Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 12:05 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 10:03 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05589558
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2022-10-21
First Post:
2022-10-18
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Prospective Comparison of the Four Biopsy Methods for Prostate Cancer Detection
Sponsor:
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Prospective Comparison of the Four Biopsy Methods for Prostate Cancer Detection
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2022-10
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The aim of this study is to compare clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate by the 4 biopsy methods: TRUS-guided, cognitive, fusion and transperineal template mapping biopsy.
It is recommended to combine MRI-guided biopsy with systematic (TRUS-guided or transperineal template mapping biopsy) biopsy for high yield of prostate cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which biopsy combination is more precise for prostate cancer detection.
It is recommended to combine MRI-guided biopsy with systematic (TRUS-guided or transperineal template mapping biopsy) biopsy for high yield of prostate cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which biopsy combination is more precise for prostate cancer detection.
Detailed Description:
Taking into consideration the variety of prostate biopsy methods (TRUS-guided, cognitive, fusion and transperineal template mapping biopsy), the issue of indications for each of them remains unresolved. Current EAU guidelines recommend combining MRI-guided biopsy with systematic (TRUS-guided or transperineal template mapping biopsy) one for high yield of prostate cancer diagnosis. Nevertheless, it also remains unclear which biopsy combination is more precise for prostate cancer detection.
This is a prospective single-arm study.
All patients underwent prostate TRUS examination and mpMRI. Suspicious lesion found on MRI were classified with the Pi-RADS v2.1. First step: the "unblinded" urologist №1 performed a fusion and transperineal template mapping biopsy. Second step: the "blinded" urologist №2 performed TRUS-guided and cognitive biopsy.
Objectives of the study: to determine clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate, overall cancer detection rate, clinically insignificant prostate cancer detection rate, sampling efficiency (positive biopsy cores' number, maximum cancer core length (MCCL)). Results were calculated for each biopsy method separately and for combinations of TRUS-guided and cognitive biopsy (combination №1) and fusion and transperineal template mapping biopsy (combination №2).
This is a prospective single-arm study.
All patients underwent prostate TRUS examination and mpMRI. Suspicious lesion found on MRI were classified with the Pi-RADS v2.1. First step: the "unblinded" urologist №1 performed a fusion and transperineal template mapping biopsy. Second step: the "blinded" urologist №2 performed TRUS-guided and cognitive biopsy.
Objectives of the study: to determine clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate, overall cancer detection rate, clinically insignificant prostate cancer detection rate, sampling efficiency (positive biopsy cores' number, maximum cancer core length (MCCL)). Results were calculated for each biopsy method separately and for combinations of TRUS-guided and cognitive biopsy (combination №1) and fusion and transperineal template mapping biopsy (combination №2).
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
True
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: