search
Back to results

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
Ruijin Hospital
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Pancreatic Neoplasms focused on measuring endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound guided FNB

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. informed consent
  2. Subjects over 18 years old
  3. Imaging examination (ultrasound, CT or MRI) diagnosed or suspected solid pancreatic mass more than 1cm

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Unable or refused to sign informed consent
  2. suspended anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy
  3. Being pregnant or breastfeeding
  4. Cystic lesions of the pancreas
  5. coagulation disorders (PLT <50×103/ L, INR > 1.5)
  6. A history of mental illness
  7. 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

    First Posted
    October 1, 2020
    Last Updated
    November 25, 2020
    Sponsor
    Ruijin Hospital
    Collaborators
    Changhai Hospital, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University
    search

    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