):1092-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.9.1092.
- Background: PubMed 26802887Moura RN, De Moura EG, Bernardo WM, Otoch JP, Bustamante FA, Albers DV, Silva GL, Chaves DM, Artifon EL. Endoscopic-ultrasound versus percutaneous-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2015 Oct-Dec;35(4):333-41.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Celiac Plexus Block
Recruiting
Coeliac Plexus vs Splanchnic Nerve Neurolysis for Upper Abdominal Cancer Pain
Upper Abdominal Malignancies
RecruitingObservational study
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis (EUS-CPN) for Chronic Pancreatitis
Chronic Pancreatitis
RecruitingObservational study
A Prospective Observational Study of First-Line Systemic Therapy Combined With Celiac Plexus Blockade for Advanced Biliopancreatic Cancer With Pain
Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer(BTC), Advanced Pancreatic Cancers
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Pilot Study in Endoscopic Therapy on Quality of Life and Pain in Chronic Pancreatitis
Chronic Pancreatitis
Not yet recruiting
Neurolytic Block Techniques In Abdominal Visceral Cancer Pain
Cancer, Malignant Tumors, Abdominal 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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Celiac Plexus Block and Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Block in people with Celiac Plexus Block, run by Assiut University at 1 site in Egypt.
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: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Oct 2026. 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 Egypt. 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?
Contact Ahmed Elhussiny Salah, Assistant lecturer (+201157104164, ahmedelhosieny298@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Pain Intensity from Baseline as Assessed by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (time frame: Time Frame: Baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-procedure). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT07865286, which also lists 3 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 8 Oct 2026.