Submucosal Tumor Removal by Endoscopic Excision Therapy
NCT ID: NCT04913077
Last Updated: 2024-03-19
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
SUSPENDED
NA
200 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-03-10
2025-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The investigators hope to learn about the rate of so-called GIST tumors and other histologies, as well as the rate of change in the follow-up group.
Also, study contents will be accuracy of endosonographic imaging and puncture in comparison with resection histology, technical feasibility and histological completeness of the FTRD- based endoscopic (full-wall) resection option, complications of such a resection (secondary bleeding and dehiscences), and patient preferences with standardized information.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors With the gFTRD
NCT03096236
Study On Safety Of Endoscopic Resection For 2-5cm Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor
NCT04751591
A Study on the Safety and Effectiveness of Endoscopic Intracavitary Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Extracavitary-Type Submucosal Tumors
NCT07337980
Laparoscopic Management of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor of Stomach
NCT03722056
Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Without Exposure to Peritoneum
NCT02764944
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
type specification is usually unclear whether it is an absolutely benign (without degeneration potential) or a malignant or prone tumor (usually gastrointestinal stromal tumor, GIST). However, this is crucial for further management.
In endosonographic imaging there are only approximate values in the differential diagnosis between GIST and non-GIST, the endoscopic biopsy is too superficial, and the hit rate of endosonographic pin puncture is limited, and in most studies is less than 70% Therefore, one can only make assumptions and create a risk profile from imaging and tumor size (limit size 3 cm, partly also 2 cm). Both follow-up recommendations (rather no GIST) and laparoscopic surgical removal (proven or probable/possible GIST) are not rarely without clear preference, especially for smaller tumors.
For these indications, a simple endoscopic removal option comparable to the polypectomy in the colon (where no histological type diagnosis is made before) does not exist.
Previous studies are usually subject to bias in several directions:
1. The frequency of GIST tumors among submucous tumors/lesions (SMT) in the stomach is unclear. Gastroenterological series always contain smaller GIST tumors, but are reported almost exclusively from clinics. The rate of these tumors in the overall collective of patients seen in the field of (mostly established) gastroenterologists is thus completely unclear. Surgical or oncological series have usually included more aggressive tumors consisting mainly or exclusively of GIST tumors, therefore do not allow epidemiological conclusions.
2. If no surgery is performed (and thus a definitive histology is forced), only information from follow-up examinations remains. Previous follow-up studies show the dilemma of insufficient differential diagnosis of lesions by endosonography and (endosonographic or other) biopsy, which usually have insufficient accuracy. In addition, the follow-up time in the studies hardly extends beyond 2 years. The "gastroenterological gut instinct" that these small lesions are not dangerous may be true, but is not proven.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NA
SINGLE_GROUP
DIAGNOSTIC
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Removal of submucosal gastric tumor preferably by Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD)
FTRD (Ovesco company) in tumors up to 10 mm and predominantly intraluminal growth directly by sucking into the cap, at 10-20 mm and/or intramural/extramural growth by prior circumcision and lateral preparation, so that the lesions can be better pulled into the cap. The procedure depends on the endosonographic extent of the findings. The lesions are pulled into the cap with grippers and other instruments and, if necessary, with a snare and then resected with FTRD
removal of submucosal gastric tumor preferably by Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD)
FTRD (Ovesco company) in tumors up to 10 mm and predominantly intraluminal growth directly by sucking into the cap, at 10-20 mm and/or intramural/extramural growth by prior circumcision and lateral preparation, so that the lesions can be better pulled into the cap. The procedure depends on the endosonographic extent of the findings. The lesions are pulled into the cap with grippers and other instruments and, if necessary, with a snare and then resected with FTRD
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
removal of submucosal gastric tumor preferably by Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD)
FTRD (Ovesco company) in tumors up to 10 mm and predominantly intraluminal growth directly by sucking into the cap, at 10-20 mm and/or intramural/extramural growth by prior circumcision and lateral preparation, so that the lesions can be better pulled into the cap. The procedure depends on the endosonographic extent of the findings. The lesions are pulled into the cap with grippers and other instruments and, if necessary, with a snare and then resected with FTRD
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Initial diagnosis less than 2 years ago
* No contraindication to endoscopic resection
* Patient's informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
* Tumors with proven / suspected malignancy for which oncologically no endoscopic resection should be performed, i.e. for which oncological or surgical therapy is planned
* SMT known \> 2 Years
* Patients with severe general illnesses (limited operability) or malignancies
* Clotting disorders
* Pregnancy
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Ovesco Endoscopy AG
INDUSTRY
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Thomas Rösch, Prof. Dr.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University Hospital Freiburg
Freiburg im Breisgau, , Germany
University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf
Hamburg, , Germany
University Hospital Marburg
Marburg, , Germany
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Cai MY, Martin Carreras-Presas F, Zhou PH. Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Dig Endosc. 2018 Apr;30 Suppl 1:17-24. doi: 10.1111/den.13003.
Akahoshi K, Oya M, Koga T, Shiratsuchi Y. Current clinical management of gastrointestinal stromal tumor. World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul 14;24(26):2806-2817. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i26.2806.
Cazacu IM, Luzuriaga Chavez AA, Nogueras Gonzalez GM, Saftoiu A, Bhutani MS. Malignant Transformation of Ectopic Pancreas. Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Mar;64(3):655-668. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5366-z. Epub 2018 Nov 10.
Standards of Practice Committee; Faulx AL, Kothari S, Acosta RD, Agrawal D, Bruining DH, Chandrasekhara V, Eloubeidi MA, Fanelli RD, Gurudu SR, Khashab MA, Lightdale JR, Muthusamy VR, Shaukat A, Qumseya BJ, Wang A, Wani SB, Yang J, DeWitt JM. The role of endoscopy in subepithelial lesions of the GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jun;85(6):1117-1132. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.022. Epub 2017 Apr 3. No abstract available.
Kida M, Kawaguchi Y, Miyata E, Hasegawa R, Kaneko T, Yamauchi H, Koizumi S, Okuwaki K, Miyazawa S, Iwai T, Kikuchi H, Watanabe M, Imaizumi H, Koizumi W. Endoscopic ultrasonography diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. Dig Endosc. 2017 May;29(4):431-443. doi: 10.1111/den.12854. Epub 2017 Apr 6.
Kim SY, Kim KO. Management of gastric subepithelial tumors: The role of endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun 10;8(11):418-24. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i11.418.
Kim SY, Kim KO. Endoscopic Treatment of Subepithelial Tumors. Clin Endosc. 2018 Jan;51(1):19-27. doi: 10.5946/ce.2018.020. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
Lim TW, Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim HW, Park SB, Kim SJ. Endoscopic ultrasound without tissue acquisition has poor accuracy for diagnosing gastric subepithelial tumors. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Nov;95(44):e5246. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005246.
Marcella C, Shi RH, Sarwar S. Clinical Overview of GIST and Its Latest Management by Endoscopic Resection in Upper GI: A Literature Review. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018 Oct 31;2018:6864256. doi: 10.1155/2018/6864256. eCollection 2018.
Moon JS. Role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Guiding Treatment Plans for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors. Clin Endosc. 2016 May;49(3):220-5. doi: 10.5946/ce.2016.047. Epub 2016 May 20.
Bruno M, Carucci P, Repici A, Pellicano R, Mezzabotta L, Goss M, Magnolia MR, Saracco GM, Rizzetto M, De Angelis C. The natural history of gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors arising from muscularis propria: an endoscopic ultrasound survey. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009 Oct;43(9):821-5. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31818f50b8.
Kim MY, Jung HY, Choi KD, Song HJ, Lee JH, Kim DH, Choi KS, Lee GH, Kim JH. Natural history of asymptomatic small gastric subepithelial tumors. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr;45(4):330-6. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e318206474e.
Kushnir VM, Keswani RN, Hollander TG, Kohlmeier C, Mullady DK, Azar RR, Murad FM, Komanduri S, Edmundowicz SA, Early DS. Compliance with surveillance recommendations for foregut subepithelial tumors is poor: results of a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1378-84. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.013. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
PV7129
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.