EUS-FNA With 22G Procore Needles vs 22G Conventional Needles

Self Efficacy Clinical Trial

Official title:

Prospective Comparative Study on Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) - Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Using the 22G Conventional Needles or Procore Needles Without Immediate On-site Cytopathologic Examination

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT01581762
• Other study ID #: ChineseUHK
• Status: Completed
• Phase: Phase 3
• First received: April 16, 2012
• Last updated: October 11, 2016
• Start date: June 2012
• Est. completion date: February 2014

Study information

• Verified date: October 2016
• Source: Chinese University of Hong Kong
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: Hong Kong: Joint CUHK-NTEC Clinical Research Ethics Committee
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is an important investigation tool to obtain tissue for diagnosis. Nowadays, the performance of EUS-FNA varies with accuracy rates ranging from 60% - 100%. Needles with different diameters have been explored to retrieve tissue specimens. The diagnostic yields, successful rates and safety profiles are similar. It has been suggested that although thinner needles provide less cellular material than do larger needles, the specimens from the former are less contaminated by blood, and thus easier to interpret. In addition, thinner needles may be easier to use because of greater flexibility, particularly for locations requiring important scope bending. As a result, a new 22G FNA needle has been designed in order to improve the tissue-sampling rate (ECHO-HD-22-C, Cook Endoscopy, USA). There is a reverse bevel at the tip of the new needle with promotes collection of core sample by shearing material from target lesion during retrograde movement of the needle in the lesion. The feasibility and safety of this newly design EUS-FNA needle have been demonstrated in a recent multicenter, pooled, cohort study using the 19G version. Successful puncture was technically feasible in 98.2% of cases and the overall accuracy of 92.9%. There were no complications related to the technique.

The aim of this study is to compare the tissue-sampling rate and the diagnostic accuracy rate of EUS-FNA between the uses of the convention and newly designed 22-gauge needles.

Description:

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) - guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a well-established technique for tissue sampling of intestinal and extra-intestinal mass lesions. The accuracy of EUS-guided FNA varies from 60% - 100% with a complication rate of 0% - 3%. The diagnostic accuracy of the procedure can be improved by the use immunohistochemical studies and genetic analyses.It may also be improved by obtaining a larger biopsy specimen with a core biopsy needle. However, puncturing with a core-biopsy needle may not be always feasible due to the technical difficulty of inserting the larger needle through the bended endoscope. As a result, the advantage of a core-biopsy needle on providing a larger amount of cellular material is offset by a higher rate of technical failures, especially in the setting of a transduodenal puncture. Recently, a new 22G FNA needle with a reverse bevel at the tip has become available (ECHO-HD-22-C, Cook Endoscopy, USA.). The design of the device promotes the collection of core samples by shearing material from target lesion during retrograde movement of the needle in the lesion. Hence, the aim of this study is to compare the tissue-sampling rate and the diagnostic accuracy rate of EUS-FNA using 22G conventional and Procore needles.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 42
• Est. completion date: February 2014
• Est. primary completion date: February 2014
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years to 80 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Ages of 18-80 undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition

• Informed consent available

Exclusion Criteria:

• Coagulopathy

• Previous history of upper gastrointestinal surgery

• Contraindications for conscious sedation

• Pregnancy

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Self Efficacy

Intervention

Procedure:
• EUS-guided FNA
EUS-guided FNA with two types of needles - conventional 22G needle (Sham control) and Procore needle (active comparator)

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Hong Kong	Department of Surgery	Hong Kong

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Chinese University of Hong Kong

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Hong Kong, 

References & Publications (11)

Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Eltoum IA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC, Jhala N, Vickers SM, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer: diagnostic accuracy and acute and 30-day complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Dec;98(12):2663-8. — View Citation

Fritscher-Ravens A, Topalidis T, Bobrowski C, Krause C, Thonke E, Jäckle S, Soehendra N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in focal pancreatic lesions: a prospective intraindividual comparison of two needle assemblies. Endoscopy. 2001 Jun;33(6):484-90. — View Citation

Gress F, Gottlieb K, Sherman S, Lehman G. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of suspected pancreatic cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Mar 20;134(6):459-64. — View Citation

Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the evaluation of pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jun;97(6):1386-91. — View Citation

Iglesias-Garcia J, Poley JW, Larghi A, Giovannini M, Petrone MC, Abdulkader I, Monges G, Costamagna G, Arcidiacono P, Biermann K, Rindi G, Bories E, Dogloni C, Bruno M, Dominguez-Muñoz JE. Feasibility and yield of a new EUS histology needle: results from a multicenter, pooled, cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1189-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.053. Epub 2011 Mar 21. — View Citation

Itoi T, Itokawa F, Kurihara T, Sofuni A, Tsuchiya T, Ishii K, Tsuji S, Ikeuchi N, Kawai T, Moriyasu F. Experimental endoscopy: objective evaluation of EUS needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 1):509-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.017. — View Citation

Kida M. Pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Feb;69(2 Suppl):S102-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.010. Review. — View Citation

O'Toole D, Palazzo L, Arotçarena R, Dancour A, Aubert A, Hammel P, Amaris J, Ruszniewski P. Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Apr;53(4):470-4. — View Citation

Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G, Al-Haddad M, Aslanian H, Ben-Menachem T, Chen VK, Coyle W, Deutsch J, DeWitt J, Dhawan M, Eckardt A, Eloubeidi M, Esker A, Gordon SR, Gress F, Ikenberry S, Joyce AM, Klapman J, Lo S, Maluf-Filho F, Nickl N, Singh V, Wills J, Behling C. EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Aug;66(2):277-82. — View Citation

Yun SS, Remotti H, Vazquez MF, Crapanzano JP, Saqi A. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsies of pancreatic masses: comparison between fine needle aspirations and needle core biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 May;35(5):276-82. — View Citation

Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy. 2009 May;41(5):445-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1214643. Epub 2009 May 5. Erratum in: Endoscopy. 2009 Jun;41(6):509. — View Citation

* Note: There are 11 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Proportion of patients with cyto-histopathology confirmed neoplasms diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA	A positive diagnosis of malignancy by an EUS biopsy specimen is accepted as a true positive. A benign diagnosis is confirmed by surgical tissue samples when available or clinical follow-up after 1 year.	1 year	No
Secondary	Diagnostic accuracy	A positive diagnosis of malignancy by an EUS biopsy specimen is accepted as a true positive. A benign diagnosis is confirmed by surgical tissue samples when available or clinical follow-up after 1 year	1 year	No