Pancreatic MassesNCT07032974
RCT Comparing Accuracy Among Franseen, Forward-bevel Westcott, and Fork-tip EUS-FNB Needle in Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions
A study testing Franseen, Forward-bevel and Fork-tip in people with Pancreatic Masses, run by Mahidol University at 1 site in Thailand.
Trial summary
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a well-established technique for pancreatic tissue acquisition, offering a high diagnostic accuracy ranging from 78% to 95%, along with a favorable safety profile. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pancreatic Masses
- What is being tested?
- Franseen, Forward-bevel and Fork-tip
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 108 participants
- Where
- 1 siteThailand
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2025to Jul 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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
- Age > 18 years
- Solid pancreatic mass greater than 1 cm in size who required tissue diagnosis
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy
- Uncorrected coagulopathy
- Surgically altered anatomy
- Unable to complete informed consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Thailand1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
Bangkok, Bangkok, 10700
Ronnakorn Kongsakon, MD, +66655979522, ronnagorn@gmail.com
About this study
Official title: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Accuracy Among Franseen, Forward-bevel Westcott, and Fork-tip Needle Design for EUS-guided Fine Needle Biopsy in Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a well-established technique for pancreatic tissue acquisition, offering a high diagnostic accuracy ranging from 78% to 95%, along with a favorable safety profile. Over time, numerous studies have sought to optimize this procedure by investigating various contributing factors, including needle size, sampling techniques, adequacy of tissue acquisition, the number of passes required, and needle type. These insights have largely been incorporated into routine clinical practice, refining the diagnostic capabilities of EUS-FNA.
Despite its widespread use, EUS-FNA has limitations, particularly in the diagnosis of certain pancreatic pathologies such as lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and autoimmune pancreatitis. These conditions often require histologic samples for ancillary studies, which cytologic specimens obtained via FNA cannot sufficiently provide. To overcome this limitation, Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) needles were developed. These needles enable the procurement of core tissue samples, thereby enhancing histopathological assessment and reducing reliance on rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE). Additionally, FNB allows for fewer needle passes, which can shorten procedure time and reduce associated complications.
Read more
Among FNB technologies, the third generation of needles has garnered particular attention due to improved sample adequacy and diagnostic reliability. While earlier research compared second-generation FNB needles with FNA, demonstrating no significant difference in diagnostic yield, more recent studies suggest that third-generation FNB needles offer superior diagnostic accuracy.
Currently, three distinct third-generation FNB needle types are commercially available, distinguished by their tip geometry:
Franseen geometry - Acquire™ (Boston Scientific)
Fork-tip - SharkCore™ (Medtronic)
Forward-bevel Westcott - ProCore™ (Cook Medical)
Despite their clinical adoption, comparative data on their diagnostic performance remain scarce. Only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared these needle types:
Karsenti et al. compared the Franseen (Acquire) and the Forward-bevel Westcott (ProCore) needles for pancreatic mass diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy was 87% (CI: 75-94) for the Franseen needle and 67% (CI: 53-78) for the Westcott needle, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.02).
Ashat et al. evaluated the Franseen (Acquire) and Fork-tip (SharkCore) needles in diagnosing all gastrointestinal masses, reporting diagnostic accuracies of 85.3% and 90.7%, respectively (p = 0.45). In a pancreatic mass-specific subgroup analysis, accuracy rates were 89.7% and 94.4%, respectively (p = 0.68), suggesting comparable performance between the two.
Despite these findings, the current literature does not include a comprehensive head-to-head comparison encompassing all three third-generation FNB needle types. Therefore, it remains uncertain which design offers the best diagnostic performance for pancreatic tumors. The absence of such comparative studies presents a significant gap in the field of EUS-guided tissue acquisition.
Read the detailed description
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic tissue acquisition is a widely accepted and popularly used technique because of its high diagnostic accuracy of 78% - 95% and a low risk of adverse events.
Previous studies have tried to identify ways to increase the efficacy and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. Many factors were found to influence the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA which included needle size, sampling technique, evaluation of tissue adequacy, number of needle passes, and finally the needle type, which the impact of most of the aforementioned factors were thoroughly studied and already incorporated into the standard practice of pancreatic tissue acquisition.
It was difficult to diagnose some pancreatic diseases by EUS-FNA, such as lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), and autoimmune pancreatitis because the cytologic specimen was simply not enough for further ancillary studies. FNB needles were subsequently developed to eliminate this limitation, by obtaining a larger specimen, FNB needles enable pathologists to evaluate the specimens more thoroughly and help guide further therapeutic decisions. In addition, it reduces the dependency on immediate cytological examination during endoscopy (Rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE]) and also reduces the procedure duration, since the number of needle passes is reduced.
The continuous development of EUS-FNB needles has been a major area of interest in recent years. In particular, the third generation of FNB needles were developed to obtain a more adequate tissue sample. Previous research has focused on comparing the accuracy of the second generation FNB needles with the FNA needles in the diagnosis of pancreatic tissue. Results from these studies found no significant differences between the two needles. However, it was discovered that the third generation FNB needle has significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than the FNA needle. These findings suggest that the third generation FNB needle may be a more reliable and effective tool for diagnosing tissue samples in various clinical settings.
In the field of tissue biopsy, the third generation FNB needle is currently available in three types based on the characteristics of the needle tip. These types include Franseen geometry needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific), Fork-tip needle (Shark-core, Medtronic), and Forward-bevel Westcott (Procore, Cook Medical). However, there is a lack of research comparing the diagnostic accuracy of among each type of needle. Only two randomized controlled trials have been conducted to address this issue. Karsenti et al. investigated the accuracy of diagnosing a pancreatic mass using Franseen geometry needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific) and Forward-bevel Westcott (Procore, Cook Medical). The study found accuracy rates of 87% (75-94) and 67% (53-78), respectively, with a p-value of 0.02. Ashat et al. compared the accuracy of diagnosing all gastrointestinal masses using Franseen geometry needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific) and Fork-tip needle (Shark-core, Medtronic), finding accuracy rates of 85.3% and 90.7%, respectively, with a p-value of 0.45. Subgroup analysis for pancreatic masses alone found accuracy rates of 89.7% and 94.4%, respectively, with a p-value of 0.68.
In the context of diagnosing pancreatic tissue masses, only a limited number of studies have examined the comparative accuracy of 3rd generation fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles. As such, it remains unclear which type of needle can deliver superior diagnostic precision, and to date, no study has conducted a head-to-head comparison of all three needle types. Thus, the purpose of the present investigation is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of all three 3rd generation FNB needle types in the context of detecting pancreatic tumors.
- Conditions
- Pancreatic Masses
- Being tested
- Franseen, Forward-bevel, Fork-tip
- Keywords
- Pancreatic mass, EUS, EUS-FNB, Fine needle biopsy, Endoscopic ultrasound, Pancreatic lesion
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
FranseenDevice
Franseen needle
Forward-bevelDevice
Forward-bevel needle
Fork-tipDevice
Fork-tip needle
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Franseen | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Franseen |
| Forward- bevel | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Forward-bevel |
| Fork-tip | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Fork-tip |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Diagnostic accuracy
Diagnostic accuracy of three third-generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (4)
Number of needle passes
Number of needle passes during EUS
Measured: During procedure
Overall satisfaction
Overall satisfaction of endoscopist during EUS including needle visiblity, maneuverability and ease of puncture on a scale of 0 to 2.
