Skip to content

Comparing Xperguide vs. Conventional Methods During Percutaneous Image Guided Procedures

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Navigation With Xperguide vs. Conventional Methods During Percutaneous Image Guided Procedures

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01287013
Enrollment
87
Registered
2011-02-01
Start date
2011-01-31
Completion date
2015-08-31
Last updated
2018-01-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cancer, Empyema, Granuloma, Infection, Neoplasm

Keywords

Image Guided Procedures, Xperguide CT, Electromagnetic Tracking, Navigation, Image Guided Procedure, Cancer, Granuloma

Brief summary

Background: \- Procedures that use medical tools in or near a possible abnormality in the body often use computed tomography (CT) scans to locate the abnormality and guide the path that a needle will take to collect a sample of tissue. Xperguide and electromagnetic (EM) tracking are two new procedures being studied to help guide the needle. Xperguide is software that uses CT images to help the doctor choose the needle path. EM tracking uses special medical tools with miniature coils that act like a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) device to show the location of the needle in the body. Xperguide and EM tracking have been used in humans and have good results, but they have not been compared with each other and regular CT to determine whether they are better than the standard approach. Objectives: \- To compare the results of Xperguide, electromagnetic tracking, and regular computed tomography during a guided percutaneous procedure. Eligibility: \- Individuals at least 18 years of age who are required to have a CT-guided percutaneous procedure. Design: * Participants will be screened with a physical examination and medical history, and the results of any previous imaging studies will be examined before study enrollment. * After a pilot phase, the study will involve two phases to compare the results of the different procedures. The first phase will involve comparing Xperguide to CT, and the second will involve comparing Xperguide to EM tracking. * Phase 1 participants will be assigned to one of two procedure groups: Group 1 will have Xperguide, and Group 2 will have regular CT. Participants who are scheduled to have repeated procedures (like a biopsy before and after chemotherapy) will be randomized for the first procedure and the second procedure will be done using the other method. * Phase 2 participants will be assigned to one of two procedure groups: Group 1 will have Xperguide, and Group 2 will have EM tracking. Participants who are scheduled to have repeated procedures (like a biopsy before and after chemotherapy) will be randomized for the first procedure and the second procedure will be done using the other method. * Standard post-procedure followup care will be given after the study procedure is completed.

