Clinical trial NCT01698190: Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic FNA vs FNB in Diagnosing Solid Gastrointestinal Lesions
Official title: Comparing the Overall Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Solid Lesions: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: UNKNOWN
Phase: NA
Conditions: Pancreatic Tumor
Gastric Tumor
Esophageal Tumor
Lymphadenopathy
Duodenal Tumor
Lead sponsor: Stony Brook University
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: New York Medical College
name: Yale University
name: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
name: Columbia University
name: Weill Medical College of Cornell University
First posted: 2012-10-02
Enrollment: 400
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: CROSSOVER
Primary purpose: DIAGNOSTIC

Brief summary: The purpose of this study is to determine if fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy is more efficacious and cost-effective than the other while maintaining diagnostic accuracy in the setting of solid gastrointestinal lesions.

Detailed description: When ultrasound is used during endoscopy, we are able to visualize the structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract in close detail. Once the mass is visualized, we use endoscopic ultrasound to obtain a tissue sample, which the pathologist can examine in order to provide a diagnosis.

The conventional method for obtaining a sample of tissue with endoscopic ultrasound is called fine needle aspiration (FNA). This involves the insertion of a thin needle into the mass and obtaining a small sample of tissue which the pathologist can examine. An alternative technique is called fine needle biopsy (FNB), and involves the insertion of a thin double-edged needle into the mass. This double-edged needle may potentially provide a larger sample of tissue to examine.

Both of these techniques are commonly used, and both methods are equally safe. However, it is not known if one of these techniques is more effective at obtaining a sample of tissue or if one of these techniques is more cost-effective than the other. The purpose of this study is to determine if one method is more efficacious and cost-effective than the other while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. The results of this study may alter the way gastroenterologists obtain tissue samples during endoscopic ultrasound, improving the utility of the exam and reducing unnecessary healthcare costs.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Consecutive adult patients who require endoscopic ultrasound and tissue sampling of either a) pancreatic solid lesion, b) subepithelial solid lesion of the esophagus, stomach, duodenum or rectum, c) liver lesion, or d) lymph nodes or mass lesion located adjacent to the esophagus, stomach, duodenum or rectum
* Ability to give consent

Exclusion Criteria:

* Inability to obtain informed consent
* Pregnant patients
* Patients under the age of 18
* Severe cardiopulmonary disease preventing a safe EUS procedure
* Patients unable to safely stop anti-coagulation therapy prior to EUS procedure

Primary outcomes:
measure: Number of needle passes needed to obtain a pathologic diagnosis.
timeFrame: Within 1 week of study enrollment
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Diagnostic yield, defined as percentage of cases with a diagnostic biopsy sample, between FNA and FNB.
timeFrame: By three months post-op in the pathology report
measure: Visible core specimens obtained and its correlation to obtaining a diagnostic sample.
timeFrame: During the intervention itself
measure: Frequency of adverse side effects.
timeFrame: Three months post-op
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Stony Brook
country: United States
facility: Stony Brook University Hospital
state: New York
Study officials:
affiliation: Stony Brook University
name: Satish Nagula, MD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Gan SI, Rajan E, Adler DG, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Cash BD, Davila RE, Dominitz JA, Harrison ME 3rd, Ikenberry SO, Lichtenstein D, Qureshi W, Shen B, Zuckerman M, Fanelli RD, Lee KK, Van Guilder T. Role of EUS. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Sep;66(3):425-34. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.05.026. Epub 2007 Jul 23. No abstract available.
citation: Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, Ikenberry SO, Lehman GA. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Mar;45(3):243-50. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70266-9.
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. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70164-1.
citation: Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, Larino-Noia J, Eugenyeva E, Lozano-Leon A, Forteza-Vila J. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep;106(9):1705-10. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.119. Epub 2011 Apr 12.
citation: Schwartz DA, Unni KK, Levy MJ, Clain JE, Wiersema MJ. The rate of false-positive results with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Dec;56(6):868-72. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.129610.
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-Munoz 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.
citation: Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F, Iori V, Cavina M, Sereni G, Decembrino F, Gallo C, Tamagnini I, Valli R, Piana S, Campari C, Gardini G, Sassatelli R. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy. 2011 Aug;43(8):709-15. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256482. Epub 2011 May 24.
citation: Nagula S, Pourmand K, Aslanian H, Bucobo JC, Gonda TA, Gonzalez S, Goodman A, Gross SA, Ho S, DiMaio CJ, Kim MK, Pais S, Poneros JM, Robbins DH, Schnoll-Sussman F, Sethi A, Buscaglia JM; New York Endoscopic Research Outcomes Group (NYERO). Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;16(8):1307-1313.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.013. Epub 2017 Jun 15.