ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07461662EBUSUpdated Mar 10, 2026

Evaluation of Endobronchial Ultrasound Needle Cleaning Techniques and Their Impact on Specimen Contamination

An interventional study of Purge cleaning in Lung Cancer (Locally Advanced or Metastatic), sponsored by University of Mississippi Medical Center. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-10.

Sponsored by University of Mississippi Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
204
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) bronchoscopy is commonly used to sample lymph nodes in patients with suspected or known lung cancer to determine the stage of the disease. Accurate staging is essential as it directly impacts treatment decisions and prognosis. During EBUS procedures, needles are often reused across multiple lymph node stations and are typically flushed with saline between samples. This raises the concern that residual tumor cells may contaminate the samples and could potentially incorrectly upstage disease.

This prospective study will evaluate the current technique used during EBUS procedures to determine if more intensive cleaning leads to reduced cellular contamination without affecting diagnostics. Patients undergoing an EBUS procedure for diagnosis with a large mass and a high probability of malignancy will be selected for the study. Rapid On-Site Examination (ROSE) will be used at the bedside to determine the presence of abnormal cells. Following the final pass, before moving to the next station, the needle will be flushed with saline as normal and then flushed again into another container to evaluate the presence of residual cells. The outcome may help EBUS needle handling practices and improve lung cancer staging accuracy.

No additional invasive procedures are performed as part of this study; all analyses utilize material obtained during routine EBUS needle flushing, with no added needle sticks or alteration of clinical care.

Read the detailed description

EBUS guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) is a cornerstone in lung cancer staging. Accurate nodal staging under the TNM 9th edition guidelines is essential. Prior work has demonstrated that EBUS needle contamination can occur. A prospective multicenter study published in Archivos de Bronconeumologia demonstrates residual malignant cells despite repeated saline flushes with increasing flush volumes. A prospective observational study by Berim et al. showed malignant and non-malignant cellular debris can persist after multiple cleaning steps. Repeated flushing reduced but did not eliminate the contaminants, suggesting the current practice of flushing with saline may be insufficient to prevent contamination. The above studies demonstrate that contamination does exist in EBUS needle aspiration though there is no universal consensus on how to address contamination risk. The proposed project would identify cytologic contamination present in our current practices, without any additional risk from a procedural standpoint to the patient. This project would also examine the presence of malignant cells despite additional flushing.

02

Conditions studied

  • Lung Cancer (Locally Advanced or Metastatic)

Keywords

  • Lung Cancer
  • Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) bronchoscopy
  • Cytologic Contamination
  • Cancer Staging
03

In context

Lung Neoplasms

5,422 studies on the registry are indexed under Lung Neoplasms; 1,346 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 204 is above the median of 60 across 3,656 interventional studies indexed under Lung Neoplasms.

Browse Lung Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Mississippi Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 129 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.

Of its 7 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 4 (57%) have results posted.

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

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

  • Adults aged 18 years or older
  • Patients undergoing standard-of-care EBUS bronchoscopy for evaluation of suspected lung
  • Patients undergoing sampling of 2 or more lymph node stations during EBUS bronchoscopy
  • Ability to provide

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Age less than 18
  • Recent (1 month or less) radiation or procedural manipulation of lymph node stations that may significantly change lymph node architecture
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

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.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
204 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Purge cleaning

    Additional flushing of the needle into a separate vial.

    Diagnostic Test: Purge cleaning

  • No intervention
    Standard practice

    Standard saline flush following lesion sampling

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testPurge cleaning

    Additional flushing of the needle into a separate vial

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Cytologic Contamination

    To determine the presence of cytologic contamination following standard practice cleaning techniques

    Time frame: From enrollment to the date of the pathological review report of the specimen taken during diagnostic EBUS sampling for a period of up to 32 weeks post enrollment and randomization in trial for each patient enrolled.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Incidence of Pathological Upstaging

    To evaluate the incidence of pathological upstaging based on our primary outcome findings

    Time frame: From enrollment to the date of the pathological review report of the specimen taken during diagnostic EBUS sampling for a period of up to 32 weeks post enrollment and randomization in trial for each patient enrolled.

  2. Effectiveness of Additional Flushing

    To establish whether enhanced flushing protocols are required to mitigate the risk of contamination as evidenced by a change in incidences of cytologic contamination as reported by pathologic assessment of specimens taken after enhanced cleaning techniques.

    Time frame: From enrollment to the date of the pathological review report of the specimen taken during diagnostic EBUS sampling for a period of up to 32 weeks post enrollment and randomization in trial for each patient enrolled.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center
    Jackson, Mississippi 39216, United States
    • Yanglin Guo, MD · Contactyguo@umc.edu · 6019845650
    • Ricardo Ungo, MD · Contactrungo@umc.edu · 6019845660
    • Ricardo Ungo, MD · Sub investigator
    • Walter Rose, MD · Sub investigator
    • Mick Kelly · Sub investigator
    • George Abraham, MD · Sub investigator
    • Michal Senitko, MD · Sub investigator
    • Varsha Manucha, MD · Sub investigator
    • Agha Baqir, MD · Sub investigator
    • Swathi Yarlagadda, MD · Sub investigator
    • Syed Abbas, MD · Sub investigator
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Berim IG, Colanta A, Saeed AI, et al. Contamination of Needles Used for Endobronchial Ultrasound Guided Biopsies: Myth Confirmed. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2017;195:A2868
  • Tirapu Puyal JM, Mugica Atorrasagasti N, Leal Arranz MV, Santana Astudillo JC, Lopez Duque JC, Ortega Comunian L, Rezola Bajineta M, Segues Merino N. Cytologic Contamination of the Sampling Needle in Endobronchial Ultrasound. Arch Bronconeumol. 2022 Apr;58(4):367-368. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2021.07.011. Epub 2021 Aug 24. No abstract available. English, Spanish. PubMed 35312544 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Individual participant data, such as age and gender, that are utilized in results for publication will be shared.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Start is estimated for Apr 2026; primary completion for May 2027, 13 months later.

Of 864 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Lung Neoplasms, half reached primary completion within 35 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 68. This study's planned 13 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 915 studies reached it within 34 months; a quarter within 15 and three quarters within 67.

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

Registered
Feb 16, 2026
First posted
Mar 10, 2026
StartEst.
Apr 1, 2026
Primary completionEst.
May 31, 2027
CompletionEst.
Aug 31, 2027
Last update
Mar 10, 2026
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 Mar 10, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07461662
Responsible party
Yanglin Guo (Assistant Professor, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, University of Mississippi Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 10, 2026
Start date
Apr 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
May 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 10, 2026

Study contacts

Yanglin Guo, MD
Contact
yguo@umc.edu
601-984-5650
Ricardo Ungo, MD
Contact
rungo@umc.edu
601-984-5660
Yanglin Guo, MD
principal investigator · University of Mississippi Medical Center

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Mar 2026. 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