Detailed description

PR(SqrRoot) CIS This is a phase II prospective randomized trial comparing a novel navigation method, Xperguide to conventional CT and electromagnetic tracking (EM) during percutaneous image guided procedures. Xperguide is a navigation tool that utilizes a cone beam CT (CBCT) obtained in the angiography suite overlaid on fluoroscopy for needle guidance during image guided procedures. The needle entry point and path are planned on the CBCT and the determined path is overlaid on fluoroscopy image for real time guidance. SPECIFIC AIMS/OBJECTIVES 1. The primary aims are: a. Pilot trial: i. To familiarize operators with outcome measures allowing for fair comparison in the subsequent study b. Main trial will have 2 phases with similar outcomes criteria and aims (below): i. comparing Xperguide to conventional imaging (superiority design): ii. comparing Xperguide to EM tracking (equivalence design): 1. To compare the accuracy of final device tip position and path (vector) 2. To compare the number of repositioning maneuvers 3. To compare the radiation dose 4. To compare rates of definitive pathological diagnosis and response rate per EASL criteria for ablations METHODS/METHODOLOGY For non-vascular image guided interventions, patients undergoing biopsies and ablations procedures requiring CT guidance are eligible for inclusion and randomization. An initial pilot study will be done in which each operator will perform at least 5 cases using Xperguide completing the case report forms. This will ensure experience with outcome measures and fair comparison in the subsequent study. Once one of the operators reaches the minimal required cases, the main trial will begin for that operator. However every other operator must each complete the minimal number of cases with the case report forms to enroll patients in the main trial. Initially, we will compare Xperguide with conventional CT with several cohorts of patients mainly: lung biopsies, and ablations, kidney biopsies/ablations and other abdominal biopsies/ ablations. In ablations of large lesions, Xperguide composite ablation software can provide input on the expected ablation zones. Each probe will be positioned in the same manner as any biopsy needle following steps described in section 4. If this specific composite ablation module of the software is not commercially released and FDA cleared at the time of the study, then this software will only be used on protocol to help the physician determine ideal needle positioning for complete ablation. Once consent is obtained the participant is randomized to either conventional imaging or Xperguide. In addition, if it is known that the patient is participating in a trial which requires a repeat (paired, pre and post treatment) procedure of the same site, then the randomization will determine which modality is used for guidance at the first visit and the other modality will automatically be used for the second procedure. In these cases, if the patient gives consent they will be randomized to one of two categories: 1. Xperguide for the initial procedure and conventional CT for the 2nd procedure 2. Conventional CT for the initial procedure and Xperguide for the 2nd procedure Then in the second phase of the trial, Xperguide will be compared to EM tracking for biopsies and ablations requiring CT guidance, in an equivalence study. Once consent is obtained, the participant will be randomized into EM tracking or Xperguide. The patients would be divided into different cohorts depending on the anatomic site of the interventions i.e. lung, kidney, liver and other abdomen. If the patients are participating in a trial requiring paired procedures (i.e. pre and post treatment), the randomization will determine which modality is used for the initial procedure and the other modality will be used for the second procedure. In summary there will be two potential categories: 1. EM tracking for the initial procedure and Xperguide for the 2nd procedure 2. Xperguide for the initial procedure and EM tracking for the 2nd procedure If a patient has a lesion that is only visible on PET-CT/MR, or demonstrates heterogenous PET-CT/MR uptake, there will be a separate cohort of PET-CT/MR guided biopsies and ablations using Xperguide vs EM tracking. There is also the need for a cohort for ablations with complimentary use of ultrasound at the discretion of the operator in order to conform to our standard of care at the NIH. ELIGIBILITY Subjects are eligible if: 1. they are over 18 years of age 2. they are scheduled for image guided procedure 3. the lesion is not superficial (deeper than 3cm) Subjects are excluded if: 1. they have an altered mental status that precludes understanding or consenting for the procedure 2. they are unable to hold reasonably still on a procedure table for the length of the procedure 3. they are unable to hold their breath if the procedure will be performed with conscious sedation and without general anesthesia 4. their gross body weight is over 375 pounds which the upper limit of the CT and angiography tables REQUIRED SAMPLE SIZE A pilot study will be performed to ensure operator experience with Xperguide and EM tracking, for fair comparison. In the pilot study each operator must perform 5 cases with Xperguide completing the case report forms. There are 5 potential operators therefore a maximum of 25 patients (if all 5 operators participate to the fullest). The first phase of the main trial comparing Xperguide with conventional CT was powered (for sample size) with a standard superiority design aimed to statistically establish that Xperguide is better than conventional CT (defined as requiring fewer needle repositioning efforts). These calculations yield a total sample size of 60 patients with 20 patients per anatomical site. For the second phase of the trial comparing Xperguide to EM tracking, a two sided equivalence design (based on accuracy and number of needle repositioning) was used for sample size considerations, and yielded 192 patients. Therefore 16 patients per modality per anatomical site will be randomized with two additional cohorts for PET-CT/MR procedures and composite ablations. Number of Participants: 277 Recruitment Time Frame: 4 years Number of sites: 1 Type of Study: prospective randomized clinical trial after an initial pilot period

Interventions

DEVICEConventional Computed Tomography (CT)

Imaging

DEVICECone-beam computed tomography (CT)

Imaging

Sponsors

National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC)
Lead SponsorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 100 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1. they are over 18 years of age 2. they are scheduled for image guided procedure 3. the lesion is not superficial (deeper than 3 cm)

Exclusion criteria

1. patients with an altered mental status that precludes understanding or consenting for the procedure 2. patients unable to hold reasonably still on a procedure table for the length of the procedure 3. patient unable to hold their breath if the procedure will be performed with conscious sedation and without general anesthesia 4. patient with a gross body weight over 375 pounds (upper limit of the CT and angiography tables)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Accuracy of Final Device Path (Vector)1 hourComparing the accuracy of the path the biopsy needle took to get to the site
Radiation Doses Between Xperguide and Conventional CT1 hourComparing radiation doses to determine if there is a change in the dose between the two interventions
Comparing the Accuracy of Final Device Tip Position1 hourTo compare the accuracy of the biopsy needle between the software guidance and conventional CT. The accuracy of the needle position was calculated in millimeters by using the difference between the x,y,z coordinates of the tip of the actual needle before specimen collection. Actual and planned needle paths were compared using coordinates and measured in millimeters.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Compare the Number of Repositioning Maneuvers1 hourTo compare the number of times the needle must be repositioned during the guidance of the needle to the biopsy.
Rates of Definitive Pathologic Diagnosis1 hourDefinitive pathologic diagnosis was defined as an adequate specimen as judged by the pathologist and a diagnosis confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Recruitment period = 2/4/2011 - 5/15/2014 Recruitment location = Interventional Radiology Clinic, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, NIH

Pre-assignment details

The PILOT Arm of the study was done prior to enrolling participants in the main phase of the study. PILOT Participants were enrolled to familiarize operators with performing Xperguide procedures. Participants enrolled in the PILOT Arm were not randomized to either the Cone Beam CT or Conventional CT Arms and not included in the analysis.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Cone Beam CT
Procedure performed with Xperguide cone-beam Computed Tomography (CT) navigation
32
Conventional CT
Procedure performed with Conventional Computed Tomography (CT) image guidance
34
PILOT
Procedures performed with Xperguide without randomization to familiarize operators.
21
Total87

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyNon-evaluable3521

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicCone Beam CTConventional CTPILOTTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
7 Participants9 Participants12 Participants28 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
25 Participants25 Participants8 Participants58 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
18 Participants8 Participants4 Participants30 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
14 Participants26 Participants17 Participants57 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 290 / 290 / 21
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 290 / 290 / 21
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 291 / 290 / 21

Outcome results

Primary

Accuracy of Final Device Path (Vector)

Comparing the accuracy of the path the biopsy needle took to get to the site

Time frame: 1 hour

Population: Participants enrolled in the PILOT Arm were not randomized to the Cone Beam CT or Conventional CT Arms and were not included in the analysis. PILOT Participants were enrolled to familiarize operators with performing Xperguide procedures.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cone Beam CTAccuracy of Final Device Path (Vector)8.8 mmStandard Deviation 5.4
Conventional CTAccuracy of Final Device Path (Vector)28.3 mmStandard Deviation 20.5
p-value: <0.001Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Primary

Comparing the Accuracy of Final Device Tip Position

To compare the accuracy of the biopsy needle between the software guidance and conventional CT. The accuracy of the needle position was calculated in millimeters by using the difference between the x,y,z coordinates of the tip of the actual needle before specimen collection. Actual and planned needle paths were compared using coordinates and measured in millimeters.

Time frame: 1 hour

Population: Participants enrolled in the PILOT Arm were not randomized to the Cone Beam CT or Conventional CT Arms and were not included in the analysis. PILOT Participants were enrolled to familiarize operators with performing Xperguide procedures.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cone Beam CTComparing the Accuracy of Final Device Tip Position4.9 mmStandard Deviation 4.1
Conventional CTComparing the Accuracy of Final Device Tip Position12.2 mmStandard Deviation 8.1
p-value: <0.001Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Primary

Radiation Doses Between Xperguide and Conventional CT

Comparing radiation doses to determine if there is a change in the dose between the two interventions

Time frame: 1 hour

Population: Participants enrolled in the PILOT Arm were not randomized to the Cone Beam CT or Conventional CT Arms and were not included in the analysis. PILOT Participants were enrolled to familiarize operators with performing Xperguide procedures.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cone Beam CTRadiation Doses Between Xperguide and Conventional CT53.3 mGyStandard Deviation 33.3
Conventional CTRadiation Doses Between Xperguide and Conventional CT75.4 mGyStandard Deviation 62.6
p-value: <0.04t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Compare the Number of Repositioning Maneuvers

To compare the number of times the needle must be repositioned during the guidance of the needle to the biopsy.

Time frame: 1 hour

Population: Participants enrolled in the PILOT Arm were not randomized to the Cone Beam CT or Conventional CT Arms and were not included in the analysis. PILOT Participants were enrolled to familiarize operators with performing Xperguide procedures.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Cone Beam CTCompare the Number of Repositioning Maneuvers0.3 number of repositioning maneuversStandard Deviation 0.5
Conventional CTCompare the Number of Repositioning Maneuvers1.9 number of repositioning maneuversStandard Deviation 2.3
p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Rates of Definitive Pathologic Diagnosis

Definitive pathologic diagnosis was defined as an adequate specimen as judged by the pathologist and a diagnosis confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up.

Time frame: 1 hour

Population: Participants enrolled in the PILOT Arm were not randomized to the Cone Beam CT or Conventional CT Arms and were not included in the analysis. PILOT Participants were enrolled to familiarize operators with performing Xperguide procedures.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Cone Beam CTRates of Definitive Pathologic Diagnosis93.9 percent of accuracy
Conventional CTRates of Definitive Pathologic Diagnosis90.9 percent of accuracy
p-value: =0.67t-test, 2 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026