Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12617001011370
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
11/07/2017
Date registered
14/07/2017
Date last updated
5/11/2018
Date data sharing statement initially provided
5/11/2018
Type of registration
Prospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Evaluation of fine needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses to negate the need for rapid on-site evaluation: a multi-centre randomized control trial
Query!
Scientific title
Diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration (FNA) with 22G EchoTip needle and rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus fine needle biopsy (FNB) with 22G ProCore needle and without ROSE for EUS guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses: a multi-centre randomized control trial.
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
292417
0
none
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Investigation and diagnosis of pancreatic lesions / masses
304003
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Oral and Gastrointestinal
303337
303337
0
0
Query!
Other diseases of the mouth, teeth, oesophagus, digestive system including liver and colon
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Evaluation of fine needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses to negate the need for rapid on-site evaluation: a multi-centre randomized control trial
Eligible patients will be invited to participate in the trial and provided with the Patient Information Sheet and encouraged to ask questions. Once the patient has agreed to go ahead with the study they will be asked sign the consent form. Consenting patients will be randomized to either group A or group B. The randomization sequence will be determined using a central computerized randomizing program. In both groups, the procedure will be performed at the Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, under deep sedation (Propofol, as determined by patient weight), administered by qualified anaesthetists. After the lesion is evaluated by EUS, the endoscopist will perform the tissue sampling using the most appropriate pathway deemed at the time.
Group A will undergo EUS fine needle aspiration (FNA) with the 22G EchoTip needle. Each pass will undergo rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) by a trained cytopathologist or cytotechnician (ROSE slides prepared in the endoscopy suite with Papanicolaou stain and the remaining sample to be placed into Hanks solution in order to develop a paraffin embedded cell block). The degree of suction will be determined by the endoscopist and the degree of “bloodiness” of the specimen. The endoscopist will perform passes until the cytopathologist or cytotechnician satisfies the quality of specimen that allow determination of the diagnosis, to a maximum of 7 passes.
Group B will undergo EUS FNB with the 22G ProCore needle without the presence of ROSE. A total of 4 passes will be done per lesion using suction via a 10ml syringe (with the fanning technique done when possible). All aspirated material will be placed in formalin to undergo direct histological processing (filtered through a microcassette, immersed in Ponceau S tinted neutral buffered formalin and processed as standard histological blocks).
All patients will be observed in recovery for a minimum 2 hours following the procedure for any complications.
Trained cytologists and pathologists will assess the final processed samples from each group in order to determine the diagnosis. The diagnostic reports will be stratified into the following categories:
1. Positive for malignancy
2. Suspicious for malignancy
3. Atypia
4. Negative for malignancy
Query!
Intervention code [1]
298585
0
Diagnosis / Prognosis
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Patients who assigned to the EUS FNA ROSE group
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
302723
0
To compare the differences in the diagnostic yield between the groups.
This will be determined via 2 methods:
1. Definite histological diagnoses from surgically resected specimens.
2.In the absence of surgical resection, a minimum 24 weeks follow-up will be done. Lesions that resolve spontaneously or do not progress (as seen on imaging) will be considered benign. If lesions progress (enlarge or metastasize) then those lesions will be considered malignant.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
302723
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
302723
0
2 days post procedure diagnoses are made. Differences between groups to be compared once a sufficient patients have been diagnosed, approximately 1 year within commencement of study.
In the absence of surgical resection, a minimum 24 weeks follow-up will be done, and a maximum 48 weeks.
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
336827
0
To compare the differences between tissue characteristics between the needles.
Assessed by trained cytologists and pathologists, the final processed samples from each group in order to determine the diagnosis. The diagnostic reports will be stratified into the following categories:
1. Positive for malignancy
2. Suspicious for malignancy
3. Atypia
4. Negative for malignancy
Query!
Assessment method [1]
336827
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
336827
0
2 days post procedure diagnoses are made. Differences between groups to be compared once a sufficient patients have been diagnosed, approximately 1 year within commencement of study.
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
336828
0
To compare the differences between complication rates in the groups.
Assessed via medical records, monitoring primarily for bleeding, perforation and pancreatitis
Query!
Assessment method [2]
336828
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
336828
0
This outcome is assessed 7 days post procedure via medical records. In the absence of surgical resection, a minimum 24 weeks follow-up will be done, and a maximum 48 weeks.
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
336829
0
To compare the differences between groups for the need to repeat procedure.
Assessed via medical records and with communication with the cytologists and pathologists.
Query!
Assessment method [3]
336829
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
336829
0
Within 2 days post procedure the need for repeat procedure is usually determined. In the absence of surgical resection, a minimum 24 weeks follow-up will be done, and a maximum 48 weeks.
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
336860
0
To compare the procedural time required for both procedures. This outcome is assessed by monitoring and recording time taken during the procedure.
Query!
Assessment method [4]
336860
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
336860
0
Procedure time determined during the procedure. Differences between groups to be compared once sufficient patients have been diagnosed, approximately 1 year within commencement of study.
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
336861
0
To compare time required for specimen processing for both procedures. This outcome is assessed by monitoring and recording time taken during specimen processing.
Query!
Assessment method [5]
336861
0
Query!
Timepoint [5]
336861
0
Specimen processing time is determined within 2 days of procedure. Differences between groups to be compared once sufficient patients have been diagnosed, approximately 1 year within commencement of study.
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
336862
0
To compare the time required for diagnosis from both procedures. This outcome is assessed by monitoring and recording time taken to receive diagnosis of patient’s results.
Query!
Assessment method [6]
336862
0
Query!
Timepoint [6]
336862
0
Diagnosis time is determined within 2 days of procedure. Differences between groups to be compared once sufficient patients have been diagnosed, approximately 1 year within commencement of study. In the absence of surgical resection, a minimum 24 weeks follow-up will be done.
Lesions that resolve spontaneously or do not progress (as seen on imaging) will be considered benign. If lesions progress (enlarge or metastasize) then those lesions will be considered malignant.
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
1. Aged 18 years old or over
2. Patients requiring endoscopic ultrasound and tissue sampling of solid lesions greater than 1cm diameter in the pancreas that are visualized and within the reach of EUS FNA.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
1. Pregnant females
2. Uncorrectable coagulation disorder (INR > 1.5)
3. Those with medical co-morbidities that preclude them from sedation (as determined by anaesthetic team)
4. Actively on medications that increase the risk of bleeding from EUS guided tissue acquisition (NOAC, warfarin, combined aspirin and clopidogrel)
5. Those unable to give informed consent
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Diagnosis
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
1/08/2017
Query!
Actual
2/07/2018
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
598
Query!
Accrual to date
4
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
SA
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
8511
0
The Royal Adelaide Hospital - Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
16604
0
5000 - Adelaide
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
296966
0
Hospital
Query!
Name [1]
296966
0
Royal Adelaide Hospital
Query!
Address [1]
296966
0
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,
Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country [1]
296966
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Hospital
Query!
Name
Royal Adelaide Hospital
Query!
Address
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,
Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
295971
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
295971
0
N/A
Query!
Address [1]
295971
0
N/A
Query!
Country [1]
295971
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
298171
0
Royal Adelaide Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
298171
0
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
298171
0
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
298171
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
298171
0
23/06/2017
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
298171
0
HREC/17/RAH/57
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS FNA) is a key component for the investigation and diagnosis of solid pancreatic masse. It has a proven track record for being safe with complications and tumour seeding being a rare occurrence. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic lesions in many studies is high and exceeds 85%. Studies aiming to optimize EUS FNA have compared several factors including needle size, the number of needles passes and suction versus slow-pull. Initial studies showed that the use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) had the biggest impact with increased diagnostic accuracy and reduced needle passes. However more recent reports show conflicting results on whether ROSE actually does influence outcome in EUS FNA. ROSE has historically been performed using FNA needles with cytological assessment. The act of smearing specimens (a necessary step for ROSE) to prepare cytology slides using cell aspirates obtained from FNA needles can be done without difficulty after necessary training and experience. The fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle (the ProCore needle) was introduced to further improve upon EUS guided tissue sampling. It is designed to collect a larger amount of core sample tissue by having a reverse bevel near the tip. Several studies favour the EUS FNB needle over the classic FNA needle for obtaining more adequate histological specimens with a high diagnostic yield. Data comparing the performance of EUS FNB without ROSE versus EUS FNA with ROSE is currently lacking. With this in mind, needles that provide histological specimens with an excellent (>95%) diagnostic yield (thus negating the need for ROSE) are the ideal devices for obtaining EUS guided diagnostic tissue. We therefore aim to compare the diagnostic yield of solid pancreatic masses using EUS FNA with ROSE versus EUS FNB without ROSE. Hypothesis: EUS FNB without ROSE will have equal diagnostic accuracy to EUS FNA with ROSE, hence negating the need for ROSE when EUS guided tissue acquisition is performed with FNB needle for solid pancreatic masses. Aim: To compare the outcomes of EUS FNA with ROSE versus EUS FNB without ROSE for solid pancreatic masses. Design: This will be a prospective, multi-centre, randomized control trial involving 600 patients with pancreatic solid mass of more than 1cm. There will be 10 centres participate in the trial, each recruiting 60 patients per hospital. Patients at each site will be randomized to either: Group A, (n=30, total = 300) which will undergo EUS FNA with the standard 22G EchoTip needle with ROSE. Group B (n=30; total=300), which will undergo EUS FNB with the 22G ProCore needle without ROSE.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
76218
0
Dr Vinh-An Huu
Query!
Address
76218
0
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country
76218
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
76218
0
+61 8 7074 2189
Query!
Fax
76218
0
Query!
Email
76218
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
76219
0
Romina Safaeian
Query!
Address
76219
0
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country
76219
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
76219
0
+61 8 7074 2189
Query!
Fax
76219
0
Query!
Email
76219
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
76220
0
Romina Safaeian
Query!
Address
76220
0
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Port Road, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country
76220
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
76220
0
+61 8 7074 2189
Query!
Fax
76220
0
Query!
Email
76220
0
[email protected]
Query!
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
Undecided
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
Investigator is undecided if IPD will be made available, at this stage
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF