Early Gastric CancerNCT02738294
Necessity Assessment of ME-NBI Targeted Biopsy Compared With EFB
A study testing ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsy in people with Early Gastric Cancer, run by Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
The aim of the present study was to assess whether it was necessary to conduct magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging (ME-NBI) targeted biopsy compared with endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) from white light endoscopy in diagnosing early gastric cancer (EGC). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Early Gastric Cancer
- What is being tested?
- ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsy
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 211 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- Jun 2013to Dec 2015
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- consecutive patients with gastric lesions detected by white light endoscopy and suspected of EGC
Who cannot join
- they had advanced gastric cancer
- lesions were histopathologically confirmed to be submucosal tumors
- they had a history of gastrectomy
- tissue biopsy wasn't obtained or more than 2 biopsies were performed on suspected gastric lesions during last white light endoscopy
- they couldn't tolerate another endoscopic examination
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
Departments of Gastroenterology and Clinical Laboratory, Shanghai Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine
Shanghai, 200001
About this study
Official title: Necessity Assessment of Magnifying Endoscopy With Narrow Band Imaging Targeted Biopsy Compared With Endoscopic Forceps Biopsy From White Light Endoscopy
The aim of the present study was to assess whether it was necessary to conduct magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging (ME-NBI) targeted biopsy compared with endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) from white light endoscopy in diagnosing early gastric cancer (EGC). Meanwhile, the investigators proposed the most cost-effective way to diagnose EGC.
Read the detailed description
ME-NBI has been widely used for the diagnosis of stomach diseases, especially in the early diagnosis of gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate diagnostic efficacy of ME-NBI targeted biopsy and ME-NBI combined with targeted biopsy compared with EFB from white light endoscopy and ME-NBI combined with EFB.
A prospective study was conducted encompassing suspected EGC. All patients were performed white light endoscopic examination with EFB and then ME-NBI with ME-NBI targeted biopsy. Outcome measures were assessed and compared, including diagnostic efficacy of EFB from white light endoscopy,ME-NBI combined with EFB, ME-NBI targeted biopsy and ME-NBI combined with targeted biopsy.
- Conditions
- Early Gastric Cancer
- Being tested
- ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsy
- Medical subject headings
- Stomach Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsyDevice
The endoscopist assessed lesions which were suspected EGC carefully with ME-NBI. After assessing suspected EGC in ME-NBI view, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal phenomenon was identified in ME-NBI view.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Suspected EGC group | Experimental | Participants with suspected EGC from white light endoscopy were enrolled.The endoscopist first used white light endoscopy to identify suspected gastric lesions and assessed lesions carefully with magnifying view, non-magnifying NBI view and ME-NBI view in sequence. After assessing suspected EGC in ME-NBI view, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal phenomenon was identified in ME-NBI view. Receives: Device: ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Accuracy in distinguishing high-grade neoplasia (HGN) from non-HGN
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or surgery specimens, sensitivity of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated. Accuracy of EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy was compared using McNemar test. The same method was used to compare ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy.
Measured: 30 months
Sensitivity in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. The former classification was diagnosed as HGN. The latter two classification was diagnosed as HGN. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of ESD or surgery specimens, sensitivity of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated. Sensitivity of EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy was compared using McNemar test. The same method was used to compare ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy.
Measured: 30 months
Specificity in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. The former classification was diagnosed as HGN. The latter two classification was diagnosed as HGN. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of ESD or surgery specimens, specificity of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated. Specificity of EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy was compared using McNemar test. The same method was used to compare ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy.
Measured: 30 months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Positive predictive value (PPV) in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. The former classification was diagnosed as HGN. The latter two classification was diagnosed as HGN. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of ESD or surgery specimens, PPV of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated.
Measured: 30 months
Negative predictive value (NPV) in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. The former classification was diagnosed as HGN. The latter two classification was diagnosed as HGN. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of ESD or surgery specimens, NPV of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated.
Measured: 30 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Apr 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2013
- Primary completionDec 2015
- Study completionDec 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Early Gastric CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineThe 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
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 211 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Xiaobo Li, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02738294
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- rjxhnk[2013]113
- Status last verified
- Mar 2016
- First submitted
- 8 Mar 2016
- Last updated
- 2 Oct 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Oct 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Necessity Assessment of Magnifying Endoscopy With Narrow Band Imaging Targeted Biopsy Compared With Endoscopic Forceps Biopsy From White Light Endoscopy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02738294
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- rjxhnk[2013]113
- Conditions
- Early Gastric Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 211 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2013
- Primary completion
- Dec 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Apr 2016 (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.
The aim of the present study was to assess whether it was necessary to conduct magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging (ME-NBI) targeted biopsy compared with endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) from white light endoscopy in diagnosing early gastric cancer (EGC). Meanwhile, the investigators proposed the most cost-effective way to diagnose EGC.
Detailed description
ME-NBI has been widely used for the diagnosis of stomach diseases, especially in the early diagnosis of gastric cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate diagnostic efficacy of ME-NBI targeted biopsy and ME-NBI combined with targeted biopsy compared with EFB from white light endoscopy and ME-NBI combined with EFB.
A prospective study was conducted encompassing suspected EGC. All patients were performed white light endoscopic examination with EFB and then ME-NBI with ME-NBI targeted biopsy. Outcome measures were assessed and compared, including diagnostic efficacy of EFB from white light endoscopy,ME-NBI combined with EFB, ME-NBI targeted biopsy and ME-NBI combined with targeted biopsy.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Suspected EGC group | Experimental | Device: ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsyParticipants with suspected EGC from white light endoscopy were enrolled.The endoscopist first used white light endoscopy to identify suspected gastric lesions and assessed lesions carefully with magnifying view, non-magnifying NBI view and ME-NBI view in sequence. After assessing suspected EGC in ME-NBI view, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal phenomenon was identified in ME-NBI view. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- consecutive patients with gastric lesions detected by white light endoscopy and suspected of EGC
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- they had advanced gastric cancer
- lesions were histopathologically confirmed to be submucosal tumors
- they had a history of gastrectomy
- tissue biopsy wasn't obtained or more than 2 biopsies were performed on suspected gastric lesions during last white light endoscopy
- they couldn't tolerate another endoscopic examination
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 |
|---|---|---|
| ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsyThe endoscopist assessed lesions which were suspected EGC carefully with ME-NBI. After assessing suspected EGC in ME-NBI view, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal phenomenon was identified in ME-NBI view. | Device | Suspected EGC group |
Primary outcome
Accuracy in distinguishing high-grade neoplasia (HGN) from non-HGN
Time frame: 30 months
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or surgery specimens, sensitivity of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated. Accuracy of EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy was compared using McNemar test. The same method was used to compare ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy.
Sensitivity in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
Time frame: 30 months
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. The former classification was diagnosed as HGN. The latter two classification was diagnosed as HGN. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of ESD or surgery specimens, sensitivity of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated. Sensitivity of EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy was compared using McNemar test. The same method was used to compare ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy.
Specificity in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
Time frame: 30 months
EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy and final resected specimens were assessed according to the Vienna classification. Suspected lesions were assessed in ME-NBI view according to the diagnostic classification proposed by Yao and Ezoe et al. However, little different from their classification, lesions were classified into positive HGN phenomenon, indefinite and suspected HGN, negative HGN phenomenon. The former classification was diagnosed as HGN. The latter two classification was diagnosed as HGN. After that, ME-NBI targeted biopsy was performed where abnormal or suspected phenomenon was observed. Compared with final pathology of ESD or surgery specimens, specificity of EFB, ME-NBI, ME-NBI targeted biopsy, ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy was calculated. Specificity of EFB and ME-NBI targeted biopsy was compared using McNemar test. The same method was used to compare ME-NBI combined EFB and ME-NBI combined targeted biopsy.
2 secondary outcomes
Positive predictive value (PPV) in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
Time frame: 30 months
Negative predictive value (NPV) in distinguishing HGN from non-HGN
Time frame: 30 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Oct 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Early Gastric Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Collecting Blood Samples From Patients With and Without Cancer to Evaluate Tests for Early Cancer Detection
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia
RecruitingObservational study
cfDNA Assay Prospective Observational Validation for Early Cancer Detection and Minimal Residual Disease
Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
68Ga-labeled Cholecystokinin Receptor (CCK2R) Targeted Molecular Probes in Early Tumor Diagnosis
Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma, Small Cell Lung Cancer ( SCLC )
Recruiting
SPADE Clinical Trial.
Early Gastric Cancer, Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Early Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Improving Quality of Life in Participants With Stage 0-IIIC Gastric Cancer Undergoing Surgery
Clinical Stage 0 Gastric Cancer AJCC v8, Clinical Stage I Gastric Cancer AJCC v8
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing ME-NBI observation and ME-NBI targeted biopsy in people with Early Gastric Cancer, run by Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine at 1 site in China.
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 1 inclusion and 5 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Oct 2025. 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 China. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Accuracy in distinguishing high-grade neoplasia (HGN) from non-HGN (time frame: 30 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 2 Oct 2025.