Clinical trial NCT02712684: Cancer Diagnosis by Multiparametric UltraSound of the Prostate
Official title: Multi-parametric Ultrasound Targeted Biopsies Compared to Multi-parametric MRI Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: UNKNOWN
Conditions: Prostate Cancer
Lead sponsor: University College, London
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2016-03-18
Enrollment: 500
Sex: MALE
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Observational model: COHORT
Time perspective: PROSPECTIVE
Sampling method: PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: Men at or referred to the participating centres who may require a prostate biopsy. Referrals will be screened and potential participants contacted by telephone, post or email. These men will be given the patient information sheet at least 24 hours before their clinic visit, allowing adequate time to consider their desire for involvement

Brief summary: In men who require a prostate biopsy does a multi-parametric ultrasound based diagnostic strategy compared to a multi-parametric MRI based diagnostic strategy lead to similar detection of clinically significant prostate cancer?

Detailed description: Men who require prostate biopsy will be approached and consented to enter this study. Participants will all undergo pre-biopsy mp-MRI and mp-USS of the prostate. Only men with positive scans will undergo prostate biopsy. The order in which lesions discovered on mp-MRI or on mp-USS are sampled will be randomised. All biopsies will be taken via the transperineal route in a single procedure. Comparison will be drawn between biopsy results of lesions detected by mp-USS with those lesions detected by mp-MRI. Consideration will be given as to whether a lesion detected by one imaging modality is the same abnormality as one detected by the other imaging modality, in the same patient. Analysis will be carried out at both the level of the lesion and the whole prostate. Men without suspicious lesions on either imaging modality will not proceed to biopsy.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

1. A potential need for prostate biopsy indicated by raised PSA or other clinical parameter, the final decision over which will be taken after imaging.
2. PSA \</=20ng/ml measured within 6 months of screening visit
3. An understanding of the English language sufficient to understand written and verbal information about the trial and consent process
4. Estimated life expectancy of 5 years or more
5. Signed informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Any contraindication to the ultrasound contrast agent including right to left shunt, pulmonary hypertension, uncontrolled hypertension and adult respiratory distress syndrome. Also patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome or unstable ischaemic heart disease.
2. Any form of hormones (except 5-alpha reductase inhibitors) within 6 months of screening visit
3. Irreversible coagulopathy predisposing to bleeding
4. Inability to undergo transrectal ultrasonography
5. Prostate volume, measured at the time of mp-USS if previously unknown, of \>60cc.
6. Previous radiation therapy to the prostate
7. Previous HIFU, cryosurgery, thermal therapy, irreversible electroporation, photodynamic, photothermal therapy, microwave or injectable toxin therapy to the prostate.
8. Transurethral resection or vaporization of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia using any energy modality within 6 months of screening visit
9. Nodal or metastatic prostate cancer on any form of imaging at any time-point
10. Not fit for general anaesthetic
11. Any other condition the investigator considers would make the patient unsuitable

Primary outcomes:
measure: To determine the overall agreement in identifying lesions to biopsy between mp-USS and mp-MRI in men who require a prostate biopsy. Then compare agreement in proportion of men diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy.
timeFrame: at time of surgery
Secondary outcomes:
measure: To compare the overall agreement in proportion of men diagnosed with other thresholds of clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy
timeFrame: at time of surgery
measure: To determine the detection of clinically significant cancer (using all of the pre-specified definitions based on histology) by using the combination of these two imaging techniques versus either modality alone
timeFrame: at time of surgery
measure: To determine whether the order in which the targeted biopsies are carried out, either to the same target (present on both scans) or different targets impacts on detection of clinically significant cancer
timeFrame: at time of surgery
measure: To compare, in those men who go on to radical prostatectomy, the mp-MRI, mp-USS and histology from targeted biopsy with the whole mount specimen obtained at surgery.
timeFrame: at time of surgery
measure: To create an inception cohort of men, consented for long-term follow-up and linkage, providing the potential for further translational and clinical studies
timeFrame: at time of surgery
measure: To determine rates of adverse events, resource utilization and impact of each test on health-related quality-of-life (using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire) which would allow modelling of overall cost-effectiveness of one strategy compared to the other.
timeFrame: at time of surgery
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: London,
country: United Kingdom
facility: University College London Hospitals
state: England
Study officials:
References:
citation: Velonas VM, Woo HH, dos Remedios CG, Assinder SJ. Current status of biomarkers for prostate cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2013 May 24;14(6):11034-60. doi: 10.3390/ijms140611034.
citation: Kirkham AP, Haslam P, Keanie JY, McCafferty I, Padhani AR, Punwani S, Richenberg J, Rottenberg G, Sohaib A, Thompson P, Turnbull LW, Kurban L, Sahdev A, Clements R, Carey BM, Allen C. Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol. 2013 Oct;68(10):1016-23. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.03.030. Epub 2013 Jul 1.
citation: Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Oct 7;101(19):1325-9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp278. Epub 2009 Aug 31.
citation: Wilt TJ, Ahmed HU. Prostate cancer screening and the management of clinically localized disease. BMJ. 2013 Jan 29;346:f325. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f325. No abstract available.
citation: Wei JT. Limitations of a contemporary prostate biopsy: the blind march forward. Urol Oncol. 2010 Sep-Oct;28(5):546-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.12.022.
citation: Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Tangen CM. Prostate-specific antigen, risk factors, and prostate cancer: confounders nestled in an enigma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Sep 8;102(17):1299-301. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq313. Epub 2010 Aug 19. No abstract available.
citation: Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B, Acher P, Liyanage S, Pavlou M, Omar R, Chinegwundoh F, Patki P, Shah TT, Hamid S, Ghei M, Gilbert K, Campbell D, Brew-Graves C, Arumainayagam N, Chapman A, McLeavy L, Karatziou A, Alsaadi Z, Collins T, Freeman A, Eldred-Evans D, Bertoncelli-Tanaka M, Tam H, Ramachandran N, Madaan S, Winkler M, Arya M, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Mar;23(3):428-438. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00016-X.