CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01543282Updated May 22, 2020

Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Using Free Stylet 22g and 25 g Needles

An interventional study of Endosonography guided fine needle aspiration cytology ( Cook Medical, Boston Scientific) in Solid Neoplasms, sponsored by Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM). Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-05-22.

Sponsored by Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a randomized controlled study comparing EUS-FNA with 22 gauge and 25 gauge needles in consecutive patients.

Summary

Background: three needle sizes for endoscopic ultrasonography guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are currently available: 22 Gauge (G), 25 G and 19 G. However, well design studies comparing them regarding efficacy and feasibility are lacking.

Aims: to investigate diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, feasibility and complications of the conventional 22 G compared with the 25 G needle.

Methods: patients ≥ 18 years, referred to EUS-FNA for a solid lesion will be considered for inclusion. Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, GIST, sarcoidosis, significant coagulopathy (APT \< 50% or platelets \< 50000/mm3), use of warfarin or other anticoagulants, use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS, inability or refusal to sign the informed consent and pregnancy or suspected pregnancy will be excluded.

Participants will be randomized to 22 G needle and 25 G FNA. Chi-square test will be used to compare proportions. Continuous variables will be compared using Student´s t test. A two-tailed P values of less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. The diagnostic yield of 25 G and 22 G needle will be evaluated by four criteria: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. An expected rate of 85% diagnostic yield from EUS guided FNA by using 22G needle will be considered. By using a power of 80% and an α value of 0.05 would be necessary 120 patients per group to detect a 15% difference in the rate of diagnostic yield.

Read the detailed description
  1. Objectives

PRIMARY To compare diagnostic yield of stylet-free, solid lesion EUS-FNA using the 22 G FNA vs the 25 G FNA needle, in consecutive patients referred to EUS-FNA.

SECONDARY

To investigate:

  1. specimen adequacy,
  2. number of FNA passes,
  3. ease of puncture,
  4. failure of the FNA needle and
  5. complications
  1. Methods

3.1. Design: prospective randomized trial.

3.2. Inclusion: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid lesion will be considered for inclusion.

3.3. Exclusion: Age \< 18 years, patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, GIST, sarcoidosis or other lesions in which a large amount of tissue will be required for diagnosis, significant coagulopathy (INR > 1.5, platelets \< 50000/mm3, use of low molecular weight heparin, use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS), cystic lesions, or inability or refusal to sign the informed consent.

3.4. Endoscopic procedures: Informed consent will be obtained before each procedure by one of the researchers. Patients will not receive economic compensation or reimbursement of their expenses for coming to the exploration, since it is a procedure previously indicated. Then, potential candidates will be randomized to 22 G or 25 G FNA using a computer generated random sequence. There will be block randomization for a) pancreatic masses, 2) lymph nodes, or 3) all other lesions.

All examinations will be performed by two experienced endosonographers with a lineal echoendoscope (AS and SP). EUS procedures will be carried out with the patient, in left lateral position under conscious sedation using midazolam (2.5-5 mg) plus meperidine (50-100 mg) and droperidol (2.5-5 mg). Before performing the EUS-FNA biopsy, a complete examination of the pancreas, liver as well as other vicinity organs will be performed.

EUS-FNA passes will be performed without stylet until sample adequacy or until a maximum of 5 FNA passes in pancreatic lesions or 3 FNA passes in other lesions. In case of inadequate sample after 3 passes, or needle failure, cross over to the other type of needle is allowed. Ease of puncture will be scored qualitatively as poor (scored 1), good (scored 2) or excellent (scored 3).[14] FNA failure will be also reported. All procedures will be digitally videotaped. The examinations will be reviewed by a endosonographer blinded to the type of needle used and visibility of the needle will be scored (score 1 "poor", score 2 "good", score 3 "excellent").[14] After the procedure, patients will be monitored in the recovery room at least 60 minutes before discharge. Immediate complications will be assessed and recorded by nurses and/or physicians during and after the procedure while the patient was recovering from sedation.

3.5. Cytological analysis: All passes will be read by one experienced cytopathologist on-site utilizing microscopic evaluation of air-dried slides stained with Diff-Quik (International Reagents Co., Ltd., Kobe, Japan). The cytopathologist will be blinded to the type of needle used. The final cytological diagnosis was made using a standard Papanicolaou stain. For each lesion, the cytologist assessed sample adequacy: cellularity (score 1 "poor", score 2 "good", score 3 "excellent"),[14] and bloodiness (score 1 "minimal", score 2 "moderate", score 3 "significant")[21] and the presence or absence of malignancy ("positive"/"negative"/"suspicious"/ inconclusive).

3.6. Follow up Lesions will be considered malignant in the following cases: positive cytological diagnosis, positive histological diagnosis and clinical or radiological progression in the next 6 months. In case of negative results in the cytological diagnosis absence of clinical worsening and radiologic progression at least in the following 6 months after FNA will be required.

3.7. Data collection Clinical data will be prospectively collected and saved in a database including: demographic information (age and gender), size and location of the target lesion (pancreas, lymph node, liver, adrenal gland, others) and technical and procedure variables: FNA path (esophagus, stomach, duodenum), number of needle passes, needle visibility, ease to puncture, needle failure, cellularity, bloodiness, cytological diagnosis, final diagnosis, immediate complications.