Measured: During procedure
Procedure time
Procedure time of EUS
Measured: During procedure
Adverse events
Adverse events of the procedure
Measured: up to 2 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Jun 2025
- Study start1 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionJul 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionJul 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Pancreatic MassesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mahidol UniversityThe 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 108 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mahidol University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Varayu Prachayakul, Mahidol University
- Investigators
- Varayu Prachayakul, MD, Principal investigator, Siriraj Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07032974
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Si 316/2022
- Status last verified
- Mar 2025
- First submitted
- 12 Jun 2025
- Last updated
- 24 Jun 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: We are willing to provide our data to researchers who require it. For example, those who want to do systematic review and meta-analysis.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Jun 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Accuracy Among Franseen, Forward-bevel Westcott, and Fork-tip Needle Design for EUS-guided Fine Needle Biopsy in Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07032974
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Si 316/2022
- Conditions
- Pancreatic Masses
- Keywords
- Pancreatic mass, EUS, EUS-FNB, Fine needle biopsy, Endoscopic ultrasound, Pancreatic lesion
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 108 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Mahidol UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jul 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jul 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 24 Jun 2025 (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.
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a well-established technique for pancreatic tissue acquisition, offering a high diagnostic accuracy ranging from 78% to 95%, along with a favorable safety profile. Over time, numerous studies have sought to optimize this procedure by investigating various contributing factors, including needle size, sampling techniques, adequacy of tissue acquisition, the number of passes required, and needle type. These insights have largely been incorporated into routine clinical practice, refining the diagnostic capabilities of EUS-FNA.
Despite its widespread use, EUS-FNA has limitations, particularly in the diagnosis of certain pancreatic pathologies such as lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and autoimmune pancreatitis. These conditions often require histologic samples for ancillary studies, which cytologic specimens obtained via FNA cannot sufficiently provide. To overcome this limitation, Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) needles were developed. These needles enable the procurement of core tissue samples, thereby enhancing histopathological assessment and reducing reliance on rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE). Additionally, FNB allows for fewer needle passes, which can shorten procedure time and reduce associated complications.
Among FNB technologies, the third generation of needles has garnered particular attention due to improved sample adequacy and diagnostic reliability. While earlier research compared second-generation FNB needles with FNA, demonstrating no significant difference in diagnostic yield, more recent studies suggest that third-generation FNB needles offer superior diagnostic accuracy.
Currently, three distinct third-generation FNB needle types are commercially available, distinguished by their tip geometry:
Franseen geometry - Acquire™ (Boston Scientific)
Fork-tip - SharkCore™ (Medtronic)
Forward-bevel Westcott - ProCore™ (Cook Medical)
Despite their clinical adoption, comparative data on their diagnostic performance remain scarce. Only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared these needle types:
Karsenti et al. compared the Franseen (Acquire) and the Forward-bevel Westcott (ProCore) needles for pancreatic mass diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy was 87% (CI: 75-94) for the Franseen needle and 67% (CI: 53-78) for the Westcott needle, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.02).
Ashat et al. evaluated the Franseen (Acquire) and Fork-tip (SharkCore) needles in diagnosing all gastrointestinal masses, reporting diagnostic accuracies of 85.3% and 90.7%, respectively (p = 0.45). In a pancreatic mass-specific subgroup analysis, accuracy rates were 89.7% and 94.4%, respectively (p = 0.68), suggesting comparable performance between the two.
Despite these findings, the current literature does not include a comprehensive head-to-head comparison encompassing all three third-generation FNB needle types. Therefore, it remains uncertain which design offers the best diagnostic performance for pancreatic tumors. The absence of such comparative studies presents a significant gap in the field of EUS-guided tissue acquisition.
Detailed description
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic tissue acquisition is a widely accepted and popularly used technique because of its high diagnostic accuracy of 78% - 95% and a low risk of adverse events.
Previous studies have tried to identify ways to increase the efficacy and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA. Many factors were found to influence the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA which included needle size, sampling technique, evaluation of tissue adequacy, number of needle passes, and finally the needle type, which the impact of most of the aforementioned factors were thoroughly studied and already incorporated into the standard practice of pancreatic tissue acquisition.
It was difficult to diagnose some pancreatic diseases by EUS-FNA, such as lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), and autoimmune pancreatitis because the cytologic specimen was simply not enough for further ancillary studies. FNB needles were subsequently developed to eliminate this limitation, by obtaining a larger specimen, FNB needles enable pathologists to evaluate the specimens more thoroughly and help guide further therapeutic decisions. In addition, it reduces the dependency on immediate cytological examination during endoscopy (Rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE]) and also reduces the procedure duration, since the number of needle passes is reduced.
The continuous development of EUS-FNB needles has been a major area of interest in recent years. In particular, the third generation of FNB needles were developed to obtain a more adequate tissue sample. Previous research has focused on comparing the accuracy of the second generation FNB needles with the FNA needles in the diagnosis of pancreatic tissue. Results from these studies found no significant differences between the two needles. However, it was discovered that the third generation FNB needle has significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than the FNA needle. These findings suggest that the third generation FNB needle may be a more reliable and effective tool for diagnosing tissue samples in various clinical settings.
In the field of tissue biopsy, the third generation FNB needle is currently available in three types based on the characteristics of the needle tip. These types include Franseen geometry needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific), Fork-tip needle (Shark-core, Medtronic), and Forward-bevel Westcott (Procore, Cook Medical). However, there is a lack of research comparing the diagnostic accuracy of among each type of needle. Only two randomized controlled trials have been conducted to address this issue. Karsenti et al. investigated the accuracy of diagnosing a pancreatic mass using Franseen geometry needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific) and Forward-bevel Westcott (Procore, Cook Medical). The study found accuracy rates of 87% (75-94) and 67% (53-78), respectively, with a p-value of 0.02. Ashat et al. compared the accuracy of diagnosing all gastrointestinal masses using Franseen geometry needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific) and Fork-tip needle (Shark-core, Medtronic), finding accuracy rates of 85.3% and 90.7%, respectively, with a p-value of 0.45. Subgroup analysis for pancreatic masses alone found accuracy rates of 89.7% and 94.4%, respectively, with a p-value of 0.68.
In the context of diagnosing pancreatic tissue masses, only a limited number of studies have examined the comparative accuracy of 3rd generation fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles. As such, it remains unclear which type of needle can deliver superior diagnostic precision, and to date, no study has conducted a head-to-head comparison of all three needle types. Thus, the purpose of the present investigation is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of all three 3rd generation FNB needle types in the context of detecting pancreatic tumors.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Franseen | Experimental | Device: Franseen |
| Forward- bevel | Experimental | Device: Forward-bevel |
| Fork-tip | Experimental | Device: Fork-tip |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Age > 18 years
- Solid pancreatic mass greater than 1 cm in size who required tissue diagnosis
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Pregnancy
- Uncorrected coagulopathy
- Surgically altered anatomy
- Unable to complete informed consent
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 |
|---|---|---|
| FranseenFranseen needle | Device | Franseen |
| Forward-bevelForward-bevel needle | Device | Forward- bevel |
| Fork-tipFork-tip needle | Device | Fork-tip |
Primary outcome
Diagnostic accuracy
Time frame: 6 months
Diagnostic accuracy of three third-generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles
4 secondary outcomes
Number of needle passes
Time frame: During procedure
Overall satisfaction
Time frame: During procedure
Procedure time
Time frame: During procedure
Adverse events
Time frame: up to 2 weeks
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Jun 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. We are willing to provide our data to researchers who require it. For example, those who want to do systematic review and meta-analysis.
Related trials for Pancreatic Masses
RecruitingObservational study
MRE for Diagnosis of Pancreatic Masses
Pancreatic Neoplasm, Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Not yet recruiting
Mri and Ultrasound Elastography in Pancreatic Masses
Pancreatic Masses
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.
Varayu Prachayakul, MD principal investigator
Siriraj Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Franseen, Forward-bevel and Fork-tip in people with Pancreatic Masses, run by Mahidol University at 1 site in Thailand.
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 2 inclusion and 4 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Jun 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 Thailand. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Ronnakorn Kongsakon, MD (+66655979522, ronnagorn@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Diagnostic accuracy (time frame: 6 months). 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 24 Jun 2025.