Pleural Effusion, MalignantNCT03270215
The Added Value of CT Scanning in Patients With an Unilateral Pleural Effusion
An observational study of Pleural Effusion, Malignant, run by Naestved Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
To investigate the diagnostic power of computed tomography for discriminating malignant from nonmalignant causes to pleural effusions in consecutive patients with no malignant cells found at a cytological examination and a chest x-ray not suspicious of malignancy. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pleural Effusion, Malignant
- What is being tested?
- Computed tomography
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 232 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2017to 30 Jan 2019
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 16 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: All patients with a unilateral pleural effusion of unknown origin
Who may be able to join
- Thoracocentesis
- Chest X-ray and
- CT-scanning are performed
Who cannot join
- Lung cancer
- Other thoracic malignancy
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Added Value of CT Scanning for Discriminating Malignant From Non-malignant Causes in Patients With an Unilateral Pleural Effusion
To investigate the diagnostic power of computed tomography for discriminating malignant from nonmalignant causes to pleural effusions in consecutive patients with no malignant cells found at a cytological examination and a chest x-ray not suspicious of malignancy. The investigators hypothesised that the combination improves the chance of detecting the cause of the pleural effusion.
Read the detailed description
Objectives
- Is CT-scanning better than chest x-ray plus a thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?
- What is the added value of a CT-scanning to chest x-ray plus thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?
The above measured as, true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio -, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.
Study design A retrospective diagnostic study including consecutive patients with a unilateral pleural effusion. Thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT findings are categorised as either normal (i.e. not suggestive of any aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion), suggestive of other lung pathology or suggestive of malignancy (i.e. representing a possible aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion). The final diagnosis is extracted from the patients' electronic medical records. When no diagnosis is found, two investigators agree on a consensus diagnosis based on all investigation results. If no reasonable diagnosis can be established based on the findings, the patient case is categorised as having no final diagnosis.
The investigators follow the STARD guideline for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
Patients The investigators will include consecutive patients presenting with a unilateral pleural effusion between 01 January 2013 and 31 December 2016. The patients will be identified searching the hospitals administrative patient system for the procedure code thoracocentesis (KTGA30).
Departments of Respiratory Medicine at Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde and Naestved Hospital, Region Zealand, Denmark, participate in this study. Both hospitals are a large tertiary hospital with specialised functions. Patients older than 16 years are included, irrespective of smoking history and comorbidities, if both thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and a CT-scanning are performed. Exclusion criteria are previously diagnosed lung cancer, thoracic malignancy or incomplete data.
Data Relevant data on demographics, descriptive data, symptoms, medical history and diagnostic workup will be extracted from electronic medical records, and registered in the individual patient's case report file (CRF). The CRF is stored using Excel on an encrypted USB-key, the USB-key will be stored behind double lock (room plus cupboard). Background-variables will be utilised to describe the study population and for explorative research. Only study coordinators will have access to data. Computers, as well as a back-up, will be stored and kept in a locked cupboard in a locked room. Only study coordinators possess relevant keys.
Statistics Data will be presented as frequencies and/or mean ± standard deviation (SD). Test characteristics will be compared using McNemar's test with a Bonferroni correction. An alpha level of 0.05 is considered significant. Test characteristics for thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT-scanning and the combination of the three will be calculated. Test characteristics are true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio-, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.
The combined sensitivity of two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B)
The combined specificity for two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The specificity of test A x specificity of test B
The combined sensitivity of three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B + sensitivity of test C - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B x sensitivity of test C)
The combined specificity for three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The specificity of test A x specificity of test B x sensitivity of test C For data analysis, we use STATA (StataCorp LLC, Version 15.0, College Station, Texas, USA).
Ethics The study is retrospective and observational and thus will not affect the included patients. Before any study-related activity, the protocol and study must be approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and the local Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics. All results will be stored and analysed by computer, and the investigators secure the patients' anonymity according to the national laws. The data are anonymized and stored after completion of the study and data containing personal identification numbers will be kept behind double-lock at the department.
- Conditions
- Pleural Effusion, Malignant
- Being tested
- Computed tomography
- Keywords
- Computed Tomography, Specificity, Sensitivity
- Medical subject headings
- Pleural Effusion, Malignant, Hypersensitivity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Computed tomographyProcedure or surgery
The diagnostic power to discriminate malignant from nonmalignant causes of e pleural effusion
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Specificity
TN / (TN+FP)
Measured: 1 year
Secondary outcomes (6)
Diagnostic accuracy
(TP+TN) / (TP+TN+FP+FN)
Measured: 1 year
Likelihood ratio +
LR+ = sensitivity / (1-specificity)
Measured: 1 year
Likelihood ratio -
LR- = (1-sensitivity) / specificity
Measured: 1 year
Positive predictive value
PPV =TP / (TP+ FP)
Measured: 1 year
Negative predictive value
TN/ (TN + FN)
Measured: 1 year
Sensitivity
TP / (TP + FN)
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Sep 2017
- Study start1 Oct 2017
- Primary completion31 Jan 2018
- Study completion30 Jan 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Pleural Effusion, MalignantStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 232 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Naestved Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Simon Reuter, Naestved Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03270215
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CT-UPE
- Status last verified
- Dec 2020
- First submitted
- 30 Aug 2017
- Last updated
- 17 Dec 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Dec 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Added Value of CT Scanning for Discriminating Malignant From Non-malignant Causes in Patients With an Unilateral Pleural Effusion
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03270215
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CT-UPE
- Conditions
- Pleural Effusion, Malignant
- Keywords
- Computed Tomography, Specificity, Sensitivity
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 232 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Naestved HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jan 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Sep 2017 (actual)
- 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.
To investigate the diagnostic power of computed tomography for discriminating malignant from nonmalignant causes to pleural effusions in consecutive patients with no malignant cells found at a cytological examination and a chest x-ray not suspicious of malignancy. The investigators hypothesised that the combination improves the chance of detecting the cause of the pleural effusion.
Detailed description
Objectives
- Is CT-scanning better than chest x-ray plus a thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?
- What is the added value of a CT-scanning to chest x-ray plus thoracocentesis for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions?
The above measured as, true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio -, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.
Study design A retrospective diagnostic study including consecutive patients with a unilateral pleural effusion. Thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT findings are categorised as either normal (i.e. not suggestive of any aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion), suggestive of other lung pathology or suggestive of malignancy (i.e. representing a possible aetiology of the unilateral pleural effusion). The final diagnosis is extracted from the patients' electronic medical records. When no diagnosis is found, two investigators agree on a consensus diagnosis based on all investigation results. If no reasonable diagnosis can be established based on the findings, the patient case is categorised as having no final diagnosis.
The investigators follow the STARD guideline for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
Patients The investigators will include consecutive patients presenting with a unilateral pleural effusion between 01 January 2013 and 31 December 2016. The patients will be identified searching the hospitals administrative patient system for the procedure code thoracocentesis (KTGA30).
Departments of Respiratory Medicine at Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde and Naestved Hospital, Region Zealand, Denmark, participate in this study. Both hospitals are a large tertiary hospital with specialised functions. Patients older than 16 years are included, irrespective of smoking history and comorbidities, if both thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and a CT-scanning are performed. Exclusion criteria are previously diagnosed lung cancer, thoracic malignancy or incomplete data.
Data Relevant data on demographics, descriptive data, symptoms, medical history and diagnostic workup will be extracted from electronic medical records, and registered in the individual patient's case report file (CRF). The CRF is stored using Excel on an encrypted USB-key, the USB-key will be stored behind double lock (room plus cupboard). Background-variables will be utilised to describe the study population and for explorative research. Only study coordinators will have access to data. Computers, as well as a back-up, will be stored and kept in a locked cupboard in a locked room. Only study coordinators possess relevant keys.
Statistics Data will be presented as frequencies and/or mean ± standard deviation (SD). Test characteristics will be compared using McNemar's test with a Bonferroni correction. An alpha level of 0.05 is considered significant. Test characteristics for thoracocentesis, chest x-ray and CT-scanning and the combination of the three will be calculated. Test characteristics are true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, likelihood ratio-, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy.
The combined sensitivity of two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B)
The combined specificity for two parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The specificity of test A x specificity of test B
The combined sensitivity of three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The sensitivity of test A + sensitivity of test B + sensitivity of test C - (sensitivity of test A x sensitivity of test B x sensitivity of test C)
The combined specificity for three parallel tests will be calculated using the formula:
The specificity of test A x specificity of test B x sensitivity of test C For data analysis, we use STATA (StataCorp LLC, Version 15.0, College Station, Texas, USA).
Ethics The study is retrospective and observational and thus will not affect the included patients. Before any study-related activity, the protocol and study must be approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and the local Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics. All results will be stored and analysed by computer, and the investigators secure the patients' anonymity according to the national laws. The data are anonymized and stored after completion of the study and data containing personal identification numbers will be kept behind double-lock at the department.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- All patients with a unilateral pleural effusion of unknown origin
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Thoracocentesis
- Chest X-ray and
- CT-scanning are performed
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Lung cancer
- Other thoracic malignancy
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Computed tomographyThe diagnostic power to discriminate malignant from nonmalignant causes of e pleural effusion | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
Specificity
Time frame: 1 year
TN / (TN+FP)
6 secondary outcomes
Diagnostic accuracy
Time frame: 1 year
Likelihood ratio +
Time frame: 1 year
Likelihood ratio -
Time frame: 1 year
Positive predictive value
Time frame: 1 year
Negative predictive value
Time frame: 1 year
Sensitivity
Time frame: 1 year
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 17 Dec 2020.
Related trials for Pleural Effusion, Malignant
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Union-LC-MPE Cohort:A Multicenter Cohort Study on Diagnosis and Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Effusion in Lung Cance
Malignant Pleural Effusions (Mpe), Lung Cancer (Diagnosis)
RecruitingObservational study
UNC Pleural Fluid Registry
Lung Cancer, Lung Infection
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Intrapleural Catheter Daily Versus Three Times a Week Drainage
Advanced Cancer, Pleural Effusion
RecruitingObservational study
Indwelling Pleural Catheters With or Without Doxycycline in Treating Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusions
Pleural Neoplasm
Recruiting
Safety and Feasibility of Medical Thoracoscopy Using Single-use Flexible Bronchoscope Versus SemiRigid Pleuroscope in Pleural Effusion
Malignant Pleural Effusions (Mpe), Medical Thoracoscopy
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?
An observational study of Pleural Effusion, Malignant, run by Naestved Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.
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 2 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 17 Dec 2020. 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 Denmark. 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?
Specificity (time frame: 1 year). 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 17 Dec 2020.