Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions Via EUS-guided Fine Needle Aspiration With and Without Micro Forceps Biopsies

Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions Via EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration With and Without Micro Forceps Biopsies: A Multi-Center Prospective Randomized Study

Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding in cross sectional imaging (up to 27% on CT scan and 41% on MRI) and pose a management challenge to physicians. According to society guidelines, PCLs with specific features should prompt additional workup with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for cyst characterization as well as cyst sampling. This can help determine if the cyst is mucinous or non-mucinous which has implications for its malignant potential. Cyst fluid has traditionally been sampled using EUS with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and sent for fluid analysis and cytology. More recently, the adjunctive use of the through-the-scope micro forceps (Moray micro forceps, US Endoscopy, Mentor, OH) biopsy (EUS-MFB) has shown promise for diagnosis of PCLs. This technology utilizes a micro forceps through a 19-gauge needle to biopsy the cyst wall for histology, in addition to collecting cyst fluid for CEA level and cytology. More recently, the adjunctive use of the Moray® through the needle micro forceps biopsy (EUS-MFB) has shown promise for diagnosis of PCLs. This technology utilizes a micro forceps through a 19-gauge needle to biopsy the cyst wall for histology, in addition to collecting cyst fluid for CEA level and cytology. Only a few small retrospective reports have been published regarding the use of MFB. The results of this study will hopefully help increase diagnostic yield by obtaining a histopathologic diagnosis of these PCLs, and potentially affect practice patterns of gastroenterologists and the endoscopic community, specifically those physicians who perform EUS in these patients. Furthermore, the results will help determine whether there is reason to continue this line of research to obtain a definite histologic tissue diagnosis of PCLs.

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Pancreatic Cyst
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: 1). EUS-FNA plus MFB; Procedure: 2). EUS-FNA Alone

Detailed Description

Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding in cross sectional imaging (up to 27% on CT scan and 41% on MRI) and pose a management challenge to physicians. According to society guidelines, PCLs with specific features should prompt additional workup with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for cyst characterization as well as cyst sampling. This can help determine if the cyst is mucinous or non-mucinous which has implications for its malignant potential. Cyst fluid has traditionally been sampled using EUS with FNA (Fine-Needle Aspiration) and sent for fluid analysis (CEA and amylase) and cytology. However, despite use of a cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level cutoff of 192 ng/mL and cytology, accuracy of diagnosis for PCLs is poor. As the spectrum ranges from benign to high risk for neoplasm, precise diagnosis is critical. More recently, the adjunctive use of the Moray® through the needle micro forceps biopsy (EUS-MFB) has shown promise for diagnosis of PCLs. This technology utilizes a micro forceps through a 19-gauge needle to biopsy the cyst wall for histology, in addition to collecting cyst fluid for CEA level and cytology. Only a few small retrospective reports have been published regarding the use of MFB. Pancreatic cysts continue to pose a management dilemma for practicing clinicians, especially with the increased use of radiologic imaging modalities identifying incidental pancreatic cystic lesions with higher frequency. This leads to patient anxiety and increased costs due to radiologic surveillance and even surgery. The results of this study will hopefully help increase diagnostic yield by obtaining a histopathologic diagnosis of these PCLs, and potentially affect practice patterns of gastroenterologists and the endoscopic community, specifically those physicians who perform EUS in these patients. Furthermore, the results will help determine whether there is reason to continue this line of research to obtain a definite histologic tissue diagnosis of PCLs.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Estimated): 300
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Anna Duloy, MD; Phone Number: +13037248892; Email: anna.duloy@cuanschutz.edu
• Study Contact Backup: Name: Sandra Boimbo; Email: sandra.boimbo@cuanschutz.edu

Study Locations

• United States
  • California
    • Irvine, California, United States, 92697
      • Recruiting
      • University of California Irvine
      • Principal Investigator: Jason Samarasena, MD
      • Contact: Jason Samarasena, MD; Email: jsamaras@hs.uci.edu
      • Contact: Hailey Maxwell; Email: maxwellh@hs.uci.edu
  • Colorado
    • Aurora, Colorado, United States, 80045
      • Recruiting
      • University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus
      • Contact: Sandra Boimbo; Email: sandra.boimbo@cuanschutz.edu
      • Contact: Peter Tiley; Email: peter.tiley@cuanschutz.edu
      • Principal Investigator: Anna Duloy, MD
  • Texas
    • Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
      • Enrolling by invitation
      • Baylor College of Medicine

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 89 years (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Adult patients >18 years old
• Cysts > 20 mm in size deemed appropriate for FNA by the endoscopist, based on clinical presentation, radiologic imaging features, associated solid mass or nodules, and patient anxiety about the diagnosis

Exclusion Criteria:

• Age <18 years
• Inability to provide informed consent
• Thrombocytopenia (Platelets < 50,000) or coagulopathy (INR > 1.8)
• Pregnancy
• Post-surgical anatomy where the cyst is not accessible for FNA
• EUS findings suggesting that cyst FNA would be unsafe (e.g. intervening blood vessels)
• EUS appearance suggesting FNA is not indicated (e.g. cyst smaller than prior radiologic imaging, cyst not seen, EUS suggestive of serous cystadenoma)

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: 1). EUS-FNA plus MFB; A 19-G needle plus micro-forceps will be used for FNA plus MFB.	Procedure: 1). EUS-FNA plus MFB; The cyst will be punctured using a 19-G EUS-FNA needle with a stylet. A transgastric approach will be used for PCLs located in body/tail region, and a transduodenal approach for PCLs in the head/neck region, or as determined by the endoscopist. The stylet will be removed and the wall of the cyst biopsied using the micro forceps passed through the 19 G needle under direct EUS visualization. A minimum of 4 cyst wall biopsies will be obtained to procure at least 4 visible tissue fragments. Cyst fluid will be aspirated and sent for CEA and cytology.
Active Comparator: 2). EUS-FNA Alone; A 19-G needle will be used for FNA alone.	Procedure: 2). EUS-FNA Alone; The cyst will be punctured using an EUS-FNA needle with a stylet. A transgastric approach will be used for PCLs located in body/tail region, and a transduodenal approach for PCLs in the head/neck region, or as determined by the endoscopist. The stylet will be removed, and cyst fluid will be aspirated and sent for CEA, and cytology.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Technical Success of EUS-FNA plus MFB, with EUS-FNA alone for evaluation of PCLs.	(1) Technical success will be defined as the ability to puncture the cyst with the FNA needle under EUS guidance, advance the micro forceps into the cyst to perform cyst biopsies and obtain a visible tissue fragment.	Intraprocedural
Clinical Success of EUS-FNA plus MFB, with EUS-FNA alone for evaluation of PCLs.	(2) Clinical success will be defined as the ability to obtain a pathologic tissue diagnosis (diagnostic yield) of the PCL with MFB. Based on prior experience, expected diagnoses include pseudocyst, serous cystadenoma, mucinous cyst (mucinous cystic neoplasm, intra-ductal papillary mucinous neoplasm), adenocarcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumor, to name a few.	0-4 weeks
Safety of EUS-FNA plus MFB with that of EUS-FNA by recording adverse events per published ASGE (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) criteria.	Intraprocedural and post-procedural adverse events (e.g. bleeding, infection, perforation, pancreatitis, etc.)	0-4 Weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Technical ease in performing FNA and MFB	Ease of passage of FNA needle; Ease of passage of Micro Forceps; Ease of EUS visualization of Micro Forceps Technical ease will be scored on a predetermined 5-point Likert scale (1 = best, 5 = worst)	Intraprocedural
Time taken for FNA and time for MFB	Time for FNA will defined as time when FNA needle is introduced into the channel of the echoendoscope to the time cyst fluid is collected in the specimen tube/jar.; Time for MFB will be defined as the time when micro forceps is introduced into the FNA needle for the first pass to the time when last tissue fragment is collected into the specimen jar after the last pass.	Intraprocedural

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Colorado, Denver
• Collaborators: US Endoscopy
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Anna Duloy, MD, University of Colorado, Denver

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, Baron TH, Hutter MM, Jacobson BC, Mergener K, Nemcek A Jr, Petersen BT, Petrini JL, Pike IM, Rabeneck L, Romagnuolo J, Vargo JJ. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027. No abstract available.
• Brugge WR, Lewandrowski K, Lee-Lewandrowski E, Centeno BA, Szydlo T, Regan S, del Castillo CF, Warshaw AL. Diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a report of the cooperative pancreatic cyst study. Gastroenterology. 2004 May;126(5):1330-6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.02.013.
• Tanaka M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Adsay V, Chari S, Falconi M, Jang JY, Kimura W, Levy P, Pitman MB, Schmidt CM, Shimizu M, Wolfgang CL, Yamaguchi K, Yamao K; International Association of Pancreatology. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012 May-Jun;12(3):183-97. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2012.04.004. Epub 2012 Apr 16.
• Moris M, Bridges MD, Pooley RA, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Stauffer JA, Asbun HJ, Wallace MB. Association Between Advances in High-Resolution Cross-Section Imaging Technologies and Increase in Prevalence of Pancreatic Cysts From 2005 to 2014. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Apr;14(4):585-593.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.08.038. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
• Vege SS, Ziring B, Jain R, Moayyedi P; Clinical Guidelines Committee; American Gastroenterology Association. American gastroenterological association institute guideline on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology. 2015 Apr;148(4):819-22; quize12-3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.01.015. No abstract available.
• Del Chiaro M, Verbeke C, Salvia R, Kloppel G, Werner J, McKay C, Friess H, Manfredi R, Van Cutsem E, Lohr M, Segersvard R; European Study Group on Cystic Tumours of the Pancreas. European experts consensus statement on cystic tumours of the pancreas. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Sep;45(9):703-11. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.010. Epub 2013 Feb 14.
• Attili F, Pagliari D, Rimbas M, Inzani F, Brizi MG, Costamagna G, Larghi A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided histological diagnosis of a mucinous non-neoplastic pancreatic cyst using a specially designed through-the-needle microforceps. Endoscopy. 2016;48 Suppl 1:E188-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-108194. Epub 2016 May 23. No abstract available.
• Mittal C, Obuch JC, Hammad H, Edmundowicz SA, Wani S, Shah RJ, Brauer BC, Attwell AR, Kaplan JB, Wagh MS. Technical feasibility, diagnostic yield, and safety of microforceps biopsies during EUS evaluation of pancreatic cystic lesions (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May;87(5):1263-1269. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.025. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
• Zhang ML, Arpin RN, Brugge WR, Forcione DG, Basar O, Pitman MB. Moray micro forceps biopsy improves the diagnosis of specific pancreatic cysts. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Jun;126(6):414-420. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21988. Epub 2018 Apr 16.
• Basar O, Yuksel O, Yang DJ, Samarasena J, Forcione D, DiMaio CJ, Wagh MS, Chang K, Casey B, Fernandez-Del Castillo C, Pitman MB, Brugge WR. Feasibility and safety of microforceps biopsy in the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jul;88(1):79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.039. Epub 2018 Mar 3.
• Barresi L, Crino SF, Fabbri C, Attili F, Poley JW, Carrara S, Tarantino I, Bernardoni L, Giovanelli S, Di Leo M, Manfrin E, Tacelli M, Bruno MJ, Traina M, Larghi A. Endoscopic ultrasound-through-the-needle biopsy in pancreatic cystic lesions: A multicenter study. Dig Endosc. 2018 Nov;30(6):760-770. doi: 10.1111/den.13197. Epub 2018 Jul 5.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): May 11, 2021
• Primary Completion (Estimated): April 1, 2025
• Study Completion (Estimated): April 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 21, 2020
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 21, 2020
• First Posted (Actual): May 27, 2020

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): May 21, 2024
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 20, 2024
• Last Verified: May 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Digestive System Diseases; Neoplasms; Cysts; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Cyst
• Other Study ID Numbers: 18-1854

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