  1. Statistical analysis Results for continuous variables will be expressed as means and standard deviations. Categorical variables will be expressed as frequencies and percentages. Chi-square test will be used to compare proportions. Continuous variables will be compared using Student´s t test. A two-tailed P values of less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences v. 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The diagnostic yield of 15 G and 22 G needle will be evaluated by four criteria: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value.

Sample size An expected rate of diagnostic yield from EUS guided FNA by using 22G needle of 85% will be considered. By using a power of 80% and an α value of 0.05 would be necessary 120 patients per group to detect a 15% difference in the rate of diagnostic yield.

02

Conditions studied

  • Solid Neoplasms

Keywords

  • endoscopic ultrasonography
  • fine needle aspiration cytology
  • 22 gauge
  • 25 gauge
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) is the lead sponsor of 370 studies on the registry; 110 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA of a solid lesion.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Age \< 18 years
  • Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, GIST, sarcoidosis or other lesions in which a large amount of tissue will be required for diagnosis
  • Significant coagulopathy (INR > 1.5, platelets \< 50000/mm3
  • Use of low molecular weight heparin, use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS)
  • Cystic lesions
  • Inability or refusal to sign the informed consent
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
120 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    EUS 22 gauge needle

    EUS 22 g needle is the most common needle used in clinical practice. EUS-FNA passes will be performed without stylet until sample adequacy or until a maximum of 5 FNA passes in pancreatic lesions or 3 FNA passes in other lesions. In case of inadequate sample after 3 passes, or needle failure, cross over to the other type of needle is allowed.

    Device: Endosonography guided fine needle aspiration cytology ( Cook Medical, Boston Scientific)

  • Experimental
    EUS 25 gauge needle

    25 gauge needle is usually used less frequently but nowadays is increasingly used and is as well a valid option. EUS-FNA passes will be performed without stylet until sample adequacy or until a maximum of 5 FNA passes in pancreatic lesions or 3 FNA passes in other lesions. In case of inadequate sample after 3 passes, or needle failure, cross over to the other type of needle is allowed.

    Device: Endosonography guided fine needle aspiration cytology ( Cook Medical, Boston Scientific)

Interventions

  • DeviceEndosonography guided fine needle aspiration cytology ( Cook Medical, Boston Scientific)

    Patients will be randomized either to receive EUS-FNA with a 22 g needle or 25 g needle. EUS-FNA passes will be performed without stylet until sample adequacy or until a maximum of 5 FNA passes in pancreatic lesions or 3 FNA passes in other lesions. In case of inadequate sample after 3 passes, or needle failure, cross over to the other type of needle is allowed.

    Also known as: Cook Medical, Boston Scientific

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Accuracy of stylet-free, solid lesion EUS-FNA using the 22 G FNA vs the 25 G FNA needle, in consecutive patients referred to EUS-FNA.

    Time frame: 6 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Specimen adequacy, number of FNA passes, ease of puncture, failure of the FNA needle and complications

    Time frame: 6 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hopital Saint Luc (Centre Hopitalier de l´Université du Montreal)
    Montreal, Quebec H2X3J4, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy. 2009 May;41(5):445-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1214643. Epub 2009 May 5. Erratum In: Endoscopy. 2009 Jun;41(6):509. PubMed 19418399 ↗
  • Imazu H, Uchiyama Y, Kakutani H, Ikeda K, Sumiyama K, Kaise M, Omar S, Ang TL, Tajiri H. A prospective comparison of EUS-guided FNA using 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2009;2009:546390. doi: 10.1155/2009/546390. Epub 2009 Nov 17. PubMed 19997511 ↗
  • Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA, Anandasabapathy S, Xiao L, Staerkel G. Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci. 2009 Oct;54(10):2274-81. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-0906-1. Epub 2009 Aug 11. PubMed 19669880 ↗
  • Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, Noda K, Chikugo T, Dote K, Takeyama Y, Das K, Yamao K, Kudo M. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge Trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Mar;24(3):384-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05636.x. Epub 2008 Nov 20. PubMed 19032453 ↗
  • Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F, Iori V, Cavina M, Sereni G, Decembrino F, Gallo C, Tamagnini I, Valli R, Piana S, Campari C, Gardini G, Sassatelli R. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy. 2011 Aug;43(8):709-15. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256482. Epub 2011 May 24. PubMed 21611946 ↗
  • Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C, Cennamo V, Baccarini P, Collina G, Fornelli A, Macchia S, Zanini N, Jovine E, Fiscaletti M, Alibrandi A, D'Imperio N. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis. 2011 Aug;43(8):647-52. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.04.005. Epub 2011 May 17. PubMed 21592873 ↗
  • Wani S, Gupta N, Gaddam S, Singh V, Ulusarac O, Romanas M, Bansal A, Sharma P, Olyaee MS, Rastogi A. A comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration with and without a stylet. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Aug;56(8):2409-14. doi: 10.1007/s10620-011-1608-z. Epub 2011 Feb 17. PubMed 21327919 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 22, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01543282
Lead sponsor
Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
Collaborators
Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 2, 2012
Start date
Dec 10, 2011
Primary completion
Jul 2017
Completion
Jul 2017
Last update
May 22, 2020

Study contacts

Anand V Sahai, MD
principal investigator · Hopital Saint Luc (Centre Hopitalier de l´Université du Montreal) Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion