Comparsion of WT and SNP Techniques of EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Mass (WESP-PSM) (WESP-PSM)
Primary Purpose
Pancreatic Neoplasms, Diagnoses Disease
Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
wet suction
standard negative pressure suction
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Pancreatic Neoplasms focused on measuring endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound guided FNB
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- informed consent
- Subjects over 18 years old
- Imaging examination (ultrasound, CT or MRI) diagnosed or suspected solid pancreatic mass more than 1cm
Exclusion Criteria:
- Unable or refused to sign informed consent
- suspended anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy
- Being pregnant or breastfeeding
- Cystic lesions of the pancreas
- coagulation disorders (PLT <50×103/ L, INR > 1.5)
- A history of mental illness
- other medical conditions that are not suitable for FNB puncture
Sites / Locations
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Experimental
Arm Label
WET First group
STANDARD first group
Arm Description
COOK ECHO-HD 22-C EchoTip Procore needle biopsy in WS-SNP-WS-SNP sequence
COOK ECHO-HD 22-C EchoTip Procore needle in SNP-WS-SNP-WS sequence
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
diagnostic sensitivity of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Sensitivity will be calculated as the probability of actually having pancreatic diasease and being diagnosed by WS technique during EUS-FNB
diagnostic specificity of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
specificity will be calculated as the probability of actually not having the pancreatic disease and being diagnosed as being free of the disease by WS or SNP technique during EUS-FNB
Secondary Outcome Measures
Sample adequacy of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
The tissue integrity assessments of specimens will be evaluated by score 0-3. Score 3, sufficient material for adequate histological interpretation; Score 2, samples allowing limited histological assessment; Score 1,samples not providing histological information.
Cell density of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
The Cell density assessments of specimens will be evaluated by score A-C. Score A:Satisfactory, more than 4 clusters of cells, each cluster more than 10 cells.
Score B:Sufficient, approximately 2-4 clusters, each with more than 10 cells Score C: :Unsatisfactory, less than 2 clusters or no cells on slide
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT04605042
First Posted
October 1, 2020
Last Updated
November 25, 2020
Sponsor
Ruijin Hospital
Collaborators
Changhai Hospital, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04605042
Brief Title
Comparsion of WT and SNP Techniques of EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Mass (WESP-PSM)
Acronym
WESP-PSM
Official Title
A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study of Wet-suction Technique and Standard Negative Pressure Technique in EUS-FNB for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Mass
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
November 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Unknown status
Study Start Date
December 1, 2020 (Anticipated)
Primary Completion Date
June 1, 2022 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
September 30, 2022 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Ruijin Hospital
Collaborators
Changhai Hospital, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnosis accuracy between of wet suction (WS) technique and standard negative pressure (SNP) technique in EUS-FNB by 22G EUS Procore fine needle biopsy(FNB)device for solid pancreatic lesions.
Detailed Description
This is a multi-center, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. two hundred and ninety six patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS guided fine needle biopsy will be randomly assigned to two groups. For group A which will be used with 22G EUS Procore fine needle biopsy device, the pass sequence is WS-SNP-WS-SNP technique. For group B with 22G EUS Procore fine needle biopsy device, the pass sequence is SNP-WS-SNP-WS. All procedures will be performed by experienced echo-endoscopists, and the patients and assessors (cytologists and pathologists) will be blinded during the entire study. The primary outcome measure is the diagnosis yield. Secondary outcome measures are specimen quality.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Pancreatic Neoplasms, Diagnoses Disease
Keywords
endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound guided FNB
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Masking
ParticipantInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
296 (Anticipated)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
WET First group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
COOK ECHO-HD 22-C EchoTip Procore needle biopsy in WS-SNP-WS-SNP sequence
Arm Title
STANDARD first group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
COOK ECHO-HD 22-C EchoTip Procore needle in SNP-WS-SNP-WS sequence
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
wet suction
Intervention Description
Before pucturing the lesion, the stylet was removed and the needle was pre-flushed with 1-2 mL of saline using a 10-mL syringe, the endoscopist then punctured the lesion and replaced the 10-mL syringe with a 10-mL pre-vacuum syringe
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
standard negative pressure suction
Intervention Description
after puncturing the lesion, the endoscopist removed the stylet and attached a 10-mL pre-vacuum syringe for aspiration.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
diagnostic sensitivity of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Description
Sensitivity will be calculated as the probability of actually having pancreatic diasease and being diagnosed by WS technique during EUS-FNB
Time Frame
6 month
Title
diagnostic specificity of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Description
specificity will be calculated as the probability of actually not having the pancreatic disease and being diagnosed as being free of the disease by WS or SNP technique during EUS-FNB
Time Frame
6 month
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Sample adequacy of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Description
The tissue integrity assessments of specimens will be evaluated by score 0-3. Score 3, sufficient material for adequate histological interpretation; Score 2, samples allowing limited histological assessment; Score 1,samples not providing histological information.
