Comparing MRI-Ultrasound Fusion and Cognitive-guided Biopsy for the Detection of csPCa: the PROFUSION Trial

Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial

Official title:

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing MRI-Ultrasound Fusion and Cognitive-guided Biopsy for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: the PROFUSION Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT06303622
• Other study ID #: CRE-2023.610
• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: June 1, 2024
• Est. completion date: March 31, 2027

Study information

• Verified date: April 2024
• Source: Chinese University of Hong Kong
• Contact: Peter Ka-Fungq CHIU, PhD
• Phone: 35052625
• Email: peterchiu[@]surgery.cuhk.edu.hk
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This study is an international multicentre RCT to compare the linically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection of cognitive-guided and MRI-USG guided biopsies in men with suspicious MRI lesion.

Description:

This study is an international multicentre RCT to compare the csPCa detection of cognitive-guided and MRI-USG guided biopsies in men with suspicious MRI lesion. This is a phase III randomised controlled trial to evaluate the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by MRI-USG fusion approach (MRUS arm) versus Cognitive-guided approach (COG arm). The study hypothesis is that MRUS arm is superior to COG arm in detecting csPCa. The result of this RCT would impact how MRI-guided prostate biopsies should be done in the future. If the MRI-USG fusion approach is superior to cognitive-guidance in csPCa detection, it should be the standard of practice in the future, and dedicated MRI-USG fusion equipment should be available in centres performing prostate biopsies.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Not yet recruiting
• Enrollment: 1250
• Est. completion date: March 31, 2027
• Est. primary completion date: December 31, 2026
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Male
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Men =18 years of age
• Clinical suspicion of prostate cancer and indicated for prostate biopsy
• Serum Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 20 ng/mL
• Digital rectal examination = cT2 (organ-confined cancer)
• Able to provide written informed consent
• MRI prostate (contrast or plain) showing 1-3 suspicious lesion(s) with PI-RADS score 3-5

Exclusion Criteria:

• Prior prostate biopsy in the 2 years before screening visit
• Prior diagnosis of prostate cancer
• Contraindicated to prostate biopsy: active urinary tract infection, failed insertion of transrectal ultrasound probe into rectum (abdominal perineal resection, anal stenosis), uncorrectable coagulopathy, antiplatelet or anticoagulant which cannot be stopped (continue low-dose aspirin before and after biopsy is permitted)
• Patient refusal for biopsy

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Prostate Cancer
• Prostatic Neoplasms

Intervention

Procedure:
• MRI-USG fusion approach
MRI-USG fusion approach prostate biopsy
• Cognitive-guided approach
Cognitive-guided approach prostate biopsy

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Hong Kong	Prince of Wales Hospital	Hong Kong

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Chinese University of Hong Kong

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Hong Kong, 

References & Publications (16)

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, Bloom J, Gurram S, Siddiqui M, Pinsky P, Parnes H, Linehan WM, Merino M, Choyke PL, Shih JH, Turkbey B, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038. — View Citation

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

Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, Tijsterman JD, Beerlage HP, Mannaerts CK, Schimmoller L, Albers P, Arsov C. Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):310-318. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031. Epub 2018 Aug 3. — View Citation

Chan SY, Ng CF, Lee KW, Yee CH, Chiu PK, Teoh JY, Hou SS. Differences in cancer characteristics of Chinese patients with prostate cancer who present with different symptoms. Hong Kong Med J. 2017 Feb;23(1):6-12. doi: 10.12809/hkmj164875. Epub 2016 Dec 9. — View Citation

Chiu PK, Alberts AR, Venderbos LDF, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Additional benefit of using a risk-based selection for prostate biopsy: an analysis of biopsy complications in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2017 Sep;120(3):394-400. doi: 10.1111/bju.13913. Epub 2017 Jun 5. — View Citation

Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Teoh JY, Yuen SK, Hou SM, Yiu MK, Ng CF. Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Mar;20(1):99-104. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.57. Epub 2016 Nov 29. — View Citation

Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Teoh JY, Lee WM, Yip SY, Hou SM, Bangma CH, Ng CF. Prostate health index (PHI) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) predictive models for prostate cancer in the Chinese population and the role of digital rectal examination-estimated prostate volume. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016 Oct;48(10):1631-7. doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1350-8. Epub 2016 Jun 27. — View Citation

Connor MJ, Gorin MA, Eldred-Evans D, Bass EJ, Desai A, Dudderidge T, Winkler M, Ahmed HU. Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol. 2023 Apr;20(4):241-258. doi: 10.1038/s41585-022-00684-0. Epub 2023 Jan 18. — View Citation

Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 25;4(4):CD012663. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2. — View Citation

Gigot O. [Treatment of alcoholic intoxication (exclusive of acute attacks)]. Infirm Fr. 1970 Jun;116:31 passimc. No abstract available. French. — View Citation

Heidegger I, Pichler R. Re: Peter K.-F. Chiu, Chi-Fai Ng, Axel Semjonow, et al. A Multicentre Evaluation of the Role of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in Regions with Differing Prevalence of Prostate Cancer: Adjustment of PHI Reference Ranges is Needed for European and Asian Settings. Eur Urol 2019;75:558-61. Eur Urol. 2019 Jun;75(6):e158-e159. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.041. Epub 2019 Jan 5. No abstract available. — View 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. — View Citation

Patasius A, Smailyte G. Re: MaryBeth B. Culp, Isabelle Soerjomataram, Jason A. Efstathiou, Freddie Bray, Ahmedin Jemal. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol 2020;77:38-52. Eur Urol. 2020 May;77(5):e132. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.030. Epub 2019 Dec 13. No abstract available. — View Citation

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4. — View Citation

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. Epub 2019 Mar 18. — View Citation

Wong HF, Yee CH, C Teoh JY, S Chan SY, F Chiu PK, Cheung HY, M Hou SS, Ng CF. Time trend and characteristics of prostate cancer diagnosed in Hong Kong (China) in the past two decades. Asian J Androl. 2018 Sep 4;21(1):104-6. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_75_18. Online ahead of print. No abstract available. — View Citation

* Note: There are 16 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Proportion of men with clinically significant Prostate cancer(csPCa)	ISUP Grade 2 or above prostate cancer diagnosed on biopsy	When histology results available, at an expected average of 30 days post-biopsy
Secondary	Proportion of men with a diagnosis of csPCa in MRI lesions with maximal size =10mm versus >10mm	MRI lesions with maximal size =10mm versus >10mm	When histology results available, at an expected average of 30 days post-biopsy
Secondary	Proportion of men with a diagnosis of csPCa in prostate size of =50ml vs >50m	prostate size of =50ml vs >50ml	When histology results available, at an expected average of 30 days post-biopsy
Secondary	The proportion of men with a diagnosis of csPCa only in targeted biopsy	ISUP Grade 2 or above prostate cancer diagnosed on biopsy	When histology results available, at an expected average of 30 days post-biopsy
Secondary	Proportion of men with a diagnosis of csPCa only in systemic biopsy	ISUP Grade 2 or above prostate cancer diagnosed on biopsy	When histology results available, at an expected average of 30 days post-biopsy
Secondary	Proportion of men with a diagnosis of clinically insignificant PCa,	ISUP grade group 1 Prostate cancer diagnosed on biopsy	When histology results available, at an expected average of 30 days post-biopsy
Secondary	Procedure time	Total time of procedure	During biopsy procedure
Secondary	Pain score on a scale of 0-10 taken after biopsy	The higher the score, the more pain	Immediately After biopsy procedure
Secondary	Proportion of men with post-biopsy adverse events within 30 days after biopsy	The severity of Adverse event is grade by Clavien-Dindo classification	30 days post biopsy

External Links

•   Hong Kong Cancer Statistics