A significant proportion of prostate cancers (PCas) are missed by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB). It remains unclear whether the combined approach using targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) and systematic TRUS-GB is superior to targeted MRI-guided in-bore biopsy (IB-GB) for PCa detection.
To compare PCa detection between IB-GB alone and FUS-GB + TRUS-GB in patients with at least one negative TRUS-GB and prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/ml.
Patients were prospectively randomized after multiparametric prostate MRI to IB-GB (arm A) or FUS-GB + TRUS-GB (arm B) from November 2011 to July 2014.
The study was powered at 80% to demonstrate an overall PCa detection rate of ≥60% in arm B compared to 40% in arm A. Secondary endpoints were the distribution of highest Gleason scores, the rate of detection of significant PCa (Gleason ≥7), the number of biopsy cores to detect one (significant) PCa, the positivity rate for biopsy cores, and tumor involvement per biopsy core.
The study was halted after interim analysis because the primary endpoint was not met. The trial enrolled 267 patients, of whom 210 were analyzed (106 randomized to arm A and 104 to arm B). PCa detection was 37% in arm A and 39% in arm B (95% confidence interval for difference, -16% to 11%; p=0. 7). Detection rates for significant PCa (29% vs 32%; p=0. 7) and the highest percentage tumor involvement per biopsy core (48% vs 42%; p=0. 4) were similar between the arms. The mean number of cores was 5. 6 versus 17 (p
This trial failed to identify an important improvement in detection rate for the combined biopsy approach over MRI-targeted biopsy alone. A prospective comparison between MRI-targeted biopsy alone and systematic TRUS-GB is justified.
Our randomized study showed similar prostate cancer detection rates between targeted prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging and the combination of targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. An important improvement in detection rates using the combined biopsy approach can be excluded.
European urology. 2015 Jun 23 [Epub ahead of print]
Christian Arsov, Robert Rabenalt, Dirk Blondin, Michael Quentin, Andreas Hiester, Erhard Godehardt, Helmut E Gabbert, Nikolaus Becker, Gerald Antoch, Peter Albers, Lars Schimmöller
Department of Urology, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. Department of Urology, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. , Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. , Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. , Department of Urology, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. , Division of Statistics, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. , Department of Pathology, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. , Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. , Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. , Department of Urology, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. , Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.