EUS-guided Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) With and Without the Use of a Stylet

Biopsy, Fine-Needle Clinical Trial

Official title:

Randomized Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Solid Lesions With and Without a Stylet

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT01316614
• Other study ID #: 201105404
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• First received: March 14, 2011
• Last updated: November 24, 2014
• Start date: July 2010
• Est. completion date: July 2011

Study information

• Verified date: November 2014
• Source: Washington University School of Medicine
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Health authority: United States: Institutional Review Board
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine that there is no difference in final diagnosis of FNA specimens without a stylet, compared to using a stylet, when examined by a skilled cytopathologist.

Description:

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is a highly accurate method for cytologic diagnosis of malignancy and is routinely performed to diagnose and stage pancreatobiliary, esophageal, gastric, rectal malignancies and subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions. There are variations in EUS-FNA technique including the use of suction, the area of the lesion to target (center versus periphery), gauge of needle, and use of a stylet.

The stylet is a metal wire which is included in the needle assembly. The use of a stylet is used purely for mechanical purposes, not for the protection or safety of the patients. It is thought that the stylet prevents the needle from becoming clogged with gastrointestinal epithelial cells or mucus. To our knowledge, comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA with a stylet to the accuracy without a stylet has not been studied.

The optimal technique for EUS-FNA has not been established. The reported accuracy rate of EUS-FNA (which contains heterogeneous sampling techniques, including with and without a stylet) is 71-98% for pancreatic masses, 90% for lymph nodes, and 67-92% for submucosal gastrointestinal lesions. Typically, FNA is performed with or without a stylet using a 22 gauge or 25 gauge needle with similar diagnostic accuracy.

When the target lesion is identified, the needle is advanced through the gastrointestinal wall into the lesion under ultrasound guidance. If a stylet is being used, it is removed at this point. A 10 cc syringe under suction is then placed on the end of the needle assembly and the needle is moved back and forth within the lesion to gather cells. The assembly is then removed and the needle contents are expelled onto slides and into preservative media. The stylet is then reinserted and the needle assembly is advanced through the scope for another pass. In the absence of on-site cytopathology, 7 passes with or without a stylet of a solid lesion and 5 passes of lymph nodes with or without a stylet are recommended to achieve high diagnostic accuracy.

EUS-FNA is time consuming, mainly because the stylet needs to be carefully reinserted through the needle prior to each pass. Theoretically, the use of a stylet prevents clogging of the needle with gastrointestinal epithelial cells and mucus which can affect the adequacy of the specimen. However, there are no data to support this. As such there is a variation in practice patterns, with some endosonographers who routinely use a stylet and those that do not. Additionally, those who perform percutaneous FNA frequently do so using needles that do not have a stylet. A recent study suggests that the use of a stylet improves diagnostic accuracy in percutaneous FNA of thyroid lesions. To our knowledge, there have been no studies assessing the use of a stylet on tissue adequacy in EUS-guided FNA.

If the practice of using a stylet during EUS-guided FNA is found to yield the same number of adequate tissue samples as those done without a stylet, then the use of a stylet would be an unnecessary. As stylet replacement is the most time consuming step in FNA, the time of the procedure could be shortened significantly if the stylet is not required.

We propose a randomized controlled trial of EUS guided FNA with and without stylet which will help determine whether the use of a stylet is integral in obtaining adequate tissue aspirates in the diagnosis of solid lesions. To our knowledge, there have been no prospective, randomized studies addressing the effect of the presence or absence of a stylet on specimen adequacy during EUS-guided FNA.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 137
• Est. completion date: July 2011
• Est. primary completion date: July 2011
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Both
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• patients referred to the Washington University Interventional Endoscopy Division for EUS-guided FNA of a solid lesion (e.g. pancreatic mass, gastric wall mass, or lymphadenopathy)

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients <18 years of age

• patients who cannot provide independent informed consent (i.e. patients with dementia or with a health care proxy)

• pregnant women (as determined by pregnancy test given as part of standard of care)

• prisoners

Study Design

Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Diagnostic

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Biopsy, Fine-Needle
• Biopsy, Fine-Needle/Methods
• Endosonography

Intervention

Device:
• FNA with and without a stylet
If the patient agrees to enrollment in the study, the initial stage of the EUS exam will be performed in the usual manner. If a solid lesion that requires FNA is identified, an envelope will be opened which contains a computer generated randomization sequence for all passes. These sequences will be generated by a web-based program at http://www.randomizer.org/form.htm. Passes will be made based on the randomization, either with or without a stylet. Six passes (three with a stylet and three without a stylet) will be performed on solid lesions and four passes (two with and two without a stylet) will be performed on lymph nodes. Additional passes will be made at the discretion of the endosonographer as clinically indicated but will not be included in the data.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Washington University School of Medicine	St. Louis	Missouri

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Washington University School of Medicine

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (15)

Cappelli C, Pirola I, Gandossi E, De Martino E, Agosti B, Castellano M. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of thyroid nodule: does the needle matter? South Med J. 2009 May;102(5):498-501. doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31819c7343. — View Citation

Chhieng DC, Jhala D, Jhala N, Eltoum I, Chen VK, Vickers S, Heslin MJ, Wilcox CM, Eloubeidi MA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a study of 103 cases. Cancer. 2002 Aug 25;96(4):232-9. — View Citation

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

Eloubeidi MA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC, Chen VK, Eltoum I, Vickers S, Mel Wilcox C, Jhala N. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer. 2003 Oct 25;99(5):285-92. — View Citation

Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS. Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Feb;51(2):184-90. — View Citation

Gönen M. Sample size and power for McNemar's test with clustered data. Stat Med. 2004 Jul 30;23(14):2283-94. — 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

LeBlanc JK, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi MT, McGrath K, Imperiale T, Tao LC, Vallery S, DeWitt J, Sherman S, Collins E. Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):475-81. — View Citation

Mitsuhashi T, Ghafari S, Chang CY, Gu M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas: cytomorphological evaluation with emphasis on adequacy assessment, diagnostic criteria and contamination from the gastrointestinal tract. Cytopathology. 2006 Feb;17(1):34-41. — View Citation

Nguyen YP, Maple JT, Zhang Q, Ylagan LR, Zhai J, Kohlmeier C, Jonnalagadda S, Early DS, Edmundowicz SA, Azar RR. Reliability of gross visual assessment of specimen adequacy during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun;69(7):1264-70. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.030. Epub 2009 Feb 24. — View Citation

Obuchowski NA. On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data. Stat Med. 1998 Jul 15;17(13):1495-507. — 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

Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS, Padda MS, Murali-Dharan V, Aslanian HR. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1093-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.05.037. Epub 2009 Jul 28. — View Citation

Vander Noot MR 3rd, Eloubeidi MA, Chen VK, Eltoum I, Jhala D, Jhala N, Syed S, Chhieng DC. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal tract lesions by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Cancer. 2004 Jun 25;102(3):157-63. — View Citation

Wiersema MJ, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang KJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology. 1997 Apr;112(4):1087-95. — View Citation

* Note: There are 15 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Compare Adequacy of Diagnoses in Passes With and Without a Stylet	The number of passes was determined by the lesion site and mirrored clinical practice (6 passes for pancreatic/other lesions and 4 passes for lymph nodes). The order of these passes was determined by a preprinted randomization sequence kept in an opaque sealed envelope that was opened by the research coordinator or EUS technologist after enrollment. Each participant had an equal number of passes with stylet and without stylet.; There was no communication between the endosonographer and the cytopathologist regarding the adequacy of the specimen or diagnosis until all passes had been completed. The on-site evaluation of smears was performed to assess cellular adequacy and to assess the need for any additional passes. Additional passes were made at the discretion of the endosonographer as clinically indicated but were not included in the final analysis. The cytology slides were evaluated by 3 experienced cytopathologists who were all blinded to the stylet status of the passes.	At the time of EUS-FNA procedure (Day 1)	No
Secondary	Degree of Cellularity	Percentage of area of slide that contains cells of the representative lesion	At the time of EUS-FNA procedure (Day 1)	No
Secondary	Degree of Cellularity	Number of cells per slide	At the time of EUS-FNA procedure (Day 1)	No
Secondary	Adequacy of Specimen		At the time of EUS-FNA procedure (Day 1)	No
Secondary	Contamination	Percentage of area of slide that represents GI contamination	At the time of EUS-FNA procedure (Day 1)	No
Secondary	Amount of Blood		At the time of EUS-FNA procedure (Day 1)	No