Initial experience with a novel method for cognitive transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy

Anaesthesia in PROstate Biopsy Pain Obstruction Study: A Study Protocol for a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Perineal Nerve Block in Controlling Pain in Patients Undergoing Transperineal Prostate Biopsy

Introduction: Transperineal prostate biopsy is as effective as the transrectal biopsy in detecting prostate cancer and has a lower risk of infection. However, concerning the procedural pain of the transperineal route, a higher level of anaesthesia is needed, which prevents this approach from being widely used. Although several methods of local anaesthesia to relieve pain during transperineal biopsy have been described, few well-designed trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of local anaesthesia.

Methods: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study in men suspected of having prostate cancer and planning to undergo transperineal prostate biopsy. The aim of this trial is to determine whether the perineal nerve block and periprostatic block relieve pain to different extents in men undergoing transperineal biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men aged between 18 and 80 years old, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 4–20 ng/ml, or/and suspicious rectal examination findings. A sample size of 190 participants, accounting for a 10% loss, is required. All participants will be randomly allocated at a ratio of 1:1 to the perineal nerve block (n = 95) and periprostatic block groups (n = 95). The primary outcome will be the level of the worst pain experienced during the transperineal prostate biopsy procedure, which will be measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS). The key secondary outcomes will include the pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after prostate biopsy.

Results: The primary outcome is the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. The main secondary outcomes are as follows: (1) Post-biopsy pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after the prostate biopsy; (2) Changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure; (3) External manifestations of pain during biopsy; (4) Anaesthesia satisfaction; (5) The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer and any prostate cancer.

Conclusion: Anaesthesia in PROstate biopsy Pain Obstruction Study (APROPOS) is randomised controlled trial aiming to determine the efficacy of the perineal nerve block in controlling pain in patients undergoing prostate biopsy via the transperineal approach.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04501055.

A Prospective Study Comparing Cancer Detection Rates of Transperineal Prostate Biopsies Performed by Junior Urologists versus a Senior Consultant in a Real-World Setting

INTRODUCTION

Prostate biopsy (PB) is a typical daily practice method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to compare the PCa detection rates and peri- and postoperative complications of PB among 3 residents and a consultant.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 343 patients who underwent PB between August 2018 and July 2019 were involved in this study. Residents were systematically trained for 2 weeks by a consultant for performing systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB). And then, 3 residents and the consultant performed PB independently every quarter due to routine rotation in daily practice. The peri- and postoperative data were collected from a prospectively maintained database (www.pc-follow.cn). The primary outcome and secondary outcome were to compare the PCa detection rates and complications between the residents and consultant, respectively.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the residents and consultant in terms of overall PCa detection rates of SB and TB or further stratified by prostate-specific antigen value and prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores. We found the consultant had more TB cores (175 cores vs. 86-114 cores, p = 0.043) and shorter procedural time (mean 16 min vs. 19.7-20.1 min, p < 0.001) versus the residents. The complication rate for the consultant was 6.7% and 5%-8.2% for the residents, respectively (p = 0.875).

CONCLUSIONS

The residents could get similar PCa detection and complication rates compared with that of the consultant after a 2-week training. However, the residents still need more cases to shorten the time of the biopsy procedure.

Study protocol for a single-centre non-inferior randomised controlled trial on a novel three-dimensional matrix positioning-based cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy and software-based fusion-targeted biopsy for the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in men without a prior biopsy

INTRODUCTION

The classical pathway for diagnosing prostate cancer is systematic 12-core biopsy under the guidance of transrectal ultrasound, which tends to underdiagnose the clinically significant tumour and overdiagnose the insignificant disease. Another pathway named targeted biopsy is using multiparametric MRI to localise the tumour precisely and then obtain the samples from the suspicious lesions. Targeted biopsy, which is mainly divided into cognitive fusion method and software-based fusion method, is getting prevalent for its good performance in detecting significant cancer. However, the preferred targeted biopsy technique in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer between cognitive fusion and software-based fusion is still beyond consensus.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial is a prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled and non-inferiority study in which all men suspicious to have clinically significant prostate cancer are included. This study aims to determine whether a novel three-dimensional matrix positioning cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy is non-inferior to software-based fusion-targeted biopsy in the detection rate of clinically significant cancer in men without a prior biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen above 4-20 ng/mL or with an abnormal digital rectal examination and have never had a biopsy before. A sample size of 602 participants allowing for a 10% loss will be recruited. All patients will undergo a multiparametric MRI examination, and those who fail to be found with a suspicious lesion, with the anticipation of half of the total number, will be dropped. The remaining participants will be randomly allocated to cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy (n=137) and software-based fusion-targeted biopsy (n=137). The primary outcome is the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer for cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy and software-based fusion-targeted biopsy in men without a prior biopsy. The clinically significant prostate cancer will be defined as the International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. The results of the study will be disseminated and published in international peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04271527).

A Comparative Study of Prostate Cancer Detection Rate Between Transperineal COG-TB and Transperineal FUS-TB in Patients with PSA ≤20 ng/mL

Background: The combination of prebiopsy MRI and transperineal targeted biopsies is being increasingly used to obtain tissues from patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To investigate the difference in PCa detection rate between transperineal cognitive fusion TB (COG-TB) and transperineal software fusion TB (FUS-TB). Participants: The present study included 163 male patients with suspected PCa who had not undergone prostate biopsy, had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤20 ng/mL, and had been examined by bi-parameter MRI and confirmed to have prostate nodules by prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS V2) scores ≥3 (from December 3, 2018 to October 7, 2019). Intervention: Seventy-one patients underwent transperineal COG-TB, and 92 patients underwent transperineal FUS-TB. The detection rate of the first four needles was compared. Results: No significant difference was found in the overall detection rate of PCa between COG-TB and FUS-TB (60.56% vs 51.08%, p = 0.228). This result was consistent even after stratifying by PI-RADS score. There was also no significant difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the detection rate of clinically significant PCa (p = 0.641). Moreover, COG-TB and FUS-TB showed no difference in the detection rate of PCa with different Gleason scores. Conclusions: In patients with suspected PCa with PSA ≤20 ng/mL and PI-RADS ≥3, FUS-TB was comparable to COG-TB in the detection rate of PCa.