Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of VisioCyt® Test, in Case of Suspicion of Urothelial Bladder Tumors (VISIOCYT 1)

December 16, 2021 updated by: Vitadx
This clinical study is designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of VisioCyt test, which would improve the early diagnosis of bladder cancer in order to optimize the management of individual patients as part of a cancer diagnostic monitoring. The diagnostic method of VisioCyt® device is based on the analysis by transmission and fluorescence, of urinary cytology slides prepared according to the protocol VisioCyt.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

This clinical trial is divided into two main phases:

I. The first one involves the construction of better image processing algorithm from a learning sample. The learning sample will include 600 virtual slides made from the urine sample of the first 600 patients enrolled.

II. The second one, will evaluate from an evaluation sample, the diagnostic performance of the test VisioCyt, to identify patients with versus without bladder tumors, using as comparator the results of the examination of reference: histology. The evaluation sample will include 400 slides, made from the urine sample of the last 400 patients enrolled.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

1360

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

      • Antony, France
        • Hôpital d'Antony
      • Beaumont, France
        • Clinique " la Châtaigneraie "
      • Besançon, France, 25000
        • CHU de Besançon
      • Clermont-Ferrand, France
        • CHU de Clermont-Ferrand
      • Lyon, France
        • Hôpital Edouard Herriot
      • Marseille, France, 13009
        • Institut Paoli-Calmettes
      • Montpellier, France, 34070
        • Clinique Beausoleil
      • Nantes, France, 44093
        • Hôtel Dieu, CHR de Nantes
      • Nimes, France, 30029
        • CHU Caremeau, Nimes
      • Paris, France
        • Hôpital Cochin
      • Rennes, France, 35033
        • CHU Rennes
      • Suresnes, France
        • Hôpital Foch
      • Toulouse, France
        • Hopital Rangueil
      • Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, 54500
        • CHRU Nancy

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

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Patient affiliated to a social security system
  • Patient able to understand the protocol.
  • Signature of patient consent form before the start of the study
  • Negative urine culture
  • Patient for which is programmed a bladder Endoscopy for :

    • suspected bladder cancer (de novo, monitoring or relapse)
    • Exploration lower urinary tract excluding a suspected bladder cancer or prostate cancer

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Age <18 years
  • Ongoing Urinary tract infection untreated
  • Private person of liberty or under guardianship (including guardianship)
  • Bladder cancer excluding urothelial carcinoma
  • Carcinoma of high urinary tract, associated
  • Lithiasis pathology
  • Patient who underwent renal transplantation

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
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Patients 'sick'

The patients of this arm have a clinical signs of bladder cancer with :

  • a positive result of bladder endoscopy
  • or an negative endoscopy and a positive result of the conventional cytology

The intervention consists to collect an additional urine sample (50 ml), the day of the bladder endoscopy, which is performed during the current practice .This urine sample will be used for the preparation of cytology slides according to the Visiocyt protocol, in order to be digitized

The cytology slides obtained from the current practice will be compared to the slides obtained with the Visiocyt protocol, for each arm.
Active Comparator: Patients 'healthy'

The patients of this arm have no suspicion of bladder cancer with negative results of their bladder endoscopy and conventional cytology.

The intervention consists to collect an additional urine sample (50 ml), the day of the bladder endoscopy, which is performed during the current practice . This urine sample will be used for the preparation of cytology slides according to the Visiocyt protocol, in order to be digitized.

The cytology slides obtained from the current practice will be compared to the slides obtained with the Visiocyt protocol, for each arm.
Active Comparator: Patients 'monitoring'

The patients of this arm have a history of bladder cancer, but the results of their follow up examinations (cytologic and endoscopic) are negative (no tumor).

The intervention consists to collect an additional urine sample (50 ml), the day of the bladder endoscopy, which is performed during the current practice . This urine sample will be used for the preparation of cytology slides according to the Visiocyt protocol, in order to be digitized.

The cytology slides obtained from the current practice will be compared to the slides obtained with the Visiocyt protocol, for each arm.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Identification and classification of cells with the VisioCyt test to create an image processing algorithm
Time Frame: 9 months
* Identification and classification of cells, taking the Paris System in 2016 as a referential
9 months
Identification of presence or absence of a membrane fluorescence perished with the VisioCyt test to create an image processing algorithm
Time Frame: 9 months
presence or absence of a membrane fluorescence perished, on slides
9 months
sensitivity of urinalysis by VisioCyt test
Time Frame: through the study completion
number of patients "declared positive" with the VisioCyt test among the patients actually suffering from bladder carcinoma
through the study completion
specificity of urinalysis by VisioCyt test
Time Frame: through the study completion
number of patients "declared negative" with the VisioCyt test among the really healthy patients
through the study completion

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
sensitivity of urinalysis by VisioCyt test according to the cell grade of the patients
Time Frame: through the study completion
number of patients "declared positive" with the VisioCyt test among the patients with a "low grade" or "high grade" bladder carcinoma
through the study completion
sensitivity of urinalysis by VisioCyt test according to medical history of the patients
Time Frame: through the study completion
number of patients "declared positive" with the VisioCyt test among the patients with a first diagnosis of bladder carcinoma or among patients with a previous bladder carcinoma under monitoring
through the study completion
comparison of the sensitivity of the urinalysis by VisioCyt test versus conventional urine cytology
Time Frame: through the study completion
number of patients "declared positive" with the VisioCyt test versus patients "declared positive" with the conventional urine cytology
through the study completion
comparison of the specificity urinalysis by VisioCyt test versus conventional urine cytology
Time Frame: through the study completion
number of patients "declared negative" with the VisioCyt test versus patients "declared negative" with the conventional urine cytology
through the study completion

Collaborators and Investigators

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

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)

January 24, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 31, 2020

Study Completion (Actual)

January 16, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 28, 2016

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 14, 2016

First Posted (Estimate)

November 17, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

January 6, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 16, 2021

Last Verified

December 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

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.

Subscribe