Peripheral EBUS With ROSE vs no ROSE; Slim Bronchoscope Without Guide Sheath vs Standard Bronchos… (NCT03809169) | Clinical Trial Compass
CompletedNot Applicable
Peripheral EBUS With ROSE vs no ROSE; Slim Bronchoscope Without Guide Sheath vs Standard Bronchoscope With Guide Sheath
Canada186 participantsStarted 2019-11-01
Plain-language summary
Peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) are defined as nodules or masses that are located in the lung periphery; hence cannot be seen via regular bronchoscopy. Due to their location, establishing a pathological diagnosis can be challenging. Investigations of PPL has significantly evolved in the last decade with the development of new technologies such as peripheral endobronchial ultrasound (pEBUS), virtual bronchoscopy and electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB). Although these technologies have allowed physicians to safely biopsy previously difficult to access nodules, their sensitivity have been lower than trans-thoracic needle aspiration (TTNA). In fact, the largest registry to date has found a diagnostic yield of pEBUS of 57% compared to 93% for TTNA. However, TTNA caries substantially more procedural risk than pEBUS with a 25% rate of complication vs 2.8% for pEBUS (1, 2). With increased sensitivity, pEBUS could become the procedure of choice for PPL investigation in view of its safety profile. Rapid on-site evaluation of biopsy samples by a cytopathologist (ROSE) allows for direct evaluation of specimen adequacy. By offering real-time feedback to the bronchoscopist about specimen adequacy, the adding of ROSE to pEBUS could lead to an increase in diagnostic yield, allowing for a faster diagnosis of lung cancer and avoiding the need for further diagnostic procedures. Minitiazuration of broncoscopes can also allow navigation to more distal areas of the lung closer to the PPL. While this may also improve diagnostic yield, other technical modification such as the need for smaller sampling instruments and inability to use a guide sheath may have drawbacks.
This study will use a 2 x 2 factorial design to compare diagnostic yield of pEBUS bronchoscopic PPL sampling with vs. without ROSE as well as with a novel "slim" bronchoscope vs. standard bronchoscope. The investigators aim to randomize 208 patients to independently test each hypothesis.
Who can participate
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion criteria
. Adults ≥ 18 years old
. Presence of a peripheral pulmonary lesion (PPL) of ≤5cm (mean short-long on axial CT) suspicious for malignancy.
. The PPL appears radiologically accessible via pEBUS as assessed by an experienced interventional respirologist.
. Absence of suspicious mediastinal lymphadenopathy on non-invasive staging defined as N1, N2 or N3 nodes ≥1cm on CT or ≥ moderate uptake on PET/CT unless shown to be negative on invasive sampling. Linear EBUS sampling of nodal stations will otherwise be permitted as part of a staging procedure.
. Clinical decision made by patient and treating physician to proceed to bronchoscopy.
Exclusion criteria
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
. Other intervention indicated as primary diagnostic procedure (eg: TTNA, surgical lung biopsy, linear EBUS alone, biopsy of extra-thoracic lesion)
. Location of lesion not amenable to transbronchial needle aspiration sampling as assessed by an experienced interventional respirologist.
. Contra-indication to pEBUS or bronchoscopy such as: severe pulmonary hypertension (mean pulmonary arterial pressure of ≥25mmHg with evidence of right heart failure), unstable medical condition or uncorrected coagulopathy.
. Pregnancy
. Use of electromagnetic or other navigation system (virtual bronchoscopic planning is allowed)