MRI/TRUS Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy- An Improved Way to Detect and Quantify Prostate Cancer. A Phase III Study
The efficacy of targeting lesions for surgery may be limited by the visibility of a target
during the procedure. The successful outcome of surgical intervention depends upon accurate
device placement, which may be very challenging in certain settings, such as when a kidney
tumor only is visible for a brief moment during the transient arterial phase of a contrast
injection, and soon disappearing on dynamic imaging.
Historically, prostate cancer was diagnosed by digitally guided trans-rectal prostate
biopsies. With PSA (Prostate SPecific Antigen) screening and improvements in
ultrasonography, trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy have become the
standard of care to screen and diagnose localized prostate cancer. Standard US 12-14 core
prostate biopsy is now common practice, detecting cancer in 27% to 44% of patients.
Prostate MR imaging with the addition of an endorectal-coil probe and a 3 Tesla magnet
dramatically improves diagnostic utility dramatically but biopsies are difficult,
time-consuming, and require specialized equipment, which increases the cost significantly.
To meet this challenge TRUS images are overlaid on a previously obtained prostate MRI,
combined with an electromagnetic tracking system. The urologist then performs directed
prostate biopsies at MR-identified targets in addition to the standard 12-14 core biopsies.
This study will consist of comparison of the standard of care (TRUS guided prostate biopsy)
with the protocol biopsy which consists of a TRUS guided prostate biopsy and a MR/US fusion
tracked prostate biopsy. Each patient will act as their own control.
Interventional
Allocation: Non-Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, Masking: Open Label, Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Number of prostate lesions
To determine if the number of prostate lesions identified by targeted (MR / US fusion biopsy) plus conventional biopsy is statitically greater than the number of lesions identified conventional biopsy alone. The number of positive lesions identified by both techniques will be compared.
Day 1
Yes
United States: Institutional Review Board
02072012
NCT01566045
May 2012
April 2015
Name | Location |
---|---|
The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology | New Hyde Park, New York 11040 |