Clinical trialObsCompleted
EUS vs. MDCT in Pancreatic Malignancy
Endoscopic UltraSound in Potentially Resectable PAncreatic Malignancy - Does it Bear the Weight of the Rapidly Evolving Technology of Computer Tomography?
- Outcome
- Finished, no results posted
- Phase
- Obs
- Status
- Completed
- Study type
- Observational
- Start
- July 2014
- Expected end
- February 2018
- Enrollment
- 45 participants
- Sites
- 5
- Primary outcomes
- Staging capability of each study procedure
- Sponsor
- Other
- Results posted
- No
- Last update
- 28 April 2020
These are registry fields. A trial card, with population, design, endpoints and result direction each tied to a quote, is not in the data yet.
Ask this document
Answers come only from this document’s own text, as highlighted quotes. If it doesn’t say, you are told so instead of given a guess.
Try
Source text
Brief summary public domain (ClinicalTrials.gov)
Accurate staging of patients with pancreatic cancer is critical to avoid the expense, morbidity, and mortality related to unnecessary surgery. While several tests are available for assessing such patients, consensus has not been achieved on the optimal approach. As a matter of fact, pancreatic cancer staging is discussed controversially due to conflicting evidence and certainly EUS has lost grounds due to improvements in CT technology. Thus, the role of EUS and EUS-guided FNA varies among treatment centers. The present study is designed to better define the role of EUS in predicting resectability, as compared to high resolution cross-sectional imaging.
Detailed description public domain (ClinicalTrials.gov)
Registry procedures: * HIGH-RESOLUTION PANCREATIC PROTOCOL COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) SCAN EXAMINATION: performed on at least 16-section multi-detector row (MD) CT and reviewed using multi-planar reconstructions, with images obtained following the oral administration of water and pancreatic protocol intravenous iopamidol, with images acquired in the pancreatic and portal venous phases of contrast enhancement, reconstructed as thin slice (at 1 mm - pancreatic phase or 2 mm - portal venous phase increments). * EUS EXAMINATION: performed within 2 weeks of the MDCT, aiming visualization of the pancreas, main surrounding vascular structures, celiac and mediastinal lymph nodes, liver and left adrenal gland, with EUS-FNA performed at the discretion of the investigator/examiner to confirm/exclude metastases and for the confirmation of malignancy in the primary tumor. Patients confirmed by EUS as having distant metastases are to be deferred from the planned surgical intervention. * SURGICAL INTERVENTION: aiming to provide curative intent (R0) resection. * HISTOPATHOLOGICAL POSTOPERATIVE STAGING: with evaluation of loco-regional invasiveness and degree of complete surgical resection (R0/R1). * FOLLOW-UP OF PATIENTS: with phone-calls on an every 6 month basis, for up to 2 years, retaining the following data: survival (or not), date of decease and its direct cause (if applicable), the presence of tumor recurrence (or not).