Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial
Official title:
Accuracy of Multi-parametric Prostate MRI and MRI-targeted, Ultrasound-navigated Prostate Fusion Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer:
NCT number | NCT03615131 |
Other study ID # | 2016-01098 |
Secondary ID | |
Status | Completed |
Phase | |
First received | |
Last updated | |
Start date | September 1, 2015 |
Est. completion date | March 30, 2017 |
Verified date | August 2018 |
Source | Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Observational |
The investigators examined whether a high PI-RADS v2 score correlates with the presence of prostate cancer. In addition, the investigator inspected whether the lesion size as determined by mpMRI correlates with the presence of prostate cancer. Furthermore, the investigators study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI with respect to prostate carcinoma detection.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 157 |
Est. completion date | March 30, 2017 |
Est. primary completion date | March 30, 2017 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
Gender | Male |
Age group | 18 Years and older |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Patients with mRI-TRUS Fusion prostate biopsy - age > 18y - elevated PSA - suspicious DRE (digital rectal examination) - patients with prostate cancer under active surveillance Exclusion Criteria: - age < 18y - treated prostate cancer (Radiotherapy, antiandrogens therapy, brachytherapy, HIFU). |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Switzerland | Klinik für Urologie Kantonsspital Winterthur | Winterthur | Zürich |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Kantonsspital Winterthur KSW |
Switzerland,
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. Epub 2017 Jan 20. — View Citation
Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Gabbert HE, Becker N, Antoch G, Albers P, Schimmöller 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. — View Citation
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Fütterer JJ; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. Epub 2012 Feb 10. — View Citation
Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Holzmann J, Asbach P, Haas M, Hinz S, Neymeyer J, Miller K, Günzel K, Kempkensteffen C. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 2016 Apr;34(4):525-32. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1671-8. Epub 2015 Aug 21. — View Citation
Chondros ?, Karpathakis ?, Heretis ?, Mavromanolakis ?, Chondros N, Sofras F, Mamoulakis C. Validation of revised Epstein's criteria for insignificant prostate cancer prediction in a Greek subpopulation. Hippokratia. 2015 Jan-Mar;19(1):30-3. — View Citation
Egevad L, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer - An ISUP consensus on contemporary grading. APMIS. 2016 Jun;124(6):433-5. doi: 10.1111/apm.12533. — View Citation
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. Review. — View Citation
Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1112-1121. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033. Epub 2014 Nov 6. Review. — View Citation
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N; European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):124-37. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046. Epub 2013 Oct 6. — View Citation
Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Vos PC, Huisman H, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Fütterer JJ. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):46-66. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11091822. Review. — View Citation
Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, Hutterer GC, Ahyai S, Lattouf JB, Haese A, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Heinzer H, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI. Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol. 2008 Dec;54(6):1306-13. Epub 2007 Dec 7. — View Citation
Kuru TH, Herden J, Zugor V, Akbarov I, Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A. How to Perform Image-guided Prostate Biopsy: In-bore and Fusion Approaches. Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Jun;2(2):151-153. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.03.016. Epub 2016 Apr 12. — View Citation
Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendörfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, Rieker P, Popeneciu VI, Roth W, Pahernik S, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013 Oct;190(4):1380-6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.043. Epub 2013 Apr 19. — View Citation
Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, Huang J, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):569-76. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079. Epub 2014 Sep 23. — View Citation
Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer - A Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions. Curr Urol. 2015 Jul;8(2):96-100. doi: 10.1159/000365697. Epub 2015 Jul 10. — View Citation
Martorana E, Micali S, Ghaith A, Reggiani Bonetti L, Sighinolfi MC, Galli R, Paterlini M, Bianchi G. Advantages of single-puncture transperineal saturation biopsy of prostate: analysis of outcomes in 125 patients using our scheme. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015 May;47(5):735-41. doi: 10.1007/s11255-015-0967-3. Epub 2015 Apr 8. — View Citation
Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M, Micali S, Iseppi A, Bonetti LR, Kaleci S, Torricelli P, Bianchi G. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score. BJU Int. 2017 Jul;120(1):92-103. doi: 10.1111/bju.13649. Epub 2016 Oct 4. — View Citation
Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, Suetomi T, Tsutsumi M, Irie T, Kondoh M, Mitake T. Real-time Virtual Sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol. 2010 Oct;17(10):855-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02612.x. Epub 2010 Aug 27. — View Citation
Oon SF, Watson RW, O'Leary JJ, Fitzpatrick JM. Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011 Aug;108(4):518-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.09979.x. Epub 2011 Feb 14. Review. — View Citation
Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Albers P, Antoch G, Rabenalt R. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2014 Nov;192(5):1374-9. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090. Epub 2014 May 24. — View Citation
Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K, Distler F, Roth W, Wieczorek K, Stock C, Duensing S, Roethke MC, Teber D, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Bonekamp D, Hadaschik BA. Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):888-896. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039. Epub 2017 Apr 8. — View Citation
Renard Penna R, Brenot-Rossi I, Salomon L, Soulié M. [Prostate cancer imaging: MRI and nuclear imaging]. Prog Urol. 2015 Nov;25(15):933-46. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2015.07.016. Review. French. — View Citation
Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Mueller-Wolf MB, Agterhuis E, Edler C, Hohenfellner M, Schlemmer HP, Hadaschik BA. Evaluation of an Automated Analysis Tool for Prostate Cancer Prediction Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. PLoS One. 2016 Jul 25;11(7):e0159803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159803. eCollection 2016. — View Citation
Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, Schlemmer HP, Hadaschik BA. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol. 2014 Feb;24(2):344-52. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3017-5. Epub 2013 Oct 3. Erratum in: Eur Radiol. 2014 Apr;24(4):967. — View Citation
Samaratunga H, Delahunt B, Yaxley J, Srigley JR, Egevad L. From Gleason to International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2016 Oct;50(5):325-9. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2016.1201858. Epub 2016 Jul 14. Review. — View Citation
Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Lanzman RS, Hiester A, Rabenalt R, Antoch G, Albers P, Blondin D. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol. 2013 Nov;23(11):3185-90. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2922-y. Epub 2013 Jun 12. — View Citation
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037. Epub 2014 Dec 3. Review. — View Citation
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Hoang AN, Walton-Diaz A, Shuch B, Weintraub M, Kruecker J, Amalou H, Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013 Nov;64(5):713-719. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059. Epub 2013 Jun 12. — View Citation
Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T, Cooper D, Gansler T, Lerro C, Fedewa S, Lin C, Leach C, Cannady RS, Cho H, Scoppa S, Hachey M, Kirch R, Jemal A, Ward E. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jul-Aug;62(4):220-41. doi: 10.3322/caac.21149. Epub 2012 Jun 14. Review. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Sep-Oct;62(5):348. — View Citation
Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):809-15. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025. Epub 2013 Mar 17. — View Citation
Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM, Daniel BL, To'o KJ, Thong AE, Leppert JT. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Dec 6. pii: S2405-4569(17)30266-3. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010. [Epub ahead of print] — View Citation
Tewes S, Hueper K, Hartung D, Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Weidemann J, Renckly S, Kuczyk MA, Wacker F, Peters I. Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results. World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1707-14. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1525-4. Epub 2015 Mar 14. — View Citation
Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, Ehdaie B, Hadaschik BA, Marks LS, Mozer P, Rastinehad AR, Ahmed HU. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):8-19. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.026. Epub 2014 Nov 1. Review. — View Citation
Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, Ehdaie B, Woo S, Fine SW, Reuter VE, Sala E, Hricak H. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. 2016 Jun;26(6):1606-12. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6. Epub 2015 Sep 22. — View Citation
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. Epub 2015 Oct 1. — View Citation
Zhang L, Tang M, Chen S, Lei X, Zhang X, Huan Y. A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2017 Dec;27(12):5204-5214. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4843-7. Epub 2017 Jun 27. Review. — View Citation
* Note: There are 36 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Gleason score (minimum 2 to maximum of 10) | Histological grade of the glandular structures of prostate cancer tissue or the difference in appearance compared with a normal structure. Pattern 1 - corresponds to a well differentiated carcinoma. Pattern 2 - corresponds to a moderately differentiated carcinoma. Pattern 3 - invade the surrounding tissue or having an infiltrative pattern; corresponds to a moderately differentiated carcinoma. Pattern 4 - corresponds to a poorly differentiated carcinoma. Pattern 5 - corresponds to an anaplastic carcinoma. The pathologist then sums the pattern-number of the primary and secondary grades to obtain the final Gleason score. Gleason scores range from 2 to 10, with 2 representing the most well-differentiated tumors and 10 the least-differentiated tumors. |
01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 | |
Primary | ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) Grading Group (Grade 1 to Grade 5) | New grading system for histological grade of the glandular structures of prostate cancer tissue or the difference in appearance compared with a normal structure Grade Group 1 (Gleason score =6) - Only individual discrete well-formed glands Grade Group 2 (Gleason score 3+4=7) - Predominantly well-formed glands with a lesser component of poorly-formed/fused/cribriform glands Grade Group 3 (Gleason score 4+3=7) - Predominantly poorly-formed/fused/cribriform glands with a lesser component of well-formed glands Grade Group 4 (Gleason score 8) Only poorly-formed/fused/cribriform glands or Predominantly well-formed glands with a lesser component lacking glands or Predominantly lacking glands with a lesser component of well-formed glands Grade Group 5 (Gleason scores 9-10) - Lacks gland formation (or with necrosis) with or without poorly-formed/fused/cribriform glands |
01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 | |
Primary | lesion volume (ml) | millilitre; size of suspected areas in prostate gland in MRI | 01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 | |
Primary | PI-RADS v2 (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2) score (1 - 5) | Radiological grading system of prostate lesions in mpMRI The PI-RADS v2 system is designed to standardize image acquisition and reporting, and to be used by medical professionals in the initial evaluation of patients to assess the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer that may require biopsy and treatment. The scale is based on a score "Yes" or "No" for Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) parameter, and from 1 to 5 for T2-weighted (T2W) and Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The score is given for each lesion, with 1 being most probably benign and 5 being highly suspicious of malignancy: PI-RADS 1: very low (clinically significant cancer is highly unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 2: low (clinically significant cancer is unlikely to be present) PI-RADS 3: intermediate (clinically significant cancer is equivocal) PI-RADS 4: high (clinically significant cancer is likely to be present) PI-RADS 5: very high (clinically significant cancer is highly likely to be present) |
01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 | |
Primary | Prostate specific antigen (PSA) | ng per ml; enzyme secreted by the prostate gland | 01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 | |
Primary | Digital rectal examination (DRE) | consistence of prostate gland | 01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 | |
Primary | Prostate specific antigen - density | ng per ml per ml; The relationship of the prostate specific antigen level to the size and weight (volume) of the prostate. | 01.09.2015 - 30.03.2017 |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT05540392 -
An Acupuncture Study for Prostate Cancer Survivors With Urinary Issues
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05613023 -
A Trial of 5 Fraction Prostate SBRT Versus 5 Fraction Prostate and Pelvic Nodal SBRT
|
Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05156424 -
A Comparison of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise to Counteract Treatment Side Effects in Men With Prostate Cancer
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT03177759 -
Living With Prostate Cancer (LPC)
|
||
Completed |
NCT01331083 -
A Phase II Study of PX-866 in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05540782 -
A Study of Cognitive Health in Survivors of Prostate Cancer
|
||
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04742361 -
Efficacy of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT in Patients With Biochemial Recurrent Prostate Cancer
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT04400656 -
PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial
|
||
Completed |
NCT02282644 -
Individual Phenotype Analysis in Patients With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer With CellSearch® and Flow Cytometry
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT06305832 -
Salvage Radiotherapy Combined With Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) With or Without Rezvilutamide in the Treatment of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT06037954 -
A Study of Mental Health Care in People With Cancer
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05761093 -
Patient and Physician Benefit/ Risk Preferences for Treatment of mPC in Hong Kong: a Discrete Choice Experiment
|
||
Completed |
NCT04838626 -
Study of Diagnostic Performance of [18F]CTT1057 for PSMA-positive Tumors Detection
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03101176 -
Multiparametric Ultrasound Imaging in Prostate Cancer
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT03290417 -
Correlative Analysis of the Genomics of Vitamin D and Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake in Prostate Cancer
|
N/A | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT00341939 -
Retrospective Analysis of a Drug-Metabolizing Genotype in Cancer Patients and Correlation With Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamics Data
|
||
Completed |
NCT01497925 -
Ph 1 Trial of ADI-PEG 20 Plus Docetaxel in Solid Tumors With Emphasis on Prostate Cancer and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
|
Phase 1 | |
Recruiting |
NCT03679819 -
Single-center Trial for the Validation of High-resolution Transrectal Ultrasound (Exact Imaging Scanner ExactVu) for the Detection of Prostate Cancer
|
||
Completed |
NCT03554317 -
COMbination of Bipolar Androgen Therapy and Nivolumab
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT03271502 -
Effect of Anesthesia on Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Patients Undergoing Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy
|
N/A |