Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic FNA vs FNB in Diagnosing Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions
Primary Purpose
Pancreatic Tumor, Gastric Tumor, Esophageal Tumor
Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle tissue acquisition.
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Pancreatic Tumor
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Consecutive adult patients who require endoscopic ultrasound and tissue sampling of either a) pancreatic solid lesion, b) subepithelial solid lesion of the esophagus, stomach, duodenum or rectum, c) liver lesion, or d) lymph nodes or mass lesion located adjacent to the esophagus, stomach, duodenum or rectum
- Ability to give consent
Exclusion Criteria:
- Inability to obtain informed consent
- Pregnant patients
- Patients under the age of 18
- Severe cardiopulmonary disease preventing a safe EUS procedure
- Patients unable to safely stop anti-coagulation therapy prior to EUS procedure
Sites / Locations
- Stony Brook University HospitalRecruiting
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Active Comparator
Arm Label
Fine needle aspiration (FNA)
Fine needle biopsy (FNB)
Arm Description
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle tissue acquisition: Tissue acquisition using a standard FNA needle
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle tissue acquisition: Tissue acquisition using a new Core needle (Procore; Fine Needle Biopsy).
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Number of needle passes needed to obtain a pathologic diagnosis.
Secondary Outcome Measures
Diagnostic yield, defined as percentage of cases with a diagnostic biopsy sample, between FNA and FNB.
Visible core specimens obtained and its correlation to obtaining a diagnostic sample.
Frequency of adverse side effects.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT01698190
First Posted
May 25, 2012
Last Updated
November 18, 2014
Sponsor
Stony Brook University
Collaborators
New York Medical College, Yale University, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Columbia University, Weill Medical College of Cornell University
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01698190
Brief Title
Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic FNA vs FNB in Diagnosing Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions
Official Title
Comparing the Overall Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Lesions: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
November 2014
Overall Recruitment Status
Unknown status
Study Start Date
December 2011 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
December 2014 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
December 2014 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Stony Brook University
Collaborators
New York Medical College, Yale University, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Columbia University, Weill Medical College of Cornell University
4. Oversight
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine if fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy is more efficacious and cost-effective than the other while maintaining diagnostic accuracy in the setting of solid gastrointestinal lesions.
Detailed Description
When ultrasound is used during endoscopy, we are able to visualize the structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract in close detail. Once the mass is visualized, we use endoscopic ultrasound to obtain a tissue sample, which the pathologist can examine in order to provide a diagnosis.
The conventional method for obtaining a sample of tissue with endoscopic ultrasound is called fine needle aspiration (FNA). This involves the insertion of a thin needle into the mass and obtaining a small sample of tissue which the pathologist can examine. An alternative technique is called fine needle biopsy (FNB), and involves the insertion of a thin double-edged needle into the mass. This double-edged needle may potentially provide a larger sample of tissue to examine.
Both of these techniques are commonly used, and both methods are equally safe. However, it is not known if one of these techniques is more effective at obtaining a sample of tissue or if one of these techniques is more cost-effective than the other. The purpose of this study is to determine if one method is more efficacious and cost-effective than the other while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. The results of this study may alter the way gastroenterologists obtain tissue samples during endoscopic ultrasound, improving the utility of the exam and reducing unnecessary healthcare costs.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Pancreatic Tumor, Gastric Tumor, Esophageal Tumor, Lymphadenopathy, Duodenal Tumor
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
400 (Anticipated)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Fine needle aspiration (FNA)
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle tissue acquisition: Tissue acquisition using a standard FNA needle
Arm Title
Fine needle biopsy (FNB)
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle tissue acquisition: Tissue acquisition using a new Core needle (Procore; Fine Needle Biopsy).
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle tissue acquisition.
Other Intervention Name(s)
Echotip ProCore
Intervention Description
Endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (FNA) allows for the safe and efficacious sampling of solid lesions that are in close proximity to the gastrointestinal tract, including extraintestinal masses, subepithelial tumors, and peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy. Fine needle core biopsy (FNB) has the potential of accruing larger tissue samples during biopsies, which may make the procedure more efficacious. In our study, we are comparing the overall efficacy between these two needles which are currently both used as standard of care.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of needle passes needed to obtain a pathologic diagnosis.
Time Frame
Within 1 week of study enrollment
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Diagnostic yield, defined as percentage of cases with a diagnostic biopsy sample, between FNA and FNB.
Time Frame
By three months post-op in the pathology report
Title
Visible core specimens obtained and its correlation to obtaining a diagnostic sample.
Time Frame
During the intervention itself
Title
Frequency of adverse side effects.
Time Frame
Three months post-op
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Consecutive adult patients who require endoscopic ultrasound and tissue sampling of either a) pancreatic solid lesion, b) subepithelial solid lesion of the esophagus, stomach, duodenum or rectum, c) liver lesion, or d) lymph nodes or mass lesion located adjacent to the esophagus, stomach, duodenum or rectum
Ability to give consent
Exclusion Criteria:
Inability to obtain informed consent
Pregnant patients
Patients under the age of 18
Severe cardiopulmonary disease preventing a safe EUS procedure
Patients unable to safely stop anti-coagulation therapy prior to EUS procedure
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Satish Nagula, M.D.
Phone
631-444-2119
Email
satish.nagula@stonybrookmedicine.edu
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Satish Nagula, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Stony Brook University
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Stony Brook University Hospital
City
Stony Brook
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
11794
Country
United States
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Satish Nagula, M.D.
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
17643438
Citation
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Gan SI, Rajan E, Adler DG, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Cash BD, Davila RE, Dominitz JA, Harrison ME 3rd, Ikenberry SO, Lichtenstein D, Qureshi W, Shen B, Zuckerman M, Fanelli RD, Lee KK, Van Guilder T. Role of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Sep;66(3):425-34. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.05.026. Epub 2007 Jul 23. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9087830
Citation
Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, Ikenberry SO, Lehman GA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Mar;45(3):243-50. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70266-9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9097990
Citation
Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997 Apr;112(4):1087-95. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70164-1.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21483464
Citation
Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, Larino-Noia J, Eugenyeva E, Lozano-Leon A, Forteza-Vila J. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep;106(9):1705-10. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.119. Epub 2011 Apr 12.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12447300
Citation
Schwartz DA, Unni KK, Levy MJ, Clain JE, Wiersema MJ. The rate of false-positive results with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Dec;56(6):868-72. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.129610.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21420083
Citation
Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, Abdulkader I, Monges G, Costamagna G, Arcidiacono P, Biermann K, Rindi G, Bories E, Dogloni C, Bruno M, Dominguez-Munoz JE. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1189-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.053. Epub 2011 Mar 21.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21611946
Citation
Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F, Iori V, Cavina M, Sereni G, Decembrino F, Gallo C, Tamagnini I, Valli R, Piana S, Campari C, Gardini G, Sassatelli R. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy. 2011 Aug;43(8):709-15. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256482. Epub 2011 May 24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28624647
Citation
Nagula S, Pourmand K, Aslanian H, Bucobo JC, Gonda TA, Gonzalez S, Goodman A, Gross SA, Ho S, DiMaio CJ, Kim MK, Pais S, Poneros JM, Robbins DH, Schnoll-Sussman F, Sethi A, Buscaglia JM; New York Endoscopic Research Outcomes Group (NYERO). Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1307-1313.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.013. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
Results Reference
derived
Learn more about this trial
Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic FNA vs FNB in Diagnosing Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs