Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 5:19 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-29 @ 2:59 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05110950
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2022-05-26
First Post:
2021-10-27
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Endobronchial Ultrasound Needle Aspiration With and Without Suction
Sponsor:
Università Politecnica delle Marche
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Diagnostic Accuracy of Endobronchial Ultrasound Needle Aspiration With and Without Suction: a Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2022-05
Last Known Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The main purpose of the present study is to compare the diagnostic yield of different aspiration techniques in Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) in the diagnosis of hilar/mediastinal adenopathy
Detailed Description:
The role of ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for the diagnosis of hilar/mediastinal adenopathy is well established. However, different aspiration techniques are available and it's not clear if there's a significant difference between suction vs no suction aspiration. Of great interest is the role of different aspiration techniques in EBUS-TBNA in determining the diagnostic yield for histopathological evaluation, including molecular biology and PD-L1 amplification assessment in lung cancer diagnosis.
In this context, no comparative studies between suction and no suction aspiration have been performed; moreover, considering only suction techniques, no studies evaluated if there's a difference between aspiration with EBUS dedicated syringe and manual aspiration through Cameco syringe. It is very important for clinical practice to definitively assess the non inferiority of no suction techniques in EBUS-TBNA in terms of diagnostic yield, and to provide information regarding the quality of histologic sample to define the best diagnostic strategy.
The study is focused on a minimum of 306 patients who have at least one hilar/mediastinal lymph node \> 1 cm on CT scan or hypermetabolic on FDG-PET in at least one approachable lymph nodal station for which a diagnostic cyto-histological assessment is required for clinical purpose. Patients will be randomized 1:1:1 (no suction : passive suction with EBUS dedicated syringe : manual suction with Cameco syringe) by a computer-generated random-allocation system to undergo EBUS-TBNA with one of the three different aspiration techniques. The pathologist provides a final diagnosis and, as secondary endpoint, a qualitative assessment of the sample quality using both a binary and a semi-quantitative score.
In this context, no comparative studies between suction and no suction aspiration have been performed; moreover, considering only suction techniques, no studies evaluated if there's a difference between aspiration with EBUS dedicated syringe and manual aspiration through Cameco syringe. It is very important for clinical practice to definitively assess the non inferiority of no suction techniques in EBUS-TBNA in terms of diagnostic yield, and to provide information regarding the quality of histologic sample to define the best diagnostic strategy.
The study is focused on a minimum of 306 patients who have at least one hilar/mediastinal lymph node \> 1 cm on CT scan or hypermetabolic on FDG-PET in at least one approachable lymph nodal station for which a diagnostic cyto-histological assessment is required for clinical purpose. Patients will be randomized 1:1:1 (no suction : passive suction with EBUS dedicated syringe : manual suction with Cameco syringe) by a computer-generated random-allocation system to undergo EBUS-TBNA with one of the three different aspiration techniques. The pathologist provides a final diagnosis and, as secondary endpoint, a qualitative assessment of the sample quality using both a binary and a semi-quantitative score.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
False
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: