The PIONEER-01 Study of the Imagio Breast Imaging System

February 3, 2023 updated by: Seno Medical Instruments Inc.

A Study of Imaging With Opto-acoustics to Diagnose Breast Masses Detected by Mammography and/or Diagnostic Ultrasound: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists

This is a prospective controlled multi-center study involving gray scale (B-mode) ultrasound vs OA/US (opto-acoustic and gray scale ultrasound) for the visualization of suspicious masses. Imagio gray scale and OA image sets will be collected on each enrolled mass and pushed to an Imaging Core Lab for processing and then to a set of Independent Readers who will read the Imagio gray-scale images vs the Imagio OA/US images.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Imagio is a multi-modality device, comprised of one probe with the ability to image with diagnostic gray scale (B mode) ultrasound alone and gray scale in conjunction with OA together in a six up image.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

2105

Phase

  • 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 Locations

  • United States
    • California
      • Murrieta, California, United States, 92562
        • Radnet (Temecula)
    • Colorado
      • Englewood, Colorado, United States, 80112
        • Sally Jobe
    • Connecticut
      • New Haven, Connecticut, United States, 06510
        • Yale University
    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, United States, 20007
        • Georgetown University Hospital, Department of Radiology
    • Florida
      • Boca Raton, Florida, United States, 33486
        • Boca Raton Regional Hospital
    • Georgia
      • Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 30342
        • Breast Care Atlanta
    • Illinois
      • Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60611
        • Northwestern University
    • New York
      • New York, New York, United States, 10021
        • New York Presbyterian Hospital
      • Rochester, New York, United States, 14260
        • Elizabeth Wende Breast Care
    • North Carolina
      • Greensboro, North Carolina, United States, 27401
        • Solis Women's Health (North Carolina)
    • Ohio
      • Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44195
        • Cleveland Clinic, Breast Services DDI Clinical Research
    • Pennsylvania
      • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, 15220
        • Weinstein Imaging Associates
    • Texas
      • Austin, Texas, United States, 78731
        • Austin Radiological Association
      • Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
        • MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiology and Breast Imaging
      • Plano, Texas, United States, 75075
        • Solis Women's Health
      • San Antonio, Texas, United States, 78229
        • Univ. Texas Health Science Center at San Antontio, Breast Imaging Center at the Cancer Therapy Research Center

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

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • female
  • 18 years of age or older
  • suspicious mass of breast, identified by a health care practitioner within the past 30 days with diagnostic methodology other than conventional ultrasound.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • presence of a condition or impediment that may interfere with imaging.
  • pregnant or lactating
  • undergoing neoadjuvant therapy

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: NON_RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: SEQUENTIAL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Imagio OA/US (US and OA/US)
Imagio OA/US (gray scale and opto-acoustic)
Device: Imagio OA/US (US and OA/US)
opto-acoustic plus gray scale ultrasound
EXPERIMENTAL: Imagio gray scale ultrasound
Imagio gray scale ultrasound alone
Device: Imagio gray scale ultrasound
gray scale ultrasound alone

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Specificity Difference Between Imagio Optoacoustic Plus Gray-scale (OA/US) vs Imagio Gray-scale Ultrasound (IUS)
Time Frame: Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Primary effectiveness endpoint was the difference in specificity for the Imagio OA/US relative to IUS, across all 7 independent readers; both imaging modalities used in each subject (subject as own control); results for each imaging modality compared to biopsy diagnosis or 12-month follow-up ruling of benign as determined by truth panel (ground truth)
Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Sensitivity Difference Between Imagio Optoacoustic Plus Gray-scale (OA/US) vs Imagio Gray-scale Ultrasound (IUS)
Time Frame: Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Sensitivity difference for Imagio OA/US Imagio relative to IUS, across all 7 independent readers; both imaging modalities used in each subject (subject as own control); results for each imaging modality compared to biopsy diagnosis or 12-month follow-up ruling of benign as determined by truth panel (ground truth)
Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Specificity for Each Imaging Modality Imagio Optoacoustic Plus Gray-scale OA/US and Imagio Gray-scale Ultrasound (IUS)
Time Frame: Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Specificity for each imaging modality, Imagio OA/US (Imagio) and IUS, across all 7 independent readers; both imaging modalities used in each subject (subject as own control); results for each imaging modality compared to biopsy diagnosis or 12-month follow-up ruling of benign as determined by truth panel (ground truth)
Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Sensitivity for Each Imaging Modality Imagio Optoacoustic Plus Gray-scale (OA/US) and Imagio Gray-scale Ultrasound (IUS)
Time Frame: Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Sensitivity for each imaging modality, Imagio OA/US and IUS, across all 7 independent readers; both imaging modalities used in each subject (subject as own control); results for each imaging modality compared to biopsy diagnosis or 12-month follow-up ruling of benign as determined by truth panel (ground truth)
Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Downgrade Benign Masses Imagio Optoacoustic Plus Gray-scale (OA/US) vs Imagio Gray-scale Imaging (IUS)
Time Frame: Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Percentage of reads where breast mass was downgraded from one BI-RADS (BR) category to a lower BR category on the basis of additional information from the Imagio OA/US imaging modality compared to IUS, includes reads of each of 7 independent readers; both imaging modalities used in each subject (subject as own control); results for each imaging modality compared to biopsy diagnosis or 12-month follow-up ruling of benign as determined by truth panel (ground truth). BR categories used in this study: 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5
Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Upgrade Cancer Masses - Imagio Optoacoustic Plus Gray-scale (OA/US) vs Imagio Gray-scale Imaging (IUS)
Time Frame: Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up
Percentage of reads where breast mass was upgraded from one BI-RADS (BR) category to a higher BR category on the basis of additional information from the Imagio optoacoustic plus grayscale (OA/US) imaging modality compared to Imagio grayscale (IUS), includes reads of each of 7 independent readers; both imaging modalities used in each subject (subject as own control); results for each imaging modality compared to biopsy diagnosis or 12-month follow-up ruling of benign as determined by truth panel (ground truth). BR categories used in this study: 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5
Baseline to 12 months +/- 30 days follow-up

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

Seno Medical Instruments Inc.

