Comparsion of WT and SNP Techniques of EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Mass (WESP-PSM) (WESP-PSM)
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 Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
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
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: WET First group
COOK ECHO-HD 22-C EchoTip Procore needle biopsy in WS-SNP-WS-SNP sequence
|
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
after puncturing the lesion, the endoscopist removed the stylet and attached a 10-mL pre-vacuum syringe for aspiration.
|
|
Experimental: STANDARD first group
COOK ECHO-HD 22-C EchoTip Procore needle in SNP-WS-SNP-WS sequence
|
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
after puncturing the lesion, the endoscopist removed the stylet and attached a 10-mL pre-vacuum syringe for aspiration.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
diagnostic sensitivity of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Time Frame: 6 month
|
Sensitivity will be calculated as the probability of actually having pancreatic diasease and being diagnosed by WS technique during EUS-FNB
|
6 month
|
|
diagnostic specificity of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Time Frame: 6 month
|
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
|
6 month
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Sample adequacy of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Time Frame: 6 month
|
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.
|
6 month
|
|
Cell density of WS technique and SNP technique by EUS-FNB
Time Frame: 6 month
|
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 |
6 month
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Anticipated)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- RuijinH2020301
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.