- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02282111
EUS-CNB Versus EUS-SINK for Diagnosis of Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) Subepithelial Tumors
EUS-guided Core Needle Biopsy (EUS-CNB) Versus EUS-guided Single-incision With Needle Knife (SINK) for the Diagnosis of Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions - a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Detailed Description
Upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs) are tumors arising from subepithelial layers of esophageal, gastric or duodenal wall, mostly from the submucosa and muscular layer. The incidence of SETs on routine endoscopy is 0.36% The differential diagnosis of SETs include, though are not limited to: lipoma, leiomyoma, aberrant pancreas, varices, carcinoid, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and lymphomas . Therefore, a correct diagnosis of these tumors is important to guide subsequent management. These lesions are often not accurately diagnosed on cross-sectional imaging . Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) aids in narrowing the differential diagnosis of the lesion as it is often able to establish the layer of origin . However, an accurate diagnosis and targeted therapy is not made solely on the morphological features but on histologic type and at times mitotic index. Thus the need for techniques to obtain histology is beneficial in guiding management.
Since standard endoscopy with pinch biopsies of the overlying mucosa often fails to provide an adequate sample for analysis, multiple other modalities to sample the lesion have been utilized: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided core needle biopsy (EUS-CNB), bite-on-bite forceps biopsies, EUS-guided single-incision with needle knife (SINK) and endoscopic resection.
EUS-FNA is now considered to be the usual method of sampling; however, the diagnostic yield is low: 38% to 82% . Moreover, EUS-FNA often provides insufficient specimens which may not allow for immunohistochemistry that is often essential for diagnosis . Thus EUS-CNB has been assessed for the purpose of obtaining a core sample which allows for histological assessment. Published data reveals a diagnostic (though not histologic) yield using EUS-CNB of 75% In 2011, the SINK technique for sampling was presented with a reported diagnostic accuracy of 92.8% [8]. The technique utilizes a conventional needle-knife connected to an electrosurgical unit. A 6 to 12-mm mucosal incision is made over the lesion. Then conventional biopsy forceps are introduced to obtain 3-5 samples. Subsequently, the incision is closed with 2 to 3 endoclips.
The purpose of this study is to prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-CNB with SINK in patients with upper GI SETs. The investigators hypothesis is that the SINK technique will be superior to the EUS-CNB in obtaining a histological specimen. The results of the study would provide data which may improve the diagnostic ability for SETs. This in turn will guide appropriate surveillance or management (surgical or endoscopic) for patients with these lesions.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Maryland
-
Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21287
- Johns Hopkins Hospital
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper GI SETs measuring an estimated 15mm or greater in maximal diameter.
- Location of SET: esophagus, stomach, duodenum
- Age >18 years and older
- Patient consent obtained
Exclusion Criteria:
- Endoscopically non bulging lesion
- Upper GI SETs <15 mm in size as measured during study EUS
- Lesions not necessitating tissue acquisition: i.e. lipomas, varices
- Cystic lesion
- Patients < 18 years of age
- Uncorrectable Coagulopathy (INR >1,5, platelets <100,000)
- Patients with stigmata of portal hypertension
- Patients with post-surgical UGI anatomy (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, esophagectomy etc)
- Uncooperative patients
- Pregnant women (women of childbearing age will undergo urine pregnancy testing, which is routine for all endoscopic procedures)
- Refusal to consent form
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Active Comparator: EUS-CNB
Using a linear EUS with color and pulsed Doppler to scan the area for vessels, the lesion was then sampled with a 22-gauge beveled needle (using the slow capillary suction and fanning techniques with 5 to 15 to-and-fro movements with each pass).
A total of 4 passes were performed and after that the procedure terminated.
|
Using a linear EUS with color and pulsed Doppler to scan the area for vessels, the lesion was then sampled with a 22-gauge beveled needle (using the slow capillary suction and fanning techniques with 5 to 15 to-and-fro movements with each pass).