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

  • Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth NC, McCorvey BM, Zalev J, Herzog D, Clingman B, Miller T, Ermilov S, Nadvoretsky V, Conjusteau A, Su R, Oraevsky A. Clinical Feasibility Study of Combined Opto-Acoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging Modality Providing Co-registered Functional and Anatomical Maps of Breast Tumors. Presented at: 97th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of The Radiological Society of North America; 2011 Nov 28; Chicago, IL.
  • Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth NC, Herzog D, Clingman B, Ermilov S, Nadvoretsky V, Conjusteau A, Su R, Oraevsky A. Clinical feasibility of Co-registered Opto-acoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging for Differentiation of Breast Tumors. Presented at: Annual Meeting: Society for Nuclear Medicine; 2011 Jun 6; San Antonio, TX.
  • Zalev J (Ryerson Univ, Toronto, Canada), Kolios MC. Detecting Abnormal Vasculature from Photoacoustic Signals Using Wavelet-packet Features. Poster presented at: SPIE Photonics West Symposium; 2011 Jan 22-27; San Francisco, CA.
  • Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth NC, McCorvey BM, Zalev J, Herzog D, Clingman B, Miller T, Smith R, Ermilov S, Nadvoretsky V, Conjusteau A, Su R, Hernandez T, Oraevsky A. Feasibility of Co-registered Opto-Acoustic and Ulatrsonic Imaging for Differentiation of Malignant from Benign Breast Tumors. Presented at: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Annual Convention; 2012 March 31; Phoenix, AZ.
  • Zalev J, Herzog D, Clingman B, Miller T, Ermilov S, Nadvoretsky V, Conjusteau A, Su R, Tsyboulski D, Oraevsky A, Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth NC, McCorvey BM. Clinical Feasibility Study of Combined Opto-Acoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging Modality Providing Coregistered Functional and Anatomical Maps of Breast Tumors. Presented at: Photons plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing. SPIE/Bios, Photonics West Symposium; 2012 Jan 22; San Francisco, CA.
  • Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth NC, McCorvey BM, Miller T, Herzog D, Clingman B, Zalev J, Ermilov S, Oraevsky A. Improve Differentiation of Breast Tumors Using Laser Opto-Acoustic Ultrasonic Imaging System. Poster presented at: European Congress of Radiology; 2012 Mar 1-5; Vienna, Austria.
  • Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth C, Stavros T, Ulissey M, Herzog D, Clingman B, Zalev J, Lavin P, Oraevsky A. Functional Images of Hemoglobin and Blood Oxygen Saturation Co-registered with Ultrasound Provide Accurate Differentiation of Breast Tumors. Presented at: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Annual Convention; 2013 Apr 6-10; New York, NY.
  • Stavros T, Lerner A, Burak W, Fine R, Boyd B, Miller T, Herzog D, Clingman B, Smith R, Zalev J, Ulissey M. Combining B-Mode Ultrasound and Opto-Acoustic Imaging to Evaluate Breast Lesions. Poster presented at: American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting; 2013 May 1-5; Chicago, IL.
  • Otto P, Kist K, Dornbluth C, Stavros T, Ulissey M, Herzog D, Clingman B, Zalev J, Lavin P, Oraevsky A. Improved Differentiation of Breast Tumors using Novel Imaging System based on Co-Registered Opto-Acoustic Tomography and Ultrasound. Presented at European Congress of Radiology; 2013 Mar 7-11; Vienna, Austria.
  • Stavros T, Lerner A, Burak W, Fine R, Boyd B, Miller T, Herzog D, Clingman B, Smith R, Zalev J, Ulissey M. Opto-Acoustic Breast Imaging, A New Technology. Poster presented at 23rd Annual National Interdisciplinary Breast Center Conference; 2013 Mar 23-27; Las Vegas, NV.
  • Zalev J, Clingman B, Smith R, Herzog D, Miller T, Stavros AT, Ermilov S, Conjusteau A, Tsyboulski D, Oraevsky A, Kist K, Dornbluth C, Otto P. Real-time Opto-acoustic Imaging System for Clinical Assessment of Breast Lesions. Presented at: Photons plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing, SPIE/BiOS, Photonics West Symposium; 3 Feb 2013; San Francisco, CA.

Helpful Links

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 (ACTUAL)

December 21, 2012

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

September 9, 2015

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

September 9, 2015

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 12, 2013

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 16, 2013

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

September 17, 2013

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

February 8, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 3, 2023

Last Verified

April 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • PIONEER-01

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 Breast Cancer

Clinical Trials on Imagio OA/US (US and OA/US)

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Benin

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe