Robotic Systems Evaluation for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions (RISE Trial)

July 29, 2026 updated by: Case Comprehensive Cancer Center

Robotic Systems Evaluation for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Randomized Trial (RISE Trial)

This is an investigator-initiated cluster randomized control trial. The primary objective is to compare the diagnostic yield of two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared national robotic assisted bronchoscopy platforms - the Monarch™ Platform and the ION™ Endoluminal System - in participants undergoing bronchoscopy to evaluate peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Participants will undergo their scheduled robotic assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) using one of these platforms.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Not yet recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Roughly 1.6 million lung nodules are identified every year in the United States. When tissue sampling is required, robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) systems are increasingly used to reach peripheral targets inaccessible to standard bronchoscopy.

Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) has rapidly evolved as a promising modality for sampling PPLs. Two FDA-cleared robotic platforms are currently in clinical use: the ION™ Endoluminal System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) and the Monarch™ Platform (Johnson & Johnson MedTech / Auris Health, Redwood City, CA). Both platforms were cleared through the FDA 510(k) pathway, which requires demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices but does not mandate comparative effectiveness data prior to commercialization.

The ION™ system uses shape-sensing fiber-optic technology to track catheter position with high precision throughout the bronchial tree. It has been shown in multiple studies to achieve diagnostic yields ranging from 67-85%, with enhanced performance when combined with intraprocedural cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The recent RELIANT trial (the first cluster-randomized controlled trial in interventional pulmonology) demonstrated that ION™ was non-inferior to electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) with integrated digital tomosynthesis, with diagnostic yields of 77.8% and 75.5% respectively (P for non-inferiority = 0.007).

The Monarch™ platform uses a hybrid approach combining electromagnetic tracking and robotic catheter control with a continuously visualizing bronchoscope (4-way articulation). A key feature of the Monarch™ is direct bronchoscopic vision throughout navigation, enabling real-time assessment of the airways and the target lesion. The Monarch™ has received additional FDA clearance for bronchoscopic transparenchymal nodule access (BTPNA), allowing access to lesions without a direct airway path. Published studies report diagnostic yields of 66-81% for the Monarch™ platform, though most are single-center, non-randomized studies with varying definitions of diagnostic yield, co-intervention use, and did not fully use integrated intraprocedural imaging (including fluoroscopy and CBCT, as available and integrated).

Critically, no randomized or high-quality comparative study has directly compared the ION™ and Monarch™ platforms head-to-head with integrated intraprocedural imaging. As both systems are now available at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and represent substantial capital expenditures, high-quality prospective comparative data are urgently needed to guide clinical decision-making and resource allocation. This trial leverages the existing dual-platform clinical infrastructure at UHCMC to conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, non-inferiority trial embedded within routine clinical care

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
398

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Ohio
      • Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44106
        • University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Sameer K Avasarala, MD

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age ≥ 18 years at the time of bronchoscopy.
  • Scheduled to undergo navigational bronchoscopy (either ION™ or Monarch™) for the evaluation of a pulmonary lesion at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (UHCMC).
  • Able and willing to provide written informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Enrolled in another clinical trial that requires the use of a specific navigational/robotic bronchoscopy platform.
  • Enrolled in another bronchoscopy-related clinical trial.
  • Participant or legally authorized representative declines participation.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Other: Monarch Platform
This study is being conducted at a hospital that has two bronchoscopy procedure rooms (BPRs). The unit of the randomization is the BPR day. Each day, one BPR will be randomized to the Monarch platform and the other to the ION platform. Participants in this arm will have undergone their RAB via the Monarch platform.
Procedure: RAB via the Monarch platform
The Monarch™ (Monarch) platform is one of two FDA-cleared robotic platforms currently in clinical use for robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB). It uses a hybrid approach combining electromagnetic tracking and robotic catheter control with a continuously visualizing bronchoscope (4-way articulation). A key feature of the Monarch platform is direct bronchoscopic vision throughout navigation, enabling real-time assessment of the airways and the target lesion.
Other Names:
  • Monarch™
Other: ION Platform
This study is being conducted at a hospital that has two bronchoscopy procedure rooms (BPRs). The unit of the randomization is the BPR day. Each day, one BPR will be randomized to the Monarch platform and the other to the ION platform. Participants in this arm will have undergone their RAB via the ION platform.
Procedure: RAB via the ION platform
The ION™ Endoluminal System (ION) platform is one of two FDA-cleared robotic platforms currently in clinical use for robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB). It uses shape-sensing fiber-optic technology to track catheter position with high precision throughout the bronchial tree.
Other Names:
  • ION™ Endoluminal System

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Diagnostic yield defined as the proportion of procedures that result in the acquisition of lesional tissue
Time Frame: Up to Day 14
Diagnostic yield is defined as the proportion of procedures that result in the acquisition of lesional tissue. This will be measured for both procedures conducted via the Monarch platform and the ION platform.
Up to Day 14

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Duration of the robotic bronchoscopy procedures
Time Frame: Day 0
The duration of the robotic bronchoscopy procedure will be measured in minutes for both the Monarch platform and the ION platform.
Day 0
Safety, measured by the number of complications
Time Frame: Up to Day 7
Safety will be measured by the number of complications that occur within 7 days of the procedure for both the Monarch platform group and the ION platform group.
Up to Day 7
Radiation exposure
Time Frame: Day 0
Radiation exposure is defined as the radiation dose delivered to the participant during the study bronchoscopy and is recorded as a dose area product in milligray per centimeters squared (mGy/cm2). Radiation exposure is measured for both the Monarch platform group and the ION platform group.
Day 0
Rate of additional diagnostic procedures required within 12 months
Time Frame: Up to 12 months
The rate of additional diagnostic procedures required within 12 months of the study bronchoscopy will be assess for both the Monarch platform group and the ION group.
Up to 12 months
Diagnostic accuracy at 12 months post-biopsy
Time Frame: Up to 12 months
Diagnostic accuracy at 12 months post-biopsy is defined as the number of true positive lesions (malignant) plus true negative lesions (specific benign diagnosis) with no evidence of malignancy at 12-month follow-up (no interval biopsy diagnostic of malignancy, regression on CT or stable size with no plan for repeat diagnostic procedure), divided by the total number of biopsied lesions. This will be assessed for both the Monarch platform group and the ION platform group.
Up to 12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Case Comprehensive Cancer Center

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Sameer K Avasarala, MD, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospitals

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
August 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
August 1, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
August 1, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
July 23, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 29, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
July 30, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
July 30, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 29, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
July 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • CASE3526

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Sharing Time Frame

The data will become available 3 months following publication of outcomes and will remain available for at least 5 years.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Data will be made available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal that has been approved by University Hospitals Institutional Review Board and the study executive committee.

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

Yes

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.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings