Malignant Biliary ObstructionPETRUSNCT01686425
Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage
A study testing Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage in people with Malignant Biliary Obstruction, run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Malignant Biliary Obstruction
- What is being tested?
- Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- Jul 2012to Dec 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients older than 18 years presenting with malignant obstructive jaundice
- Locally advanced primary or metastatic malignancy involving the biliary tract
- Patients in whom an ERCP have failed or where an ERCP is not possible due to surgically altered anatomy (eg. Post-Whipple).
Who cannot join
- Resectable biliary tract malignancy with curative intent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Belgium1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
UZ Leuven
Leuven, 3000
Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD, +32 16 34 42 99, schalk.vandermerwe@uzleuven.be
Frederik Nevens, MD, PhD, +32 16 34 42 99, frederik.nevens@uzleuven.be
About this study
Official title: Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage in Advanced Biliary Tract Malignancy That Failed ERCP (PETRUS Study): A Randomized Pilot Study
Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven.
This population will have failed ERCP or will be considered when ERCP is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.
Patients will be randomized to either PTC or EUS guided biliary drainage
Read the detailed description
Background:
Advanced biliary tract malignancy complicated by obstructive jaundice has been traditionally managed by palliative stent placement at ERCP. In 3-12% of patients with advanced disease tumour involvement of the small bowel or peri-ampullary region may preclude the use of ERCP necessitating percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgery1. However these techniques have been associated with high complication rates and significant morbidity2. PTBD necessitates traversing the parietal and visceral peritoneum causing a potential for a bile leak and bleeding into the peritoneal cavity. This procedure is also associated with significant pain, lengthy hospital stays and an overall reduction in quality of life, and even procedure related mortality. Indeed the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) quality improvements guidelines established the procedural risk of severe major complications including sepsis, bleeding and procedural related death at 2.5% and less severe complications including pain and prolonged hospital admissions at 20%.
In recent years various groups have described endoscopic ultrasound guided access of the left system allowing placement of metal or plastic stents either across the distal stricture or deploying the stent in the stomach (hepatico-gastrostomy), with high technical success3. Retrograde cannulation normally performed from the duodenal bulb allows access to the biliary tract above a malignant stricture with the intent to either pass a guide wire through the papilla and then perform a rendezvous procedure, or the placement of a covered metal stent into the stomach (choledochoenterostomy)10. Cannulation of a dilated segment 2 or 3 sectoral duct is also possible from the proximal stomach where the endoscopist performs all procedures in an antegrade fashion5. Currently these procedures are selectively performed in centres by expert endoscopists from mainly tertiary care academic expert centres including in Leuven. Collectively EUS biliary drainage is technically successful in 75-92% of cases, however reports of bile leaking and peritonitis have been described5.
Various obstacles however still exist to extend the general applicability of this technique outside expert centres. Firstly, no randomized control trials exist comparing the safety and efficacy of EUS biliary access to Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography (PTC). Secondly, current endoscopic techniques utilize standard endoscopic accessories not specifically developed to be utilized within the biliary system when advanced through the gastric wall. Thirdly, specific EUS strategies are needed to prevent or reduce complications associated with percutaneous approaches.
Concept and preliminary experimental data
Hypothesis
Based on the literature we hypothesize that:
- Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage is more effective than percutaneous biliary drainage in the management of obstructive jaundice
- EUS guided biliary drainage is associated with a reduced incidence of major (bile peritonitis, procedure related mortality, hematobilia) and minor (abdominal pain, prolonged hospital stay) complications.
- EUS guided biliary drainage is more cost effective compared to percutaneous biliary drainage
Aims of proposed research
Based on the current literature we propose a randomized pilot study assessing the following specific end points
- EUS biliary drainage is as effective as percutaneous biliary drainage in achieving resolution of cholestasis
- EUS biliary drainage is not associated with an increased risk of complications compared to percutaneous biliary drainage.
Methodology
Study population. Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven.
This population will have failed ERCP or will be considered when ERCP is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.
Patients will be randomized to either PTC or EUS guided biliary drainage
Inclusion criteria:
- Patients older than 18 years presenting with malignant obstructive jaundice
- Locally advanced primary or metastatic malignancy involving the biliary tract
- Patients in whom an ERCP have failed or where an ERCP is not possible due to surgically altered anatomy (eg. Post-Whipple).
Exclusion criteria:
- Resectable biliary tract malignancy with curative intent
Endoscopic method
Linear array endoscopic ultrasound (Pentax, Pentax Hitachi, Montvale, NJ) will be used to identify the dilated left system. The Doppler mode was used to differentiate intrahepatic bile ducts from portal and hepatic vein branches. A 19G needle (Echo-19, Cook, Limerick, Ireland) will be used to puncture a peripherally located dilated segment 2 or 3 duct under EUS guidance. Under fluoroscopic control a cholangiogram will be obtained and a standard 0.035 guide-wire (Hydra Jag wire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA Boston Scientific) will be advanced into the biliary system. Next a 6Fr cystotome (Endoflex, Voerde, Germany) will be used to create a trans-gastric tract through the liver parenchyma to the dilated biliary system. The guidewire will be manipulated across the stricture into the duodenal lumen. A Hurricane biliary dilation balloon 4cm x4mm (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA Boston Scientific) will be advanced through the tract and used to dilate the common bile duct stricture without balloon dilation at the level of the gastric wall liver interface. A 10mmx 80mm uncovered self expandable metallic stent (SEMS) will be advanced and deployed under fluoroscopy across the papilla and past the duodenal obstruction when present.
In patients were the left ductal system is not dilated, biliary access will be obtained from the duodenal bulb and a covered metal stent will be deployed in the stomach (choledocho-enterostomy).
In patients with duodenal obstruction a Wallstent will be placed at the same session as part of standard of care.
Novel research perspectives and expected outcomes
- Our research will address a very difficult clinical problem in an unique way: comparing the standard of care biliary drainage procedure (PTC) to EUS guided biliary drainage.
- We expect to demonstrate that EUS guided biliary drainage is as effective as PTC
- We also expect to show that EUS guided biliary drainage is associated with a reduced incidence of complications and reduced hospital stay.
Study endpoints
- Primary endpoints
- Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
- Biochemical changes: Bilirubin decrease at 2 and 4 weeks
- Secondary endpoints
- Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
- Duration of procedures in minutes
- Length of ICU and hospital stay
- Minor complications
Statistics power calculations It is assumed that 50% of the patients will experience prolonged pain after PTC defined as pain lasting more than 48 hours and requiring analgesics. 48 patients in total (24 per group) are then needed to detect with 80% power a difference with EUS, expecting 10% of the patients having prolonged pain after EUS. The sample size calculation is based on a two-sided Fisher's Exact test (with alpha=5%). To compensate for potential dropout, 7 additional patients in total will be recruited. Therefor the sample size will comprise of 55 patients. Exact 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for the proportion major complications in both groups. Proportions will be compared using a Fisher's Exact test. A Mann-Whitney U test will be used to compare the actual VAS scores and changes in VAS scores between groups. A log-rank test will be used to compare the length of hospital stay (LOS), censoring potential deceased patients at a value exceeding the highest observed LOS.
P-values smaller than 0.05 will be considered significant. Statistical analyses will be performed using SAS software, version 9.2 of the SAS System for Windowsld be given when defining the endpoints.
Investigators:
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hepatology: Prof. Frederik Nevens, Prof. Werner van Steenbergen, Prof. Chris Verslype, Prof. Wim Laleman, Prof. David Cassiman, Prof. Schalk van der Merwe
Department of Interventional radiology:
Prof. Geert Maleux, Dr. Sam Heye, Dr. Johan Vaninbroukx
- Conditions
- Malignant Biliary Obstruction
- Being tested
- Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage
- Keywords
- Cholestasis, Malignancy, ERCP, PTC, EUS-BD
- Medical subject headings
- Cholestasis, Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainageProcedure or surgery
Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography biliary drainage is compared tot endoscopic biliary drainage in the management of malignant biliary obstruction not amenable to ERCP
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous Transhepatic cholangiography | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage |
| Endoscopic Ultrasound guided biliary drainage | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
- Primary endpoints
- Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
- Biochemical changes: Bilirubin decrease at 2 and 4 weeks
Measured: 72 hours
Secondary outcomes (1)
Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
- Secondary endpoints
- Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
- Duration of procedures
- Length of ICU stay
- Minor complications
Measured: Participants will be followed for the duration of their hospital stay and for up to 4 weeks. In addition patients will be followed up to death or for a maximum period of 1 year following the procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Sep 2012 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2012
- Primary completionJul 2014 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2014 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Malignant Biliary ObstructionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU LeuvenThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, UZ Leuven
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01686425
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ML8383
- Acronym
- PETRUS
- Status last verified
- Jun 2013
- First submitted
- 10 Jul 2012
- Last updated
- 13 Jun 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Jun 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage in Advanced Biliary Tract Malignancy That Failed ERCP (PETRUS Study): A Randomized Pilot Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01686425
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PETRUS / ML8383
- Conditions
- Malignant Biliary Obstruction
- Keywords
- Cholestasis, Malignancy, ERCP, PTC, EUS-BD
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU LeuvenUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jul 2012
- Primary completion
- Jul 2014 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2014 (estimated)
- First posted
- 18 Sep 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven.
This population will have failed ERCP or will be considered when ERCP is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.
Patients will be randomized to either PTC or EUS guided biliary drainage
Detailed description
Background:
Advanced biliary tract malignancy complicated by obstructive jaundice has been traditionally managed by palliative stent placement at ERCP. In 3-12% of patients with advanced disease tumour involvement of the small bowel or peri-ampullary region may preclude the use of ERCP necessitating percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgery1. However these techniques have been associated with high complication rates and significant morbidity2. PTBD necessitates traversing the parietal and visceral peritoneum causing a potential for a bile leak and bleeding into the peritoneal cavity. This procedure is also associated with significant pain, lengthy hospital stays and an overall reduction in quality of life, and even procedure related mortality. Indeed the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) quality improvements guidelines established the procedural risk of severe major complications including sepsis, bleeding and procedural related death at 2.5% and less severe complications including pain and prolonged hospital admissions at 20%.
In recent years various groups have described endoscopic ultrasound guided access of the left system allowing placement of metal or plastic stents either across the distal stricture or deploying the stent in the stomach (hepatico-gastrostomy), with high technical success3. Retrograde cannulation normally performed from the duodenal bulb allows access to the biliary tract above a malignant stricture with the intent to either pass a guide wire through the papilla and then perform a rendezvous procedure, or the placement of a covered metal stent into the stomach (choledochoenterostomy)10. Cannulation of a dilated segment 2 or 3 sectoral duct is also possible from the proximal stomach where the endoscopist performs all procedures in an antegrade fashion5. Currently these procedures are selectively performed in centres by expert endoscopists from mainly tertiary care academic expert centres including in Leuven. Collectively EUS biliary drainage is technically successful in 75-92% of cases, however reports of bile leaking and peritonitis have been described5.
Various obstacles however still exist to extend the general applicability of this technique outside expert centres. Firstly, no randomized control trials exist comparing the safety and efficacy of EUS biliary access to Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography (PTC). Secondly, current endoscopic techniques utilize standard endoscopic accessories not specifically developed to be utilized within the biliary system when advanced through the gastric wall. Thirdly, specific EUS strategies are needed to prevent or reduce complications associated with percutaneous approaches.
Concept and preliminary experimental data
Hypothesis
Based on the literature we hypothesize that:
- Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage is more effective than percutaneous biliary drainage in the management of obstructive jaundice
- EUS guided biliary drainage is associated with a reduced incidence of major (bile peritonitis, procedure related mortality, hematobilia) and minor (abdominal pain, prolonged hospital stay) complications.
- EUS guided biliary drainage is more cost effective compared to percutaneous biliary drainage
Aims of proposed research
Based on the current literature we propose a randomized pilot study assessing the following specific end points
- EUS biliary drainage is as effective as percutaneous biliary drainage in achieving resolution of cholestasis
- EUS biliary drainage is not associated with an increased risk of complications compared to percutaneous biliary drainage.
Methodology
Study population. Patients with obstructive jaundice due to locally advanced/metastatic malignancy with dilated intrahepatic bile ducts will be recruited from the department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University Hospital of Leuven.
This population will have failed ERCP or will be considered when ERCP is not possible due to altered surgical anatomy.
Patients will be randomized to either PTC or EUS guided biliary drainage
Inclusion criteria:
- Patients older than 18 years presenting with malignant obstructive jaundice
- Locally advanced primary or metastatic malignancy involving the biliary tract
- Patients in whom an ERCP have failed or where an ERCP is not possible due to surgically altered anatomy (eg. Post-Whipple).
Exclusion criteria:
- Resectable biliary tract malignancy with curative intent
Endoscopic method
Linear array endoscopic ultrasound (Pentax, Pentax Hitachi, Montvale, NJ) will be used to identify the dilated left system. The Doppler mode was used to differentiate intrahepatic bile ducts from portal and hepatic vein branches. A 19G needle (Echo-19, Cook, Limerick, Ireland) will be used to puncture a peripherally located dilated segment 2 or 3 duct under EUS guidance. Under fluoroscopic control a cholangiogram will be obtained and a standard 0.035 guide-wire (Hydra Jag wire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA Boston Scientific) will be advanced into the biliary system. Next a 6Fr cystotome (Endoflex, Voerde, Germany) will be used to create a trans-gastric tract through the liver parenchyma to the dilated biliary system. The guidewire will be manipulated across the stricture into the duodenal lumen. A Hurricane biliary dilation balloon 4cm x4mm (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA Boston Scientific) will be advanced through the tract and used to dilate the common bile duct stricture without balloon dilation at the level of the gastric wall liver interface. A 10mmx 80mm uncovered self expandable metallic stent (SEMS) will be advanced and deployed under fluoroscopy across the papilla and past the duodenal obstruction when present.
In patients were the left ductal system is not dilated, biliary access will be obtained from the duodenal bulb and a covered metal stent will be deployed in the stomach (choledocho-enterostomy).
In patients with duodenal obstruction a Wallstent will be placed at the same session as part of standard of care.
Novel research perspectives and expected outcomes
- Our research will address a very difficult clinical problem in an unique way: comparing the standard of care biliary drainage procedure (PTC) to EUS guided biliary drainage.
- We expect to demonstrate that EUS guided biliary drainage is as effective as PTC
- We also expect to show that EUS guided biliary drainage is associated with a reduced incidence of complications and reduced hospital stay.
Study endpoints
- Primary endpoints
- Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
- Biochemical changes: Bilirubin decrease at 2 and 4 weeks
- Secondary endpoints
- Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
- Duration of procedures in minutes
- Length of ICU and hospital stay
- Minor complications
Statistics power calculations It is assumed that 50% of the patients will experience prolonged pain after PTC defined as pain lasting more than 48 hours and requiring analgesics. 48 patients in total (24 per group) are then needed to detect with 80% power a difference with EUS, expecting 10% of the patients having prolonged pain after EUS. The sample size calculation is based on a two-sided Fisher's Exact test (with alpha=5%). To compensate for potential dropout, 7 additional patients in total will be recruited. Therefor the sample size will comprise of 55 patients. Exact 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for the proportion major complications in both groups. Proportions will be compared using a Fisher's Exact test. A Mann-Whitney U test will be used to compare the actual VAS scores and changes in VAS scores between groups. A log-rank test will be used to compare the length of hospital stay (LOS), censoring potential deceased patients at a value exceeding the highest observed LOS.
P-values smaller than 0.05 will be considered significant. Statistical analyses will be performed using SAS software, version 9.2 of the SAS System for Windowsld be given when defining the endpoints.
Investigators:
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hepatology: Prof. Frederik Nevens, Prof. Werner van Steenbergen, Prof. Chris Verslype, Prof. Wim Laleman, Prof. David Cassiman, Prof. Schalk van der Merwe
Department of Interventional radiology:
Prof. Geert Maleux, Dr. Sam Heye, Dr. Johan Vaninbroukx
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous Transhepatic cholangiography | Active comparator | Procedure: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage |
| Endoscopic Ultrasound guided biliary drainage | Active comparator | Procedure: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients older than 18 years presenting with malignant obstructive jaundice
- Locally advanced primary or metastatic malignancy involving the biliary tract
- Patients in whom an ERCP have failed or where an ERCP is not possible due to surgically altered anatomy (eg. Post-Whipple).
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Resectable biliary tract malignancy with curative intent
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainagePercutaneous transhepatic cholangiography biliary drainage is compared tot endoscopic biliary drainage in the management of malignant biliary obstruction not amenable to ERCP | Procedure or surgery | Endoscopic Ultrasound guided biliary drainage, Percutaneous Transhepatic cholangiography |
Primary outcome
Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures
Time frame: 72 hours
- Primary endpoints * Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures * Biochemical changes: Bilirubin decrease at 2 and 4 weeks
1 secondary outcome
Major complications including bile leak, bleeding, sepsis or death
Time frame: Participants will be followed for the duration of their hospital stay and for up to 4 weeks. In addition patients will be followed up to death or for a maximum period of 1 year following the procedure
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Jun 2013.
Related trials for Malignant Biliary Obstruction
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Quality of Life Study in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Biliary Drainage
Malignant Biliary Obstruction
Recruiting
Suprapapillary Metal Stent vs. Routine Transpapillary Drainage in Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction (SMART-B Trial)
Cholangiocarcinoma, Bile Duct Neoplasms
Recruiting
Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Hepaticogastrostomy With or Without Antegrade Stenting for Palliation of Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: Randomized Controlled Trial
Malignant Biliary Obstruction, Malignant Biliary Stricture
Not yet recruiting
Suprapapillary Versus Transpapillary Plastic Stents for Unresectable Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction
Biliary Tract Neoplasms, Biliary Drainage
Active, not recruiting
Treatment of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction by Uncovered, Partially Covered, or Fully Covered Metal Stents
Pancreatic Cancer Non-resectable, Bile Duct Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD principal investigator
UZ Leuven
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs. endoscopic biliary drainage in people with Malignant Biliary Obstruction, run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Jun 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Schalk van der Merwe, MD, PhD (+32 16 34 42 99, schalk.vandermerwe@uzleuven.be), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain: Post-procedural pain as measured by visual analogue score (VAS) at 2, 24, and 72 hours following the procedures (time frame: 72 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Jun 2013.