Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen, Family History of Prostate Cancer, Positive Digital Rectal Exam, Prostate Cancer, Prostate Disease
Conditions
Keywords
Prostate Cancer, Prostate Biopsy, Prostate MRI, Targeted Prostate Biopsy, Fusion Biopsy
Brief summary
This research study is designed to determine if targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy is better than the standard of care ultrasound guided biopsy alone in diagnosing subjects with clinically significant prostate cancer with MRI visible lesions. This study will consist of comparing the standard of care (ultrasound guided prostate biopsy) with the protocol biopsy which consists of an ultrasound guided prostate biopsy and a MRI/US fusion tracked prostate biopsy.
Detailed description
The efficacy of targeting lesions for ultrasound-guided biopsy, surgery,or ablation may be limited by the visibility of a target during the procedure. The successful outcome of the intervention depends upon accurate device placement. Historically, prostate cancer was diagnosed by finger guided trans-rectal prostate biopsies. However, with the advent of PSA screening and improvements in ultrasonography, ultrasound guided prostate biopsy has become the standard of care to screen and diagnose men with prostate cancer. A standard 12-14 core prostate biopsy is now common practice, detecting cancer in 27% to 44% of patients in patients with an elevated serum PSA. Initially, prostate MR imaging was not considered for routine clinical practice. However, the addition of an endorectal-coil probe and a 3 Tesla magnet has improved its diagnostic utility. Currently, most mpMRI are done without the use of an endo-rectal coil at 3Tesla. The MRI is able to evaluate the entire prostate (transrectal ultrasound images are overlaid on a previously obtained prostate MRI, combined with an electromagnetic tracking system) prior to biopsy and allows the physician to target specific areas of the prostate that are suspicious for cancer. This contrasts with the typical US guided approach which samples regions of the prostate in a standard fashion. This study will consist of comparison of the standard of care prostate biopsy with the protocol biopsy which consists of a US guided prostate biopsy and a MR/US fusion tracked prostate biopsy. The researchers are interested in learning which procedure is more useful in obtaining a diagnosis of prostate cancer which will in turn provide a better diagnosis rate. Each patient will act as their own control.
Interventions
OTHERProstate Biopsy
Standard of care
Trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided fusion prostate biopsy (Arm 1) or a Transperineal Ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy (Arm 2). All patients will under go a standard ultrasound guided biopsy at the time of their targeted (fusion) biopsy.
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 prostate biopsies.
Sponsors
Philips Healthcare
Ardeshir Rastinehad
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. All patients must have a pre-operative MRI performed in accordance with Northwell/NIH MR Prostate imaging guidelines or equivalent. 2. Age greater than 18 years. 3. No serious concurrent medical illness that would preclude the patient from making a rational informed decision on participation. 4. The ability to understand willingness to sign a written informed consent form, and to comply with the protocol. If in question, an ethics consult will be obtained. 5. Ability to tolerate sedation and or general anesthesia if required. 6. PSA \>1.8 or Abnormal digital rectal exam or current recommendations or biopsy from the American Urological Association. 7. Pre-Biopsy prostate MRI as described above, showing targetable lesions within 4 months of biopsy 8. Able to tolerate an ultrasound guided biopsy.
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients with an altered mental status that precludes understanding or consenting for the biopsy procedure will be excluded from this study 2. Patients unlikely able to hold reasonably still on a procedure table for the length of the procedure 3. Patients with uncorrectable coagulopathies.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of Prostate Cancer | 1 Month | Incidence of diagnosing subjects with prostate cancer with MR visible lesions |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of adverse events | 1 Month | the incidence of adverse events occurring after a targeted and ultrasound guided prostate biopsy |
| Pirads score | 1 Month | The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score classifies MRI lesions on a scale from 1 to 5, which reflects their level of suspicion from least to most. Higher score indicates more suspicion. |
| Gleason score | 1 Month | The Gleason Score ranges from 1-5 and describes how much the cancer from a biopsy looks like healthy tissue (lower score) or abnormal tissue (higher score). Sum of the gleason grade of the most predominant tumor pattern and a second gleason grade of the second most predominant pattern. Full score from 2 to 10, with higher score indicating more clinically significance. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
Primary ContactArdeshir R Rastinehad, DO
Backup ContactCynthia Knauer, RN
Outcome results
None listed