Endoscopic Ultrasound Versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Tissue Sampling for the Diagnosis of Suspected Pancreatico-Biliary Cancer

This study is currently recruiting participants.
Verified August 2012 by California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Janak Shah, MD, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01356030
First received: May 12, 2011
Last updated: August 29, 2012
Last verified: August 2012

May 12, 2011
August 29, 2012
April 2011
April 2013   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Direct comparison of tissue sampling techniques for patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary cancers. [ Time Frame: One year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Diagnostic yield from EUS-FNA samples will be compared to yield from ERCP tissue sampling methods (brushings and forceps biopsies).
Direct comparison of tissue sampling techniques for patients with suspected pacreaticobiliary cancers. [ Time Frame: One year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Diagnostic yield from EUS-FNA samples will be compared to yield from ERCP tissue sampling methods (brushings and forceps biopsies).
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01356030 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Endoscopic Ultrasound Versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Tissue Sampling for the Diagnosis of Suspected Pancreatico-Biliary Cancer
Prospective Comparison of EUS-guided FNA and ERCP Tissue Sampling for the Diagnosis of Suspected Pancreato-biliary Neoplasms

The two most commonly used methods to biopsy suspected pancreaticobiliary masses are (1) endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and (2) cytology brush biopsies obtained during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). At most centers, the specific method used depends on the availability of the technology and local expertise. Although it is believed that EUS-FNA is more accurate than ERCP brushings, there have been no head-to-head comparisons. The investigators' hypothesis is that EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP in obtaining tissue biopsies of pancreaticobiliary tumors, and the investigators aim to directly compare the two techniques.

Patients with pancreaticobiliary tumors usually present with painless jaundice due to bile duct obstruction. The standard clinical evaluation may include EUS and/or ERCP. At centers where EUS is available (like CPMC), it is usually used first as it is generally considered a better tool for tumor detection, staging, and performing biopsies (FNA). ERCP is then performed, if needed, to place a stent and relieve jaundice. As EUS is a relatively newer technology that has not widely disseminated, other centers use ERCP as the 1st modality to evaluate suspected malignant pancreaticobiliary obstruction. The role of ERCP in this setting is to not only place a stent to relieve jaundice, but to additionally obtain cytology brushings for tissue diagnosis.

Several studies have reported high sensitivity of EUS-FNA for detecting pancreaticobiliary cancers that are causing bile duct obstruction and jaundice (80-90%). The sensitivity for ERCP brushings and biopsies to detect the same types of tumors is reportedly lower (30-80%), but there have been no direct comparisons of these techniques.

Few centers use both technologies (EUS and ERCP) for patient care, or often perform EUS and ERCP at separate sessions. At CPMC, the investigators routinely perform EUS and ERCP together for patients needing these procedures. Thus the investigators are in a unique position to directly compare EUS-FNA to ERCP brushings for tissue diagnosis of suspected pancreaticobiliary tumors.

The proposed study will be the 1st direct comparison of EUS-FNA to ERCP tissue sampling for patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary cancers. Study results will highlight the best approach to obtain a biopsy diagnosis of pancreatic and biliary tract cancers.

Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Caregiver)
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Pancreaticobiliary Cancers
  • Jaundice
  • Bile Duct Obstruction
  • Procedure: ERCP
    Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is usually clinically indicated to place a stent (a plastic or metal tube) in the bile duct. The ERCP procedure is an endoscopic exam during which a small catheter or wire is placed into the bile duct from the point at which it connects to the small intestine. During such a procedure a stent can then be placed to help drain the bile across the site of blockage, and thereby treat your jaundice.
  • Procedure: EUS FNA
    Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a procedure in which a flexible tube with a tiny camera and ultrasound probe at the tip is placed through the mouth, down the esophagus, and into the stomach and duodenum (first part of the small intestine where bile flows from the bile duct into the intestine). This allows the doctor performing the EUS to get a much closer view of your pancreas and bile duct. If a suspicious mass is seen, a small sample of the mass (biopsy) is taken using fine needle aspiration (FNA). FNA involves the use of a thin hollow needle to extract cells for diagnostic purposes and is considered safer and less invasive than surgical biopsies.
  • Active Comparator: EUS-FNA
    Intervention: Procedure: EUS FNA
  • Active Comparator: ERCP Brushing and Biopsy
    Intervention: Procedure: ERCP

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Recruiting
110
April 2013
April 2013   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients age >18 years that are scheduled for EUS and possible ERCP for the evaluation of jaundice from suspected pancreaticobiliary tumors.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients that do not provide consent for EUS and ERCP (for standard clinical reasons)
  • Patients that do not require ERCP based on EUS findings (e.g. no mass seen, mass is not causing jaundice
  • Patients in whom an additional 5 minutes of procedure time may increase the procedural/sedation risks:

    • pregnant patients
    • patients with severe medical co-morbidities (ASA class 4 or 5)
  • Patients with significant bleeding risk precluding endoscopic tissue sampling

    • INR > 1.4 or Prothrombin time > 5 sec more than control
    • Platelet count < 50,000
Both
18 Years and older
No
Contact: Janak Shah, MD 415-600-1151
Contact: Steve D Kane, BS KaneSD@sutterhealth.org
United States
 
NCT01356030
2011.048
No
Janak Shah, MD, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute
California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute
Not Provided
Principal Investigator: Janak Shah, MD California Pacific Medical Center
California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute
August 2012

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP