Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT01580709
NCT01580709CompletedNot Applicable

Optimizing the Role of ERCP in Evaluating Indeterminate Bile Duct Strictures

Medical University of South Carolina2 sites in 1 country48 target enrollmentStarted: April 1, 2012Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Enrollment
48
Locations
2
Primary Endpoint
Performance characteristics

Study Overview

Brief Summary

Differentiating malignant from benign bile duct strictures is a conundrum, since no diagnostic test is highly sensitive for diagnosing cancer. While ERCP is effective in palliating obstructive jaundice, standard diagnostic tools in ERCP have a low diagnostic sensitivity and confirm the stricture's etiology in <50% of cases. During the first ERCP, standard practice is to obtain routine cytology (RC) using a single brush sample. If this is not diagnostic, patients often undergo repeat ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound or other, increasing health care costs. The incremental yield of performing alternate ERCP-based diagnostic tools during the first ERCP including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), cholangioscopy w/biopsy and multiple brushes for routine cytology is currently unknown. There are no studies quantifying the amount of testing utilized to firmly diagnose the etiology of the stricture, or the most efficient combination of diagnostic tools during the first ERCP. These are important knowledge deficiencies since a definitive tissue diagnosis during the first ERCP could reduce the need for downstream tests and expedite treatment, thereby improving patient-centered and economic outcomes. The added costs of using multiple tools during the first ERCP may be offset by these benefits.

Among patients with indeterminate bile duct strictures, the investigators hypothesize that a multimodality approach will be more sensitive without a significant reduction in specificity compared to multiple brush samples for routine cytology. The investigators will test this hypothesis using an experimental trial design by randomizing patients during their first ERCP to multiple brushing samples for cytology vs. a single brush sample for cytology + FISH + cholangioscopy w/biopsy. To obtain preliminary data for a definitive multi-center trial, the investigators propose a pilot and feasibility study to compare the performance characteristics of each approach by evaluating the prospective clinical course, including treatment delay, quality of life, and life expectancy for each enrolled patient. If our hypothesis is validated in a subsequent definitive study, the standard approach to tissue sampling during the first ERCP may be altered.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Masking
Single (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • •Extrahepatic BDS with no discrete mass on CT/MRI (either or both)
  • •A BDS is defined as a segmental narrowing of the bile duct > 50% of the proximal or distal unaffected duct.
  • •Biochemical evidence of cholestasis (increase in alkaline phosphatase ≥ 2x upper limit of normal ± total bilirubin ≥2.0mg/dL)

Exclusion Criteria

  • •No clinical suspicion for malignancy
  • •Associated mass seen on CT or MRI
  • •Age ≤18, pregnancy, incarceration, inability to give informed consent
  • •Inability to undergo standard ERCP (e.g., postsurgical anatomy)
  • •Previous ERCP with sampling of BDS, other than a single brushing specimen sent for routine cytopathology

Arms & Interventions

Multimodality Approach

Active Comparator

Patients in the multimodality arm will undergo a single brushing for routine cytology, a second brush sample for Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization and a cholangioscopy with site-directed biopsies for histology.

Intervention: Multimodality tissue sampling (Procedure)

Multiple brush samples

Active Comparator

In patients randomized to multiple brushing samples, subsequent brushings #2-7 will be labeled separately and consecutively and sent to cytology. The cytopathologist will review each specimen for cellularity using a previously validated scoring system and presence of malignancy (positive, highly suspicious, atypical, normal).

Intervention: Multiple brushings (Procedure)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Performance characteristics

Time Frame: 12 months

A definite diagnosis of malignancy (i.e., "true positive") will be defined as either 1) a cytological or histological interpretation "positive for malignancy" based on brushing for RC or biopsy; 2) subsequent cytological or histological confirmation of malignancy within one year of the index procedure, via repeat ERCP, surgery, other diagnostic test. If a diagnosis of cancer is not confirmed after one year of follow-up, then the stricture will be classified as non-malignant and the negative cytology, FISH and histology from the index ERCP considered "true negatives."

Secondary Outcomes

  • Incremental yield of multiple brushings(12 months)
  • Incremental cost effectiveness ratio(12 months)

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Gregory A. Cote

Principal Investigator

Medical University of South Carolina

Study Sites (2)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials