ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03270215Updated Dec 17, 2020

The Added Value of CT Scanning in Patients With an Unilateral Pleural Effusion

An observational study in Pleural Effusion, Malignant, sponsored by Naestved Hospital. Completed at 2 sites in Denmark. Open to participants aged 16 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-12-17.

Sponsored by Naestved Hospital · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
232
Ages
16 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

To investigate the diagnostic power of computed tomography for discriminating malignant from nonmalignant causes to pleural effusions in consecutive patients with no malignant cells found at a cytological examination and a chest x-ray not suspicious of malignancy. The investigators hypothesised that the combination improves the chance of detecting the cause of the pleural effusion.

Read the detailed description

Objectives

  1. Is CT-scanning better than chest x-ray plus a thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?
  2. What is the added value of a CT-scanning to chest x-ray plus thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?

The above measured as, true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio -, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.

Study design A retrospective diagnostic study including consecutive patients with a unilateral pleural effusion. Thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT findings are categorised as either normal (i.e. not suggestive of any aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion), suggestive of other lung pathology or suggestive of malignancy (i.e. representing a possible aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion). The final diagnosis is extracted from the patients' electronic medical records. When no diagnosis is found, two investigators agree on a consensus diagnosis based on all investigation results. If no reasonable diagnosis can be established based on the findings, the patient case is categorised as having no final diagnosis.

The investigators follow the STARD guideline for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.

Patients The investigators will include consecutive patients presenting with a unilateral pleural effusion between 01 January 2013 and 31 December 2016. The patients will be identified searching the hospitals administrative patient system for the procedure code thoracocentesis (KTGA30).

Departments of Respiratory Medicine at Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde and Naestved Hospital, Region Zealand, Denmark, participate in this study. Both hospitals are a large tertiary hospital with specialised functions. Patients older than 16 years are included, irrespective of smoking history and comorbidities, if both thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and a CT-scanning are performed. Exclusion criteria are previously diagnosed lung cancer, thoracic malignancy or incomplete data.

Data Relevant data on demographics, descriptive data, symptoms, medical history and diagnostic workup will be extracted from electronic medical records, and registered in the individual patient's case report file (CRF). The CRF is stored using Excel on an encrypted USB-key, the USB-key will be stored behind double lock (room plus cupboard). Background-variables will be utilised to describe the study population and for explorative research. Only study coordinators will have access to data. Computers, as well as a back-up, will be stored and kept in a locked cupboard in a locked room. Only study coordinators possess relevant keys.

Statistics Data will be presented as frequencies and/or mean ± standard deviation (SD). Test characteristics will be compared using McNemar's test with a Bonferroni correction. An alpha level of 0.05 is considered significant. Test characteristics for thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT-scanning and the combination of the three will be calculated. Test characteristics are true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio-, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.

The combined sensitivity of two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B)

The combined specificity for two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The specificity of test A x specificity of test B

The combined sensitivity of three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B + sensitivity of test C - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B x sensitivity of test C)

The combined specificity for three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:

The specificity of test A x specificity of test B x sensitivity of test C For data analysis, we use STATA (StataCorp LLC, Version 15.0, College Station, Texas, USA).

Ethics The study is retrospective and observational and thus will not affect the included patients. Before any study-related activity, the protocol and study must be approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and the local Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics. All results will be stored and analysed by computer, and the investigators secure the patients' anonymity according to the national laws. The data are anonymized and stored after completion of the study and data containing personal identification numbers will be kept behind double-lock at the department.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pleural Effusion, Malignant

Keywords

  • Computed Tomography
  • Specificity
  • Sensitivity
03

In context

Pleural Effusion, Malignant

169 studies on the registry are indexed under Pleural Effusion, Malignant; 39 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 232 is above the median of 112 across 37 observational studies indexed under Pleural Effusion, Malignant.

Browse Pleural Effusion, Malignant studies →

Lead sponsor

Naestved Hospital is the lead sponsor of 29 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
16 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

All patients with a unilateral pleural effusion of unknown origin

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Thoracocentesis
  • Chest X-ray and
  • CT-scanning are performed

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Lung cancer
  • Other thoracic
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Cancer (malignancy)

Malignancy means cancer. Criteria about another or earlier malignancy ask whether you have had a different cancer, usually within a set number of years.

Some are commonly allowed, such as treated skin cancers other than melanoma and early cancers removed completely — check the exceptions this study lists.

05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
232 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Interventions

  • ProcedureComputed tomography

    The diagnostic power to discriminate malignant from nonmalignant causes of e pleural effusion

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Specificity

    TN / (TN+FP)

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Diagnostic accuracy

    (TP+TN) / (TP+TN+FP+FN)

    Time frame: 1 year

  2. Likelihood ratio +

    LR+ = sensitivity / (1-specificity)

    Time frame: 1 year

  3. Likelihood ratio -

    LR- = (1-sensitivity) / specificity

    Time frame: 1 year

  4. Positive predictive value

    PPV =TP / (TP+ FP)

    Time frame: 1 year

  5. Negative predictive value

    TN/ (TN + FN)

    Time frame: 1 year

  6. Sensitivity

    TP / (TP + FN)

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

2 sites
  • Naestved Hospital
    Naestved, 4700, Denmark
  • Naestved Hospital
    Næstved, 4700, Denmark
08

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Oct 2017 to primary completion in Jan 2018, 3 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Aug 30, 2017
First posted
Sep 1, 2017
StartActual
Oct 1, 2017
Primary completionActual
Jan 31, 2018
CompletionActual
Jan 30, 2019
Last update
Dec 17, 2020
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 17, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03270215
Lead sponsor
Naestved Hospital
Responsible party
Simon Reuter (Ph.d.student, Naestved Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 1, 2017
Start date
Oct 1, 2017
Primary completion
Jan 31, 2018
Completion
Jan 30, 2019
Last update
Dec 17, 2020

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 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