Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04924725

Prospective Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Between Contrast-enhanced Harmonic and Conventional EUS-guided Fine-needle Biopsy in Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (FNA/B) is used to collect biopsy samples from many organs throughout the digestive tract and is useful in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). The reported diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for SPLs is 85-89.4%, the sensitivity is 82-94.7%, and the specificity is 100%. One randomized controlled trial reported that the fanning technique of FNA was superior to the standard approach because fewer passes were required to establish the diagnosis. However, in many cases, like SPLs with the presence of fibrosis and necrosis background, four or more needle passes are still needed to obtain sufficient biopsy samples. There is a potential risk of tumor seeding associated with multiple needle punctures. Therefore, it is important to minimize the number of needle passes.

Contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS) using sonazoid (Daiichi-Sankyo, Tokyo, Japan) is useful to visualize parenchymal perfusion in the pancreas and characterize of SPLs. Because the necrotic or fibrotic area within the SPLs were appeared as non-enhanced area, CEH-EUS could help us to avoid puncture the non-enhancing area hence increased the diagnostic accuracy. Katana et al. reported that conventional EUS-FNA has lower sensitivity (72.9%) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with non-enhanced areas compared to with enhanced areas (94.3%) on CEH-EUS. Therefore, it would be difficult to obtain sufficient biopsy samples through unenhanced areas of SPLs.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

20 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

National Taiwan University Hospital

Taipei, 100, Taiwan

About this study

According to the study result by Katana et al., fanning technique in SPLs with avascular areas had a negative impact on diagnostic accuracy of FNA. Because of the retrospective basis of their study, a prospective study is warranted to answer whether CEH-EUS-guided FNA/B is superior to conventional EUS-guided FNA/B with fanning technique in SPLs. The main objective of this randomized trial therefore was to determine whether CEH-EUS-guided sampling to avoid non-enhanced areas within a mass lesion result in more rapid diagnosis requiring fewer FNA/B passes than the conventional EUS-guided FNA/B with fanning needle throughout the mass is targeted.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients aged more than 20years
  • Referred for EUS-guided tissue acquisition for solid pancreatic lesions
  • The size of the lesion greater than 1cm in the largest diameter

Exclusion criteria

  • Patients with coagulopathy or altered anatomy
  • Contraindications for conscious sedation
  • Pregnancy
  • Patients cannot provide informed consent

Treatment and study plan

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy

Procedure

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is used to collect biopsy samples from solid pancreatic lesions throughout the digestive tract and is useful in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions

Primary outcomes

  1. Total number of passes required to establish a diagnosis

    Time frame: 1 day

    The samples in each group will be sent for ROSE and pathology evaluation. If diagnosis could be made after ROSE, the procedure will be stopped. Otherwise, the FNB with be repeated for at most six times in each group.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic accuracy rate

    Time frame: 3 months

  2. Overall complication rate

    Time frame: 3 months

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

National Taiwan University Hospital

Other

Registry information

Official study title

National Taiwan University Hospital

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2019
Study completion
2021
First posted
Jun 14, 2021
Registry last updated
Jun 14, 2021

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.