Skip to content

EUS-CNB Versus EUS-SINK for Diagnosis of Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) Subepithelial Tumors

EUS-guided Core Needle Biopsy (EUS-CNB) Versus EUS-guided Single-incision With Needle Knife (SINK) for the Diagnosis of Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions - a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02282111
Enrollment
56
Registered
2014-11-04
Start date
2014-07-31
Completion date
2017-11-30
Last updated
2018-10-09

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

Conditions

Esophageal Subepithelial Lesions

Brief summary

This is a single-blinded randomized control trial trying to compare the effectiveness of diagnosis between two techniques employed in tissue sampling for subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the gastrointestinal tract. Over 2 years, patients having SET will be randomized to either get the EUS-guided core needle biopsy (EUS-CNB) or EUS-guided single-incision with needle knife (SINK) technique. This is of grave importance because the diagnosis of the myriad types of SETs is made histologically requiring a good sample.

Detailed description

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs) are tumors arising from subepithelial layers of esophageal, gastric or duodenal wall, mostly from the submucosa and muscular layer. The incidence of SETs on routine endoscopy is 0.36% The differential diagnosis of SETs include, though are not limited to: lipoma, leiomyoma, aberrant pancreas, varices, carcinoid, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and lymphomas . Therefore, a correct diagnosis of these tumors is important to guide subsequent management. These lesions are often not accurately diagnosed on cross-sectional imaging . Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) aids in narrowing the differential diagnosis of the lesion as it is often able to establish the layer of origin . However, an accurate diagnosis and targeted therapy is not made solely on the morphological features but on histologic type and at times mitotic index. Thus the need for techniques to obtain histology is beneficial in guiding management. Since standard endoscopy with pinch biopsies of the overlying mucosa often fails to provide an adequate sample for analysis, multiple other modalities to sample the lesion have been utilized: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided core needle biopsy (EUS-CNB), bite-on-bite forceps biopsies, EUS-guided single-incision with needle knife (SINK) and endoscopic resection. EUS-FNA is now considered to be the usual method of sampling; however, the diagnostic yield is low: 38% to 82% . Moreover, EUS-FNA often provides insufficient specimens which may not allow for immunohistochemistry that is often essential for diagnosis . Thus EUS-CNB has been assessed for the purpose of obtaining a core sample which allows for histological assessment. Published data reveals a diagnostic (though not histologic) yield using EUS-CNB of 75% In 2011, the SINK technique for sampling was presented with a reported diagnostic accuracy of 92.8% \[8\]. The technique utilizes a conventional needle-knife connected to an electrosurgical unit. A 6 to 12-mm mucosal incision is made over the lesion. Then conventional biopsy forceps are introduced to obtain 3-5 samples. Subsequently, the incision is closed with 2 to 3 endoclips. The purpose of this study is to prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-CNB with SINK in patients with upper GI SETs. The investigators hypothesis is that the SINK technique will be superior to the EUS-CNB in obtaining a histological specimen. The results of the study would provide data which may improve the diagnostic ability for SETs. This in turn will guide appropriate surveillance or management (surgical or endoscopic) for patients with these lesions.

Interventions

DEVICE22-gauge Procore needle (ProCore, Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, NC)

Using a linear EUS with color and pulsed Doppler to scan the area for vessels, the lesion was then sampled with a 22-gauge beveled needle (using the slow capillary suction and fanning techniques with 5 to 15 to-and-fro movements with each pass). A total of 4 passes were performed and after that, the procedure terminated.

DEVICEconventional needle-knife sphincterotome (Microknife XL; Boston Scientific Inc, Natick, Mass)

Using a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome connected to an electrosurgical unit, and under direct endoscopic vision, a 6-12mm linear incision was made from the periphery of the lesion to its highest convexity zone. A conventional biopsy forceps was then deeply introduced through the hole, and 2 bites were obtained per pass. A total of 4 passes were performed by passing the biopsy forceps through the incision on each occasion. The mucosal incision was then closed with endoclips whenever possible.

Sponsors

Johns Hopkins University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper GI SETs measuring an estimated 15mm or greater in maximal diameter. * Location of SET: esophagus, stomach, duodenum * Age \>18 years and older * Patient consent obtained

Exclusion criteria

* Endoscopically non bulging lesion * Upper GI SETs \<15 mm in size as measured during study EUS * Lesions not necessitating tissue acquisition: i.e. lipomas, varices * Cystic lesion * Patients \< 18 years of age * Uncorrectable Coagulopathy (INR \>1,5, platelets \<100,000) * Patients with stigmata of portal hypertension * Patients with post-surgical UGI anatomy (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, esophagectomy etc) * Uncooperative patients * Pregnant women (women of childbearing age will undergo urine pregnancy testing, which is routine for all endoscopic procedures) * Refusal to consent form

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Diagnostic Accuracy30 daysDiagnostic accuracy is defined as the percentage of true positive and true negative biopsy specimens combined divided by total number of specimens

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Histological Yield30 daysThis will be assessed by the percentage of patients whose samples were adequate for histopathological evaluation
Technical Failure Rate1 dayPercentage of procedures in whom sampling technique failed to take biopsy specimens
Time of the ProcedureTissue sampling procedure, up to 60 minutesTime from the beginning of the incision or needle insertion, to completion of tissue acquisition by the techniques defined in the protocol.
Percent Sample Contribution to Immunohistochemistry Diagnosis30 daysPercentage of all samples from participants in whom biopsy specimen was adequate enough to contribute to immunohistochemistry diagnosis

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

Patients were excluded from the study because a predominantly cystic lesion was found; the lack of an appreciable mass at Endoscopic Ultrasound scan (EUS).

Participants by arm

ArmCount
EUS-CNB
Endoscopic ultrasound-core needle biopsy technique 22-gauge Procore needle (ProCore, Cook Medical Inc., Winston-Salem, NC): A core-needle will be used to take a biopsy from the subepithelial lesion
26
EUS-SINK
Endoscopic ultrasound- single incision needle knife technique conventional needle-knife sphincterotome (Microknife XL; Boston Scientific Inc, Natick, Mass): Needle knife sphincterotome will be used to take a biopsy of the subepithelial lesion
30
Total56

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicEUS-SINKTotalEUS-CNB
Age, Continuous66.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.4
67.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.7
68.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.9
Calcification
No
26 participants52 participants26 participants
Calcification
Yes
4 participants4 participants0 participants
Echogenicity
Hyperechoic
1 participants2 participants1 participants
Echogenicity
Hypoechoic
22 participants41 participants19 participants
Echogenicity
Isoechoic
7 participants12 participants5 participants
Echogenicity
Mixed echogenicity
0 participants1 participants1 participants
Greatest diameter of the lesion25 millimeters24.5 millimeters23.5 millimeters
Layer of origin
Indeterminate
4 participants6 participants2 participants
Layer of origin
Muscularis propria
17 participants34 participants17 participants
Layer of origin
Submucosa
9 participants16 participants7 participants
Location of the lesion
Antrum
7 participants11 participants4 participants
Location of the lesion
Doudenum
1 participants3 participants2 participants
Location of the lesion
Esophagus
1 participants2 participants1 participants
Location of the lesion
Gastric body
12 participants24 participants12 participants
Location of the lesion
Gastric fundus
9 participants16 participants7 participants
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
14 Participants25 Participants11 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
16 Participants31 Participants15 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 260 / 30
other
Total, other adverse events
2 / 263 / 30
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 260 / 30

Outcome results

Primary

Diagnostic Accuracy

Diagnostic accuracy is defined as the percentage of true positive and true negative biopsy specimens combined divided by total number of specimens

Time frame: 30 days

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EUS-CNBDiagnostic Accuracy94.7 percentage of all samples
SINKDiagnostic Accuracy95.5 percentage of all samples
Secondary

Histological Yield

This will be assessed by the percentage of patients whose samples were adequate for histopathological evaluation

Time frame: 30 days

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EUS-CNBHistological Yield76.9 percentage of participants
SINKHistological Yield86.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percent Sample Contribution to Immunohistochemistry Diagnosis

Percentage of all samples from participants in whom biopsy specimen was adequate enough to contribute to immunohistochemistry diagnosis

Time frame: 30 days

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EUS-CNBPercent Sample Contribution to Immunohistochemistry Diagnosis94.7 percentage of all samples
SINKPercent Sample Contribution to Immunohistochemistry Diagnosis86.4 percentage of all samples
Secondary

Technical Failure Rate

Percentage of procedures in whom sampling technique failed to take biopsy specimens

Time frame: 1 day

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EUS-CNBTechnical Failure Rate3.3 percentage of procedures
SINKTechnical Failure Rate3.8 percentage of procedures
Secondary

Time of the Procedure

Time from the beginning of the incision or needle insertion, to completion of tissue acquisition by the techniques defined in the protocol.

Time frame: Tissue sampling procedure, up to 60 minutes

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
EUS-CNBTime of the Procedure12 minutes
SINKTime of the Procedure11 minutes

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