Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01580709

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Based Sampling of Indeterminate Bile Duct Strictures

Differentiating malignant from benign bile duct strictures is a conundrum, since no diagnostic test is highly sensitive for diagnosing cancer. While ERCP is effective in palliating obstructive jaundice, standard diagnostic tools in ERCP have a low diagnostic sensitivity and confirm the stricture's etiology in <50% of cases. During the first ERCP, standard practice is to obtain routine cytology (RC) using a single brush sample. If this is not diagnostic, patients often undergo repeat ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound or other, increasing health care costs. The incremental yield of performing alternate ERCP-based diagnostic tools during the first ERCP including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), cholangioscopy w/biopsy and multiple brushes for routine cytology is currently unknown. There are no studies quantifying the amount of testing utilized to firmly diagnose the etiology of the stricture, or the most efficient combination of diagnostic tools during the first ERCP. These are important knowledge deficiencies since a definitive tissue diagnosis during the first ERCP could reduce the need for downstream tests and expedite treatment, thereby improving patient-centered and economic outcomes. The added costs of using multiple tools during the first ERCP may be offset by these benefits.

Among patients with indeterminate bile duct strictures, the investigators hypothesize that a multimodality approach will be more sensitive without a significant reduction in specificity compared to multiple brush samples for routine cytology. The investigators will test this hypothesis using an experimental trial design by randomizing patients during their first ERCP to multiple brushing samples for cytology vs. a single brush sample for cytology + FISH + cholangioscopy w/biopsy. To obtain preliminary data for a definitive multi-center trial, the investigators propose a pilot and feasibility study to compare the performance characteristics of each approach by evaluating the prospective clinical course, including treatment delay, quality of life, and life expectancy for each enrolled patient. If our hypothesis is validated in a subsequent definitive study, the standard approach to tissue sampling during the first ERCP may be altered.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Indiana University Health University Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Loading trial locations.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Extrahepatic BDS with no discrete mass on CT/MRI (either or both)
  • A BDS is defined as a segmental narrowing of the bile duct > 50% of the proximal or distal unaffected duct.
  • Biochemical evidence of cholestasis (increase in alkaline phosphatase ≥ 2x upper limit of normal ± total bilirubin ≥2.0mg/dL)

Exclusion criteria

  • No clinical suspicion for malignancy
  • Associated mass seen on CT or MRI
  • Age ≤18, pregnancy, incarceration, inability to give informed consent
  • Inability to undergo standard ERCP (e.g., postsurgical anatomy)
  • Previous ERCP with sampling of BDS, other than a single brushing specimen sent for routine cytopathology

Treatment and study plan

Multiple brushings

Procedure

Seven consecutive brush samples for cytology.

Multimodality tissue sampling

Procedure

Single brush for cytology + single brush for FISH + cholangioscopy with site-directed biopsies

Primary outcomes

  1. Performance characteristics

    Time frame: 12 months

    A definite diagnosis of malignancy (i.e., "true positive") will be defined as either 1) a cytological or histological interpretation "positive for malignancy" based on brushing for RC or biopsy; 2) subsequent cytological or histological confirmation of malignancy within one year of the index procedure, via repeat ERCP, surgery, other diagnostic test.

    If a diagnosis of cancer is not confirmed after one year of follow-up, then the stricture will be classified as non-malignant and the negative cytology, FISH and histology from the index ERCP considered "true negatives."

Secondary outcomes

  1. Incremental yield of multiple brushings

    Time frame: 12 months

    The additive role of each additional brushing will be analyzed for 1) adequacy of cellularity for cytological interpretation and 2) assessment of malignancy. The cytopathologist will be asked to interpret each of these outcomes using the first pass only (control group), first two passes only, first three passes only, and so on until all seven brushings are analyzed. The performance characteristics (see primary outcome) will be compared for each incremental brushing, assuming that a single intraductal brushing for RC is the reference standard.

  2. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio

    Time frame: 12 months

    Complete data on medical utilization (e.g. hospitalizations, procedures, ambulatory visits) will be collected prospectively using Indiana Network for Patient Care (INPC) health information exchange databases (clinical electronic health record (EHR) and claims). Direct costs associated with the diagnostic evaluation of the indeterminate bile duct stricture (BDS) will be measured in both groups, including those costs associated with the index ERCP and all treatment costs associated with each study arm.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Medical University of South Carolina

Other

Collaborators

  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)

Registry information

Official study title

Optimizing the Role of ERCP in Evaluating Indeterminate Bile Duct Strictures

Important dates

Study start
2012
Primary completion
2016
Study completion
2016
First posted
Apr 19, 2012
Registry last updated
Sep 20, 2016

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.