On-site Cytopathology EUS-FNA

May 17, 2018 updated by: University of Colorado, Denver

The Clinical Impact of Immediate On-site Cytopathology Evaluation During Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Mass: A Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

This study is a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial. Potential participants in this study include patients referred for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of a solid pancreatic lesion at one of the participating centers. If the patient meets inclusion criteria and signs the informed consent, they will be randomized into one of the two study arms in a 1:1 ratio. Patients will either undergo EUS-FNA with or without an on-site cytopathologist present during EUS-FNA. Patients assigned to the on-site cytopathologist arm will have the cytopathologist dictate the number of fine needle aspiration (FNA) passes performed by the endosonographer. This number will be based on the adequacy of specimen and the ability to provide a preliminary diagnosis. In the other arm, in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist, the endosonographer will perform a predetermined number of 7 passes (standard of care in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist). The technique of performing EUS-FNA (needle type, use of stylet, suction) will be standardized among all endosonographers in order to rule out confounding factors. After EUS-FNA is performed all slides will be sent to the pathology department. The slides will be sent for review regardless of which arm the patient is randomized into, and they will be reviewed by experienced cytopathologists for the purpose of determining the final diagnoses.

Future clinical intervention will be monitored for the purpose of reporting the impact EUS-FNA has on the patient's clinical course and determining diagnostic accuracy. Patients will be followed prospectively for at least one year, and the gold-standard for final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy will be defined by the presence of malignant cytology or histologic evidence (if the patient undergoes surgery) or with clinical and/or imaging follow-up consistent with pancreatic cancer (death or clinical progression). A detailed account of medical equipment used during each procedure, procedure time, clinic visits/hospitalizations due to procedure related complications, and number of repeat procedures will be recorded systematically.

The investigators hypothesize that an on-site cytopathologist during EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses improves diagnostic yield, accuracy, and lowers the duration, complications and the need for repeat procedures.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) plays an integral role in the diagnosis of suspected pancreatic cancer, and the EUS findings are crucial for determining the course of future management and potential treatment options for these patients. EUS is the most sensitive imaging modality for the detection of pancreatic masses, and has a sensitivity of greater than or equal to 90%. Furthermore, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) plays an important role in accurate staging of pancreatic cancer with a sensitivity of 85% and specificity close to 100%. EUS-FNA is considered to be cost-effective by virtue of its impact on therapeutic management. In particular, real-time tissue sampling by EUS-FNA is possible when a cytopathologist (pathologist skilled in evaluating fine needle aspiration specimens) is able to be present at the time of FNA in order to review the biopsy slides and make a preliminary diagnosis. The availability of an on-site cytopathologist has the potential to provide quick diagnostic and predictive information to confirm the presence and staging of suspected malignancy. The rationale for an on-site cytopathologist includes increasing the adequacy and yield of biopsy tissue/aspirate which can decrease the need for additional passes to obtain a diagnostic yield of tissue. This hypothesis, however, has not been formally examined.

In this proposed randomized controlled multicenter trial, the investigators hypothesize that an on-site cytopathologist during EUS-FNA for pancreatic masses improves diagnostic yield, accuracy, and lowers the duration, complications and the need for repeat procedures. This hypothesis will be explored in the context of the following specific aims.

Specific aim #1: To compare the diagnostic yield of malignancy and proportion of inadequate specimens between the two groups.

Specific aim #2: To compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA between the two groups using histologic diagnosis or cytologic diagnosis in conjunction with clinical and/or imaging follow-up as the gold standard.

Specific aim #3: To compare the duration, rate of complications and repeat procedures between the two groups.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

111

Contacts and Locations

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

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Missouri
      • Saint Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110
        • Washington University School of Medicine

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

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Probability Sample

Study Population

Potential participants for this study include patients presenting to each of the three tertiary referral centers for an Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients age: greater than or equal to 18 years
  • Presence of a solid pancreatic mass lesion confirmed by at least a single investigational modality such as computerized axial tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)
  • Ability to provide written informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Severe coagulopathy [International Normalized Ratio (INR) > 1.8] or thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50,000)
  • Pure cystic lesions of the pancreas
  • Inability to sample lesion due to the presence of intervening blood vessels
  • Results of EUS-FNA would not impact patient management

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

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Cytopathologist present during EUS-FNA

Patients assigned to the on-site cytopathologist arm will have the cytopathologist dictate the number of FNA passes performed by the endosonographer. This number will be based on the adequacy of specimen and the ability to provide a preliminary diagnosis.

After EUS-FNA is performed all slides will be sent to the pathology department. The slides will be sent for review regardless of which arm the patient is randomized into, and they will be reviewed by experienced cytopathologists for the purpose of determining the final diagnoses.
Procedure: EUS-guided FNA performed with on-site Cytopathologist
Patients assigned to the on-site cytopathologist arm will have the cytopathologist dictate the number of FNA passes performed by the endosonographer. This number will be based on the adequacy of specimen and the ability to provide a preliminary diagnosis.
Cytopathologist absent during EUS-FNA

In the absence of an on-site cytopathologist, the endosonographer will perform a predetermined number of 7 passes (standard of care in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist).

After EUS-FNA is performed all slides will be sent to the pathology department. The slides will be sent for review regardless of which arm the patient is randomized into, and they will be reviewed by experienced cytopathologists for the purpose of determining the final diagnoses.
Procedure: EUS-guided FNA performed without on-site Cytopathologist
In the absence of an on-site cytopathologist, the endosonographer will perform a predetermined number of 7 passes (standard of care in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Compare the percent of patients with a positive diagnosis of malignancy in each of the two groups.
Time Frame: 1 year from the time of patient enrollment
The Investigators would like to look at each of the two groups to assess whether or not having an onsite cytopathologist during EUS-FNA increases the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic malignancies. To do this, the Investigators will compare the percent of patients in each group who were accurately diagnosed with a malignancy during EUS-FNA to see if the on-site cytopathologist group yields a higher percent of positively diagnosed malignancies.
1 year from the time of patient enrollment
Compare the percent of patients with inadequate samples (defined by an absence of cellular elements to account for a mass/lesion) between the two groups
Time Frame: 1-2 weeks from patient enrollment/EUS-FNA
Final slides will be reviewed by three experienced cytopathologists blinded to the patient's randomization group. The slides for each pass will be assessed for: cellularity, adequacy of specimen, contamination, amount of blood, and diagnosis. Using the cytopathologists' assessment of the FNA specimens, the Investigators will compare the percent of patients with inadequate samples in each group to see if the absence of an on-site cytopathologist corresponds with a higher percent of inadequate FNA samples.
1-2 weeks from patient enrollment/EUS-FNA

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA between the two groups
Time Frame: 1 year from patient enrollment
Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA will be evaluated using histologic diagnosis or cytologic diagnosis in conjunction with clinical and/or imaging follow-up as the gold standard.
1 year from patient enrollment
Compare the mean number of passes in the two groups
Time Frame: 1 year (length of time it takes to enroll all patients)
Once all patients have been enrolled and have undergone EUS-FNA with or without an on-site cytopathologist, the Investigators will be able to compare the mean number of fine needle aspiration passes taken during EUS for patients in each group.
1 year (length of time it takes to enroll all patients)
Compare the complication rate in the two groups
Time Frame: 1 year (length of time it takes to enroll all patients)
The complication rates from the two groups of subjects will be evaluated when all subjects have been enrolled.
1 year (length of time it takes to enroll all patients)
Compare the EUS procedure duration in each group
Time Frame: 1 year
The EUS procedure duration from the two groups of subjects will be evaluated when all subjects have been enrolled.
1 year
Compare the percent of patients requiring repeat procedures between the groups
Time Frame: 1 year after the time of patient enrollment
The investigators will follow patients for one year after enrollment to see if they have had any repeat procedures for the purpose of diagnosing their pancreatic mass.
1 year after the time of patient enrollment

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

University of Colorado, Denver

Collaborators

Kansas City Veteran Affairs Medical Center

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Sachin Wani, M.D., Washington University School of Medicine

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

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

June 1, 2011

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2013

Study Completion (Actual)

June 16, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 27, 2011

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 29, 2011

First Posted (Estimate)

July 1, 2011

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

May 21, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 17, 2018

Last Verified

May 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 11-0919 (Other Identifier: Siteman Cancer Center PRMC)

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.

Clinical Trials on Pancreatic Neoplasms

Clinical Trials on EUS-guided FNA performed with on-site Cytopathologist

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Poland

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe