Working...
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Two Different Prostate Biopsy Schemes

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02825225
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 7, 2016
Last Update Posted : July 7, 2016
Sponsor:
Collaborator:
Hospital Brigadeiro UGA V-SP
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Jose Pontes Jr, University of Nove de Julho

Brief Summary:
The main purpose is to compare the detection rate of 20-core versus 12-core prostate biopsy. The secondary objective is to evaluate pain perception using a validated scale to compare the analgesia provided by the two different local anesthesia schemes. Data will be prospectively collected from patients who will undergo prostate biopsy in a single high volume urology center. The patients will be randomized to two different biopsy samplings and two local anesthesia schemes.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Prostate Cancer Local Anesthesia Prostate-Specific Antigen/Blood Biopsy/Methods Image-guided Biopsy/Methods Prostatic Neoplasms/Diagnosis Prostate/Pathology Prospective Studies Humans Male Ultrasonography, Interventional/Methods Other: 20 core-biopsy fragments Procedure: Base and apex local anesthesia Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

Prostate cancer is male's leading solid non-cutaneous tumor, and the second cause of cancer death in western countries. The main risk factors are age (5th decade or more), family history and life-style (low physical activity and occidental dietary habit). Due to it's high incidence and mortality, the screening protocols continue to be supported worldwide by the urologic and oncologic societies. The diagnosis of this disease needs histological evidence that is obtained by prostate biopsy which is indicated when prostate specific antigen (PSA) serum levels are elevated or there is suspicion at digital rectal examination. Actual estimations conclude that more than 200.000 new cases are diagnosed per-year in US and much more patients are submitted to biopsies; turning prostate biopsy a routine medical procedure. In therms of current medical evidence there is controversy in some biopsy aspects. The ideal number of fragments to be obtained is not well established. While twelve core is believed to be the minimum to be sampled, the maximum number is not clear. To ease the estimation of the number of necessary core at biopsy the literature recommend the use of nomograms; they adequate the number of removed fragments according to each individual characteristics such as age, volume, previous biopsy and PSA levels. The prostate biopsy is considered a painful procedure by 96% of patients, therefore it is fundamental to soften the soreness employing some form of anesthesia. There is no consensus regarding the ideal protocol but the local anesthesia with the periprostatic blockade is the most employed worldwide. However there is a controversy related to the site of the injection during the periprostatic block in terms of efficacy: base versus apex or both sites.

Considering the epidemiological importance of prostate cancer detection in a continuous aging population, this study protocol was enrolled in a single center high volume urology Brazilian Public Hospital. The patients will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio for the two biopsy schemes and for the two anesthesia templates.The main objective was to compare the detection rate of two different prostate biopsy schemes 20-core versus 12-core prostate biopsy guided by transrectal ultrasound. Secondary objectives were to evaluate pain perception of the two local anesthesia schemes using a validated pain scale. The pain was evaluated using the visual pain scale immediately after the biopsy and one hour after the procedure. The patients were contacted by phone one week after the biopsy to assess the occurrence of any complication. The investigators then compared the major and minor complication rates of 20-core versus 12-core protocol using the Clavien-Dindo scale. In those patients with cancer at the pathologic report that underwent radical prostatectomy, the investigators will also compare the concordance of Gleason score between the biopsy versus surgical specimen according to the biopsy scheme 20-core versus 12-core.

Data was collected since mid 2012 up to june 2016, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be detailed elsewhere. All information was obtained by the main investigator and all procedures were supervised by the main investigator as well.


Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 750 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
Official Title: A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of 20-core Versus 12-core Prostate Biopsy
Study Start Date : May 2012
Actual Primary Completion Date : June 2016
Actual Study Completion Date : June 2016

Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine


Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: 20 core-biopsy fragments
Patients submitted to experimental intervention (extended sextant biopsy with 20 cores) compared to current standard biopsy protocol (extended sextant biopsy with 12 cores) guided by transrectal ultrasound.
Other: 20 core-biopsy fragments
Using the extended sextant fashion prostate biopsy, this randomized group was submitted to a 20-fragments core-biopsy to evaluate the diagnostic power, pain perception and complications comparative to institution's standard 12 cores.

Procedure: Base and apex local anesthesia
Using the institution's standard local anesthesia protocol (base injection) as active comparator group, this randomized group was submitted to base and apex local anesthetic application to evaluate tolerability of the procedure, pain perception (with use of previous validated analogue pain scale) and complications.

Experimental: Base and apex local anesthesia
Patients submitted to experimental intervention in prostate-biopsy anesthetic protocol (prostate base and prostate apex bilateral local anesthetic injection) compared to participants submitted to current standard anesthetic protocol in institution (prostate base bilateral local anesthesia) guided by transrectal ultrasound. guided by transrectal ultrasound.
Other: 20 core-biopsy fragments
Using the extended sextant fashion prostate biopsy, this randomized group was submitted to a 20-fragments core-biopsy to evaluate the diagnostic power, pain perception and complications comparative to institution's standard 12 cores.

Procedure: Base and apex local anesthesia
Using the institution's standard local anesthesia protocol (base injection) as active comparator group, this randomized group was submitted to base and apex local anesthetic application to evaluate tolerability of the procedure, pain perception (with use of previous validated analogue pain scale) and complications.




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Number of participants with prostate cancer detected. [ Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of four years. ]
    Statistical evaluation comparing detection of prostate cancer in 12-core versus 20 cores.


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Number of participants with complications [ Time Frame: Immediate, early (30 minutes) and late (within first week) ]
    Comparison of data between 12 versus 20 core-biopsy and base versus base plus apex anesthesia in therms of complication occurrence.

  2. Core biopsy accuracy. [ Time Frame: Through study completion, at time of surgery. ]
    Comparison of cancer positive pathology data between 12 and 20 core-biopsy with their respective radical prostatectomy hole mount pathology specimen (when treatment was indicated).

  3. Pain perception using pain analogue scale. [ Time Frame: Immediate and early (30 minutes after biopsy). ]
    Compare pain perception of two anesthesia scheme base versus base plus apex using the visual pain analogue scale immediately after the biopsy and 30 minutes later. The investigators will also compared the analgesia of these schemes according to PSA, PSA density, free/total PSA ratio, prostate volume, previous biopsy.

  4. Number of participants with prostate cancer detected according to PSA value [ Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of four years. ]
    The investigators will also compare the detection rate of 12 versus 20 fragments schemes according to the PSA value.

  5. Number of participants with prostate cancer detected according to PSA density. [ Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of four years. ]
    The investigators will also compare the detection rate of 12 versus 20 fragments schemes according to the PSA density.

  6. Number of participants with prostate cancer detected according to free/total PSA ratio. [ Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of four years. ]
    The investigators will also compare the detection rate of 12 versus 20 fragments schemes according to the PSA free/total PSA ratio.

  7. Number of participants with prostate cancer detected according to prostate volume. [ Time Frame: Through study completion, an average of four years. ]
    The investigators will also compare the detection rate of 12 versus 20 fragments schemes according to prostate volume.



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   30 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   Male
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Formal indication to prostate biopsy: PSA elevation, positive digital rectal examination of prostate, prostate cancer active surveillance protocols.
  • Patients signing the consent therm agreeing to participate in the trial
  • Exclusive local anesthesia prostate biopsy.
  • Exclusive transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Transperineal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy
  • Magnetic resonance cognitive fusion biopsy.
  • Previous treatment with radiation therapy or brachytherapy.
  • Previous treatment with focal therapy
  • Previous androgen deprivation therapy

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02825225


Locations
Layout table for location information
Brazil
Hospital Brigadeiro UGA V-SP
Sao Paulo, Brazil, 01401-901
Sponsors and Collaborators
University of Nove de Julho
Hospital Brigadeiro UGA V-SP
Investigators
Layout table for investigator information
Principal Investigator: Jose Pontes Jr, MD PhD University of Nove de Julho

Additional Information:
Publications of Results:

Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Jose Pontes Jr, MD PhD, University of Nove de Julho
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02825225     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: Prostate biopsy - 01
First Posted: July 7, 2016    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: July 7, 2016
Last Verified: July 2016
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: No
Plan Description: Secrecy will be maintained in observation of ethics committee opinion.

Keywords provided by Jose Pontes Jr, University of Nove de Julho:
Prostatic Neoplasms
Biopsy
Anesthesia
Detection

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Genital Neoplasms, Male
Urogenital Neoplasms
Neoplasms by Site
Neoplasms
Genital Diseases, Male
Prostatic Diseases
Anesthetics
Central Nervous System Depressants
Physiological Effects of Drugs