A total of 4 passes were performed and after that, the procedure terminated.
|
Active Comparator: SINK
Using a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome connected to an electrosurgical unit, and under direct endoscopic vision, a 6-12mm linear incision was made from the periphery of the lesion to its highest convexity zone.
A conventional biopsy forceps was then deeply introduced through the hole, and 2 bites were obtained per pass.
A total of 4 passes were performed by passing the biopsy forceps through the incision on each occasion.
The mucosal incision was then closed with endoclips whenever possible.
|
Using a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome connected to an electrosurgical unit, and under direct endoscopic vision, a 6-12mm linear incision was made from the periphery of the lesion to its highest convexity zone.
A conventional biopsy forceps was then deeply introduced through the hole, and 2 bites were obtained per pass.
A total of 4 passes were performed by passing the biopsy forceps through the incision on each occasion.
The mucosal incision was then closed with endoclips whenever possible.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Diagnostic Accuracy
Time Frame: 30 days
|
Diagnostic accuracy is defined as the percentage of true positive and true negative biopsy specimens combined divided by total number of specimens
|
30 days
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Histological Yield
Time Frame: 30 days
|
This will be assessed by the percentage of patients whose samples were adequate for histopathological evaluation
|
30 days
|
Technical Failure Rate
Time Frame: 1 day
|
Percentage of procedures in whom sampling technique failed to take biopsy specimens
|
1 day
|
Time of the Procedure
Time Frame: Tissue sampling procedure, up to 60 minutes
|
Time from the beginning of the incision or needle insertion, to completion of tissue acquisition by the techniques defined in the protocol.
|
Tissue sampling procedure, up to 60 minutes
|
Percent Sample Contribution to Immunohistochemistry Diagnosis
Time Frame: 30 days
|
Percentage of all samples from participants in whom biopsy specimen was adequate enough to contribute to immunohistochemistry diagnosis
|
30 days
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Study Director: Mouen Khashab, MD, Johns Hopkins University
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
- IRB00028905
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 Esophageal Subepithelial Lesions
-
Washington University School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityCompletedGastrointestinal Stromal Cell Tumors | Foregut Subepithelial LesionsUnited States
-
Sohag UniversityRecruitingEsophageal LesionsEgypt
-
University of FloridaWithdrawnBenign Esophageal Lesions
-
Asan Medical CenterWithdrawnGastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors
-
Korea University Anam HospitalCompletedGastric Subepithelial TumorKorea, Republic of
-
National Cancer Center, KoreaUnknownGastric Subepithelial TumorKorea, Republic of
-
Shandong UniversityCompletedGastric Subepithelial TumorsChina
-
Medical University of ViennaUnknownSmall Gastric Subepithelial Tumor
-
Changhua Christian HospitalCompletedGastric Subepithelial Tumor
-
Francisco Baldaque-SilvaRecruitingSubepithelial Tumors of the Upper Gastrointestinal TractSweden
Clinical Trials on 22-gauge Procore needle (ProCore, Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, NC)
-
Yonsei UniversityCompletedSolid Pancreatic MassesKorea, Republic of
-
Medical University of South CarolinaJohns Hopkins University; University of North Carolina; Cook Endoscopy; Thoraxklinik-Heidelberg...CompletedQuantity of Tissue Obtained | Quality of Tissue Obtained | Ease of Use of 22-gauge ProCore EBUS Needles and the Standard 22-gauge NeedlesUnited States
-
Samsung Medical CenterCompletedPancreatic NeoplasmsKorea, Republic of
-
Yonsei UniversityCompletedPancreatic Cancer | Solid Pancreatic and Peripancreatic LesionKorea, Republic of
-
Samsung Medical CenterOlympusCompletedPancreatic CancerKorea, Republic of
-
Seung Bae YoonSeoul St. Mary's HospitalCompletedPancreatic NeoplasmsKorea, Republic of
-
Société Française d'Endoscopie DigestiveCompletedPancreatic Tumor | PunctureFrance