Dataset Information

A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial comparing first-generation transrectal high-resolution micro-ultrasound with conventional frequency transrectal ultrasound for prostate biopsy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study high-frequency 29 MHz transrectal side-fire micro-ultrasound (micro-US) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on prostate biopsy, and validate an image interpretation protocol for micro-US imaging of the prostate.

Materials and methods

A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed where 1676 men with indications for prostate biopsy and without known prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to micro-US vs conventional end-fire ultrasound (conv-US) transrectal-guided prostate biopsy across five sites in North America. The trial was split into two phases, before and after training on a micro-US image interpretation protocol that was developed during the trial using data from the pre-training micro-US arm. Investigators received a standardized training program mid-trial, and the post-training micro-US data were used to examine the training effect.

Results

Detection of csPCa (the primary outcome) was no better with the first-generation micro-US system than with conv-US in the overall population (34.6% vs 36.6%, respectively, P = .21). Data from the first portion of the trial were, however, used to develop an image interpretation protocol termed PRI-MUS in order to address the lack of understanding of the appearance of cancer under micro-US. Micro-US sensitivity in the post-training group improved to 60.8% from 24.6% (P < .01), while specificity decreased (from 84.2% to 63.2%). Detection of csPCa in the micro-US arm increased by 7% after training (32% to 39%, P < .03), but training instituted mid-trial did not affect the overall results of the comparison between arms.

Conclusion

Micro-US provided no clear benefit over conv-US for the detection of csPCa at biopsy. However, it became evident during the trial that training and increasing experience with this novel technology improved the performance of this first-generation system.

SUBMITTER: Pavlovich CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8988781 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy detect more high risk prostate cancer and less low risk prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. However, there remains a small subset of patients in whom systematic biopsy captures higher grade disease than fusion biopsy. We sought to identify potential mechanisms of the failure of fusion biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy from 2007 to 2014. In patients in whom disease was upgraded to clinically significant disease (Gleason 7 or greater) by systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy, independent re-review of magnetic resonance imaging, archived biopsy imaging and whole mount pathology as well as needle coordinate mapping were performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. RESULTS:Disease was upgraded based on systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy in 135 of 1,003 patients (13.5%), of whom only 62 (6.2%) were upgraded to intermediate (Gleason 7) and high risk (Gleason 8 or greater) prostate cancer (51 or 5.1% and 11 or 1.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), higher magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (p <0.001) and a lower number of target cores (p = 0.001) were predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. Main mechanisms of under grading by fusion biopsy included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reader oversight, presence of magnetic resonance imaging invisible cancer, fusion biopsy technique error and intralesion Gleason heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy rarely missed clinically significant prostate cancer as only 62 of 1,003 cases (6.2%) were upgraded to clinically significant disease by systematic biopsy. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined. Further studies will help clarify mechanisms of fusion biopsy failure and the patient populations that benefit from systematic biopsy in addition to fusion biopsy.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on how to investigate men with negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-B) but ongoing suspicion of cancer. Three strategies used are transperineal (TP-B), transrectal saturation (TS-B) and MRI-guided biopsy (MRI-B). We compared cancer yields of these strategies. METHODS: Papers were identified by search of Pubmed, Embase and Ovid Medline. Included studies investigated biopsy diagnostic yield in men with at least one negative TRUS-B and ongoing suspicion of prostate cancer. Data including age, PSA, number of previous biopsy episodes, number of cores at re-biopsy, cancer yield, and Gleason score of detected cancers were extracted. Meta-regression analyses were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included; 12 of TS-B, 14 of TP-B, and 20 of MRI-B, representing 4,657 patients. Mean patient age, PSA and number of previous biopsy episodes were similar between the strategies. The mean number of biopsy cores obtained by TP-B and TS-B were greater than MRI-B. Cancer detection rates were 30·0%, 36·8%, and 37·6% for TS-B, TP-B, and MRI-B respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed that MRI-B had significantly higher cancer detection than TS-B. There were no significant differences however between MRI-B and TP-B, or TP-B and TS-B. In a sensitivity analysis incorporating number of previous biopsy episodes (36 studies) the difference between MRI-B and TP-B was not maintained resulting in no significant difference in cancer detection between the groups. There were no significant differences in median Gleason scores detected comparing the three strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In the re-biopsy setting, it is unclear which strategy offers the highest cancer detection rate. MRI-B may potentially detect more prostate cancers than other modalities and can achieve this with fewer biopsy cores. However, well-designed prospective studies with standardised outcome measures are needed to accurately compare modalities and define an optimum re-biopsy approach.

Project description:BackgroundFluoroquinolone has been the historic choice of antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. However, increased fluoroquinolone resistance and recent restrictions of its use for antimicrobial prophylaxis has led to the emergence of alternative agents for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS guided prostate biopsy including fosfomycin and cephalosporins. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of fosfomycin and a second-generation cephalosporin flumarin as alternative antimicrobials for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in terms of the incidence of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.MethodsA retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between November 2009 to January 2023 was undertaken. Comparison of baseline characteristics and the incidence of infectious complications was done between those who received fosfomycin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and those who received flumarin. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.ResultsOf 2,900 patients identified as eligible candidates for analysis, 333 (11.5%) received fosfomycin and 2,567 (88.5%) received flumarin. The overall rate of infectious complications was approximately 3% lower in patients who received fosfomycin, although such difference did not reach statistical significance (5.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.074). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that history of operation done under general anaesthesia within six months of the biopsy (odds ratio [OR]: 2.216; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.042-4.713; p = 0.039) and history of prior antimicrobial use within six months (OR: 1.457; 95% CI: 1.049-2.024; p = 0.025) were significant risk factors for infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.ConclusionFosfomycin was comparable to second-generation cephalosporin flumarin in preventing infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Coupled with its properties such as ease of administration, low adverse effects, low resistance rate, and low collateral damage, fosfomycin might be an attractive alternative antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We evaluated the effectiveness of targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUSP). METHODS:A prospective, non-randomized cohort study was conducted. Rectal swab cultures plated on non-selective blood agar and on selective MacConkey agar supplemented with ciprofloxacin identified ciprofloxacin-susceptible and -resistant gram-negative bacteria (CS-GNB and CR-GNB). Patients with CS-GNB received ciprofloxacin while those with CR-GNB received directed prophylaxis. Infectious complications were defined clinically and microbiologically within 30 days after TRUSP. Data were derived at 7 and 30 days post procedure by questionnaires and electronic medical records. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the infectious outcomes among the CS and CR groups. RESULTS:From November 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015, 510 men completed the study; 430 (84.3%) had CS-GNB and 80 (15.7%) had CR-GNB. 484 (94.9%) completed the study per protocol, while 26 (5.1%) had an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Of the 484, 475 (98.1%) had no infections, nine (1.9%) had infections, six of which (1.2%) were culture-proven (CP). The nine infections were as follows: five (1.0%) uncomplicated UTIs, one (0.2%) complicated UTI, and three (0.6%) urosepsis. One case of uncomplicated UTI and two cases of urosepsis were not CP, but were diagnosed clinically. ITT outcomes were similar. The infection rates were not statistically different between the CS-and CR-GNB patients (p-value = 0.314; 95% CI 0.8-3.3). The four patients with complicated UTIs or sepsis were hospitalized for a mean of 2.6 days and discharged without sequelae. Of the nine infections, three were antimicrobial prophylaxis failures (two ciprofloxacin and one amikacin); three were likely due to failure of the collection or processing of the rectal swab or increasing bacterial resistance between the time of swab collection and biopsy, and three developed clinical infections with no isolate recovered. CONCLUSIONS:Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis follows the principles of antimicrobial stewardship and achieved a low rate of infectious complications with limited morbidity and no sequelae. This individualized method of prophylaxis may be widely applied. Further studies are needed to explore reasons for targeted prophylaxis failure and to determine comparative efficacy of non-ciprofloxacin-containing targeted prophylaxis regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01659866 . Registered 9 July 2012. First patient enrolled 1 November 2012.