Time Frame
6 month
Title
Cell density of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Description
The Cell density assessments of specimens will be evaluated by score A-C. Score A:Satisfactory, more than 4 clusters of cells, each cluster more than 10 cells.
Score B:Sufficient, approximately 2-4 clusters, each with more than 10 cells Score C: :Unsatisfactory, less than 2 clusters or no cells on slide
Time Frame
6 month
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
informed consent
Subjects over 18 years old
Imaging examination (ultrasound, CT or MRI) diagnosed or suspected solid pancreatic mass more than 1cm
Exclusion Criteria:
Unable or refused to sign informed consent
suspended anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy
Being pregnant or breastfeeding
Cystic lesions of the pancreas
coagulation disorders (PLT <50×103/ L, INR > 1.5)
A history of mental illness
other medical conditions that are not suitable for FNB puncture
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
DuoWu Zou, Ph.D,M.D
Phone
+86 13901617608
Email
zdw_pi@163.com
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Chunhua Zhou, Ph.D,M.D
Phone
+86 13616275889
Email
zhou_chunh@163.com
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
DuoWu Zou, Ph.D,M.D
Organizational Affiliation
Ruijin hospital Shanghai Jiaotong Universtity, school of medicine
Official's Role
Study Chair
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
Undecided
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
28511234
Citation
Dumonceau JM, Deprez PH, Jenssen C, Iglesias-Garcia J, Larghi A, Vanbiervliet G, Aithal GP, Arcidiacono PG, Bastos P, Carrara S, Czako L, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Fockens P, Gines A, Havre RF, Hassan C, Vilmann P, van Hooft JE, Polkowski M. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated January 2017. Endoscopy. 2017 Jul;49(7):695-714. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-109021. Epub 2017 May 16.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27580856
Citation
Banafea O, Mghanga FP, Zhao J, Zhao R, Zhu L. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration for histological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016 Aug 31;16(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s12876-016-0519-z.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23254913
Citation
Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Buxbaum JL, Eloubeidi MA. How good is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid pancreatic mass?: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Pancreas. 2013 Jan;42(1):20-6. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182546e79.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23433878
Citation
Lee JK, Choi JH, Lee KH, Kim KM, Shin JU, Lee JK, Lee KT, Jang KT. A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 May;77(5):745-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.009. Epub 2013 Feb 21.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19394012
Citation
Moller K, Papanikolaou IS, Toermer T, Delicha EM, Sarbia M, Schenck U, Koch M, Al-Abadi H, Meining A, Schmidt H, Schulz HJ, Wiedenmann B, Rosch T. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: high yield of 2 passes with combined histologic-cytologic analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jul;70(1):60-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.008. Epub 2009 Apr 25.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19032453
Citation
Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, Noda K, Chikugo T, Dote K, Takeyama Y, Das K, Yamao K, Kudo M. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Mar;24(3):384-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05636.x. Epub 2008 Nov 20.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28898917
Citation
Polkowski M, Jenssen C, Kaye P, Carrara S, Deprez P, Gines A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Eisendrath P, Aithal GP, Arcidiacono P, Barthet M, Bastos P, Fornelli A, Napoleon B, Iglesias-Garcia J, Seicean A, Larghi A, Hassan C, van Hooft JE, Dumonceau JM. Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017. Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;49(10):989-1006. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-119219. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26279842
Citation
Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S, Leblanc S, Chaussade S, Terris B, Barret M, Prat F. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United European Gastroenterol J. 2015 Aug;3(4):343-52. doi: 10.1177/2050640615577533.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25733127
Citation
Attam R, Arain MA, Bloechl SJ, Trikudanathan G, Munigala S, Bakman Y, Singh M, Wallace T, Henderson JB, Catalano MF, Guda NM. "Wet suction technique (WEST)": a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1401-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.023. Epub 2015 Feb 27.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
32413915
Citation
Wang Y, Wang RH, Ding Z, Tan SY, Chen Q, Duan YQ, Zhu LR, Cao JW, Wang J, Shi G, Wu XL, Wang JL, Zhao YC, Tang SJ, Cheng B. Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2020 Nov;52(11):995-1003. doi: 10.1055/a-1167-2214. Epub 2020 May 15.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
32003100
Citation
Li DF, Wang JY, Yang MF, Xiong F, Zhang DG, Xu ZL, Luo MH, Jing ZD, Wang KX, Wang LS, Yao J. Factors associated with diagnostic accuracy, technical success and adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Aug;35(8):1264-1276. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14999. Epub 2020 Feb 23.
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
Comparsion of WT and SNP Techniques of EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Mass (WESP-PSM)
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs