Biliary Stricture, Cholangiocarcinoma
Conditions
Keywords
ERCP, cholangioscopy
Brief summary
Primary Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of cholangioscopy-based assessment using SpyDS technology compared to cholangiography-based assessment using ERCP-guided biopsy and brushing in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures in the setting of cholangiocarcinoma.
Detailed description
Study Design : Prospective,multi-center, randomized controlled, Post market Study (PMS) Two groups: * Control arm - ERCP arm: ERCP impression and ERCP-guided brushing and biopsy * Study arm - Cholangioscopy arm: SpyDS impression and SpyDS-guided SpyBite biopsy Randomization 1:1 ratio. Primary Endpoint: Diagnostic accuracy of cholangioscopy or cholangiography assessed at 6 months after initial ERCP procedure * Malignancy will be determined by cytology or histology on tissue sampling during the index procedure, or from other tissue acquisition or surgical specimen histopathology up to 6 months after the index procedure. * Overall diagnostic accuracy. * The assessed strictures will be considered benign if there was no confirmation of malignancy by 6 months after the index procedure. * Overall diagnostic accuracy will be assessed for * ERCP impression of malignancy * ERCP-guided brushing and biopsies separately and combined\* * SpyDS impression of malignancy * SpyBite biopsies * In case of discordant results, the following will be followed for the combined pathology/cytology measure: * If at least one is malignancy, then combine metric is malignant * If both are benign or one is benign and one is non-diagnostic, then combined metric is benign * If both are non-diagnostic, then combined metric is non-diagnostic Secondary Endpoints: 1. Occurrence and severity of procedure related serious adverse events from index procedure through 30 days after procedure. Hospitalization and ICU admissions 2. Technical success of procedure defined as ability to collect tissue deemed adequate for cytology or histology. Indeterminate or equivocal or atypical or non-conclusive cytology or histology will be considered failures to this endpoint. 3. Correlation between impression of malignancy and cytopathology in the ERCP arm compared to the Cholangioscopy arm. 4. Additional diagnostic accuracy metrics: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. The assessed strictures will be considered benign if there was no confirmation of malignancy by 6 months after the index procedure. 5. Impact of ERCP or cholangioscopy on patient management. 6. Need for additional diagnostic procedures beyond the index procedure. 7. Procedural measures: Type and number of devices used, 8. Duration of procedure from duodenoscope in to duodenoscope out
Interventions
DEVICEsingle operator cholangioscopy
If patient is randomized to the Study arm, then the procedure will consist of the following in order: Cannulation and sphincterotomy per standard of practice. POCS with recording of POCS-based impression of malignancy (yes/no/indeterminate). POCS will be performed using the Spy DS system. POCS-guided biopsies will be collected, consisting of 6 macroscopically visible biopsies. The POCS-guided biopsy forceps will be the SpyBite forceps.
DEVICEERCP guided brushing and biopsy
• If patients are randomized to the Control arm, then they will undergo an ERCP. ERCP-based impression of malignancy (yes/no/indeterminate) will be recorded. ERCP-guided brushing and ERCP-guided biopsy will be performed.
Sponsors
Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong
Evangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf
Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, India
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled, post market study
Intervention model description
prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled, post market study
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Age 18 or older. 2. Willing and able to comply with the study procedures and provide written informed consent to participate in the study 3. Biliary obstructive symptoms 4. Indeterminate biliary stricture suspected to be intrinsic based on prior imaging
Exclusion criteria
1. Contraindications for endoscopic techniques 2. Prior ERCP for assessment of indeterminate biliary stricture 3. Pancreatic head mass identified on prior non-invasive imaging and thought to be the cause of the biliary obstructive symptoms
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic accuracy of cholangioscopy or cholangiography | 6 Months | Malignancy will be determined by cytology or histology on tissue sampling during the index procedure, or from other tissue acquisition or surgical specimen histopathology up to 6 months after the index procedure.The assessed strictures will be considered benign if there was no confirmation of malignancy by 6 months after the index procedure. • Overall diagnostic accuracy will be assessed for ERCP impression of malignancy, ERCP-guided brushing and biopsies separately and combined, SpyDS impression of malignancy and SpyBite biopsies |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Technical success of procedure | 30 days | Technical success of procedure defined as ability to collect tissue deemed adequate for cytology or histology. Indeterminate or equivocal or atypical or non-conclusive cytology or histology will be considered failures to this endpoint |
| Additional diagnostic accuracy metrics: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. | 6 months | Additional diagnostic accuracy metrics: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. The assessed strictures will be considered benign if there was no confirmation of malignancy by 6 months after the index procedure |
| Impact of ERCP or cholangioscopy on patient management. | 6 months | Number of patients in whom management plan is altered based on ERCP or cholangioscopy will be determined |
| Occurrence and severity of procedure related serious adverse events | 30 days | Occurrence and severity of procedure related serious adverse events from index procedure through 30 days after procedure. |
| Number of accessories used | At index procedure. | The total number of accessories used during the procedure in both arms will be determined. |
| Duration of procedure from duodenoscope in to duodenoscope out | At index procedure | Duration of procedure is defined as time from duodenoscope in to duodenoscope out |
| Correlation between impression of malignancy and cytopathology in the ERCP arm compared to the cholangioscopy arm | 6 months | Number of participants will be compared for outcome of visual impression ( benign/ malignant disease) on ERCP or cholangioscopy with final out come of cytopathology in both arms. |
| Number of patients needed additional diagnostic procedures beyond the index procedure for final diagnosis | 6 months | Need for additional diagnostic procedures beyond the index procedure will be noted |
Contacts
Primary ContactMohan Ramchandani, MD DM
Outcome results
None listed