Evaluation of NeoNavia® Biopsy System in Axillary Lymph Nodes (PULSE)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03975855|
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : June 5, 2019
Last Update Posted : July 12, 2019
The aim of the study is to document performance characteristics of a biopsy device indicated for use in axillary lymph nodes, to provide basic insights into the complexity of axillary biopsy procedures and generate hypothesis for further larger comparative trials.
This is a Sponsor-initiated prospective, multicenter, registry trial. Patients that present with suspicious axillary lymph nodes at the time of breast cancer diagnosis undergo axillary sampling using the NeoNavia biopsy system. This is in accordance with clinical routine and current clinical guidelines. The system incorporates a new mechanism for controllable and precise needle insertion and a newly developed sampling needle for high yield sampling acquisition. It is approved for use in the breast and axillary lymph nodes.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment|
|Breast Cancer||Device: NeoNavia® Biopsy System|
Determining axillary nodal status at the time of diagnosis is paramount for optimal staging and treatment planning. SLNB is indicated for patients with a clinical and radiological negative axilla. 25%-43% of breast cancer patients are reported to present with radiologically suspicious axillary lymph nodes at the time of diagnosis. In these patients, a pre-operative ultrasound-guided needle sampling of suspicious axillary lymph tissue is indicated.
This can rationalize patient care by identifying those with axillary metastases using merely a minimally-invasive intervention. These patients can be counselled with regards to proceeding directly to definitive axillary surgery in the form of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) rather than sentinel node biopsy (SLNB), thereby omitting a potentially unnecessary surgical procedure. Patients with a negative axillary status can proceed to SLNB for definitive nodal status determination. Furthermore, in the paradigm of neoadjuvant treatment, confirming a histopathologic involvement of lymph nodes by US-guided needle biopsies enables for decision on neoadjuvant chemotherapy without the need for a surgical procedure.
The main challenge in performing CNB (Core Needle Biopsy) within the axilla is to avoid damaging the major vessels and nerves. Technical, operator and procedural requirements that mitigate risks in CNB sampling of the axilla have been reported in the literature. It is suggested that the operator shall fully acknowledge the detailed anatomy including vessels and nerves in the axilla, have good hand-eye coordination as well as be experienced in US-guided interventions. Proper positioning of the patient is reported to be important. Color Doppler ultrasound shall be used to assess the location of large vessels relative to the intended biopsy track and to avoid sampling a vascular component of the node. Perfect guiding and visualization of the needle tip at all times is reported to be essential. It is suggested that a biopsy device with a controllable needle action is safer to use. Omitting the firing action gives the operator greater control over the final needle tip placement.
Due to the difficulty of the procedure there may be inclusion bias in the reported studies. In one series, patients presenting with nodes adjacent to a vessel or located very deep and difficult to access were not asked to participate in the study and hence not subjected to CNB. In another study FNA (Fine Needle Aspiration) was performed instead of CNB when the lymph nodes were in close proximity to vessels. A recent German survey showed that merely 79% of breast centers (41/52) perform biopsies in the axilla (data on file), and anecdotal evidence suggests that in certain departments only the most experienced physician performs CNB procedures in axillary lymph nodes, risking economic/operational inefficiencies.
For the purpose of documenting the prevalence and composition of cases deemed challenging in this study, an experienced expert panel has compiled a comprehensive list of risk parameters characterizing the anatomic complexity and procedural difficulty of axillary lymph node needle biopsies.
Recently a new biopsy device indicated for the use in breast and axillary lymph nodes (NeoNavia biopsy system, NeoDynamics, Sweden) has become available. It incorporates a pneumatic needle insertion mechanism that is intended to provide better control of needle progression and enable stepwise insertion without noticeable deformation or displacement of surrounding tissue as visualized under ultrasound. Furthermore a new method of tissue acquisition is employed that has pre-clinically shown a higher sampling yield compared to CNB. These characteristics indicate that the device could be well suited for tackling even the most challenging cases of axillary lymph node biopsies. Initial clinical results indicate that in axillary lesions deemed "technically difficult", i.e. where prior US-guided biopsies with CNB or FNA had yielded non-diagnostic histology results, the NeoNavia device performed successfully thereby significantly altering clinical management.
|Study Type :||Observational|
|Estimated Enrollment :||140 participants|
|Official Title:||Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Evaluated for Axillary Lymph Node Sampling Efficacy (PULSE)|
|Actual Study Start Date :||February 14, 2019|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||March 15, 2020|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||April 15, 2020|
Suspicious axillary lymph nodes
All patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer or highly suspicious breast lesions presenting with suspicious axillary lymph nodes
Device: NeoNavia® Biopsy System
Biopsy of axillary lymph node using the NeoNavia Biopsy System. The investigator shall obtain as many/large samples as judged adequate and sufficient for diagnosis.
- Rate of successful biopsies (= success rates) [ Time Frame: after histopathological analysis af tissue samples, up to 1 week after biopsy ]Lymph node tissue present in biopsy samples as assessed by histopathologist
- Rate of patients presenting with risk parameters for an anatomically complex procedure [ Time Frame: time of biopsy, 1 day ]Based on a list of parameters established by an expert panel to characterize the anatomic complexity of axillary biopsy procedures
- Rate of cases in which it was possible to target the selected lymph node or, if present, the lesion inside the node [ Time Frame: time of biopsy, 1 day ]
- Rate of cases in which pulses facilitated control during needle insertion [ Time Frame: time of biopsy, 1 day ]
- Sensitivity [ Time Frame: post-surgery, up to 200 days ]
- Specificity [ Time Frame: post-surgery, up to 200 days ]
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03975855
|Contact: Kai-Uwe Schässburger, Ph.D.||+46 (0)8 522 79 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Esslingen, BW, Germany, 73730|
|Principal Investigator: Thorsten Kühn, Prof.|
|Tübingen, BW, Germany, 72076|
|Contact: Antonia Link|
|Principal Investigator: Ines Gruber, PD Dr.|
|Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus||Recruiting|
|Frankfurt, HE, Germany, 60431|
|Principal Investigator: Marc Thill, PD Dr.|
|Universität Greifswald, Frauenklinik||Not yet recruiting|
|Greifswald, MV, Germany, 17475|
|Principal Investigator: Ralf Ohlinger, Prof.|
|Rostock, MV, Germany, 18059|
|Principal Investigator: Angrit Stachs, PD Dr.|
|Erkelenz, NRW, Germany, 41812|
|Contact: Silvia Nüsser|
|Principal Investigator: Uwe Peisker, Dr.|
|Essen, NRW, Germany, 45136|
|Contact: Juliane Lubitz|
|Contact: Dorothea Schindowski|
|Principal Investigator: Mattea Reinisch, Dr.|
|Uniklinik Köln||Not yet recruiting|
|Köln, NRW, Germany, 50226|
|Principal Investigator: Wolfram Malter, Dr.|
|Principal Investigator:||Marc Thill, PD Dr.||Leading Principal Investigator|