Clinical trial NCT06517901: Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer
Official title: MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Prostate Cancer
Diagnosis
Keywords: Prostate
Cancer
Biopsy
Diagnosis
MRI
Lead sponsor: Albany Medical College
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2024-07-24
Enrollment: 1306
Sex: MALE
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: DIAGNOSTIC

Brief summary: The MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection can be performed using one of two techniques:

1. Software-based fusion of MRI and ultrasound images (software fusion) or
2. Visually estimated MRI-informed (cognitive fusion) technique

To date, there is a lack of adequately powered RCTs directly comparing the cognitive vs fusion targeted biopsy. This randomized study will directly compare the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer following either the cognitive or the fusion targeted prostate biopsy in men with suspicious lesions noted on multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) of prostate.

Detailed description: For prostate cancer detection, pre-biopsy multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) followed by MRI-targeted prostate biopsy is standard of care which is supported by the guidelines from the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology. The MRI-targeted prostate biopsy is associated with a significant increase in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) compared to the ultrasound guided biopsy. The MRI-targeted biopsy can be performed using one of two techniques including software-based fusion of MRI and ultrasound images (software fusion) or visually guided MRI-informed (cognitive fusion) technique.

With regards to the diagnostic performance in detecting csPCa, current literature does not demonstrate a clear advantage to one targeting technique over the other. A systematic review and meta-analysis (published in early 2024) by Falagario et al evaluated all of the comparative studies of the above-mentioned MRI-targeting techniques. Of the 20 studies included, six reported improved detection of csPCa with fusion technique, one reported an advantage to the cognitive technique, while thirteen reported no significant difference. Of note, the majority of the studies were retrospective, with high risk of bias, that lacked uniform definition of csPCa, and employed variable mp-MRI technique (1.5T vs 3T) and scoring system (Likert vs PIRADS). There were only three small, prospective, randomized studies (RCT) available in the systematic review of literature. One RCT reported the fusion technique to be superior while two demonstrated no difference in csPCa detection rates. There was no significant difference in the detection of csPCa between the targeting techniques, however, low quality of evidence and heterogeneity warranted well-designed prospective studies.

Other studies, as well as personal experience, point to somewhat improved cancer detection the cognitive MRI-targeting approach, although the rates may be affected by patient selection related to lesion size and location.

Thus, the investigators are conducting an RCT to direct compare the csPCa detection rates following either the cognitive or the fusion targeted prostate biopsy in men with suspicious lesions noted on mp-MRI of prostate. The investigators hypothesize that the diagnostic accuracy MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive fusion technique is either similar to or not significantly inferior to the software fusion technique.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Men undergoing prostate biopsy (either transrectal or transperineal) for suspected prostate cancer as part of their regular medical care
* Must be eligible to undergo both prostate biopsy procedure (cognitive or fusion)
* Men undergoing their first prostate biopsy procedure or with no previous prostate biopsy within 3 years
* Pre-biopsy mp-MRI of prostate with one or more lesions classified as PIRADS 3-5
* Largest dimension of any lesion on mp-MRI to be ≤ 2 cm
* Prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 20 ng/mL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination

Exclusion Criteria:

* mp-MRI detected lesions that are \> 2 cm
* History of prostate biopsy within 3 years
* Previous diagnosis of prostate cancer
* Contraindications to prostate biopsy (eg, fever, evidence of genito-urinary infection, excessive co-morbidities as per treating physician)

Primary outcomes:
measure: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
timeFrame: 1 year
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the targeted cores, systematic biopsy cores, and combined
timeFrame: 1 year
measure: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer based on lesion size (< 0.5 cm; 0.5 cm to 1 cm; > 1.1 cm etc)
timeFrame: 1 year
measure: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at various lesion location (anterior, posterior, apex, base)
timeFrame: 1 year
measure: Detection rate of overall prostate cancer of any grade
timeFrame: 1 year
measure: Detection rate of clinically insignificant (low grade) prostate cancer
timeFrame: 1 year
measure: Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer based on PSA density (PSA level / prostate volume)
timeFrame: 1 year
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Albany
country: United States
facility: Albany Medical Center
state: New York
Study officials:
affiliation: Albany Medical College
name: Badar M Mian, MD
role: STUDY_CHAIR
References:
citation: Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budaus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG, Roobol MJ, Eggener S, Ghei M, Villers A, Bladou F, Villeirs GM, Virdi J, Boxler S, Robert G, Singh PB, Venderink W, Hadaschik BA, Ruffion A, Hu JC, Margolis D, Crouzet S, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Pinto P, Gill I, Allen C, Giganti F, Freeman A, Morris S, Punwani S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Deeks J, Takwoingi Y, Emberton M, Moore CM; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. Epub 2018 Mar 18.
citation: Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942.
citation: Falagario UG, Pellegrino F, Fanelli A, Guzzi F, Bartoletti R, Cash H, Pavlovich C, Emberton M, Carrieri G, Giannarini G. Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025 Jun;28(2):270-279. doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00827-x. Epub 2024 Apr 5.
citation: Izadpanahi MH, Elahian A, Gholipour F, Khorrami MH, Zargham M, Mohammadi Sichani M, Alizadeh F, Khorrami F. Diagnostic yield of fusion magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy versus cognitive-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients: a head-to-head randomized controlled trial. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021 Dec;24(4):1103-1109. doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00366-9. Epub 2021 Apr 27.
citation: Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Gabbert HE, Becker N, Antoch G, Albers P, Schimmoller L. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):713-20. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008. Epub 2015 Jun 23.
citation: Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, Bosch JLHR, Barentsz JO, Somford DM, van Melick HHE. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):582-590. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
citation: Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP Jr, Bernstein A, Fisher HAG. Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Following Transrectal and Transperineal Biopsy: Results of the Prostate Biopsy Efficacy and Complications Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024 Jul;212(1):21-31. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003979. Epub 2024 May 3.
citation: Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Cohen AJ, Ristau BT, Green DA, Han M, Rezaee ME, Pavlovich CP, Montgomery JS, Kowalczyk KJ, Ross AE, Kundu SD, Patel HD, Wang GJ, Graham JN, Shoag JE, Ghazi A, Singla N, Gorin MA, Schaeffer AJ, Schaeffer EM. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial. Eur Urol. 2024 Jul;86(1):61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015. Epub 2024 Jan 11.
citation: Ploussard G, Barret E, Fiard G, Lenfant L, Malavaud B, Giannarini G, Almeras C, Aziza R, Renard-Penna R, Descotes JL, Rozet F, Beauval JB, Salin A, Roupret M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1). Eur Urol Oncol. 2024 Oct;7(5):1080-1087. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.019. Epub 2024 Feb 24.
citation: Ortner G, Mavridis C, Fritz V, Schachtner J, Mamoulakis C, Nagele U, Tokas T. The Added Value of MRI-Based Targeted Biopsy in Biopsy-Naive Patients: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison. J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 27;13(5):1355. doi: 10.3390/jcm13051355.