Repository logo
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
Repository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • Research Outputs
  • Statistics
  • Log In
    Log in via Symplectic to deposit your publication(s).
  1. Home
  2. Faculty of Medicine
  3. Faculty of Medicine
  4. The smart target biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification
 
  • Details
The smart target biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification
File(s)
1-s2.0-S030228381830592X-main.pdf (1.12 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Hamid, S
Donaldson, IA
Hu, Y
Rodell, R
Villarini, B
more
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted prostate biopsies can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and decrease the overdetection of insignificant cancers. Whether visual-registration targeting is sufficient or if augmentation with image-fusion software is needed is unknown.
Objective: To assess concordance between the two methods.
Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a blinded, within-person randomised, paired validating clinical trial. From 2014 to 2016, 141 men who had undergone a prior (positive or negative) transrectal ultrasound biopsy and had a discrete lesion on mpMRI (score 3 to 5) requiring targeted transperineal biopsy were enrolled at a UK academic hospital; 129 underwent both biopsy strategies and completed the study.
Intervention: The order of performing biopsies using visual-registration and a computer-assisted MRI/ultrasound image-fusion system (SmartTarget) on each patient was randomised. The equipment was reset between biopsy strategies to mitigate incorporation bias.
Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer (primary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥3+4=7, maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm; secondary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥4+3=7, maximum cancer core length ≥6 mm) detected by each method was compared using McNemar's test of paired proportions.
Results and Limitations: The two strategies combined detected 93 clinically significant prostate cancers (72% of the cohort). Each strategy detected 80/93 (86%) of these cancers; each strategy identified 13 cases missed by the other. Three patients experienced adverse events related to biopsy (urinary retention, urinary tract infection, nausea and vomiting). No difference in urinary symptoms, erectile function, or quality of life between baseline and follow-up (median 10.5 weeks) was observed. The key limitation was lack of parallel-group randomisation and limit on number of targeted cores.
Conclusions: Visual-registration and image-fusion targeting strategies combined had the highest detection rate for clinically significant cancers. Targeted prostate biopsy should be performed using both strategies together.
Patient Summary: We compared two prostate cancer biopsy strategies: visual-registration and image-fusion. The combination of the two strategies found the most clinically important cancers and should be used together whenever targeted biopsy is being performed.
Date Issued
2019-05
Date Acceptance
2018-08-07
Citation
European Urology, 2019, 75 (5), pp.733-740
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/63326
URL
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030228381830592X?via%3Dihub
DOI
https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007
ISSN
0302-2838
Publisher
Elsevier
Start Page
733
End Page
740
Journal / Book Title
European Urology
Volume
75
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access articleunder the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Identifier
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030228381830592X?via%3Dihub
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Urology & Nephrology
Biopsy
Diagnostic imaging
Prostatic neoplasms
ULTRASOUND FUSION
MRI
INDEX
Biopsy
Diagnostic imaging
Prostatic neoplasms
Aged
False Negative Reactions
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging
Neoplasm Grading
Prospective Studies
Prostatic Neoplasms
Risk Assessment
Single-Blind Method
Ultrasonography
Humans
Prostatic Neoplasms
False Negative Reactions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Ultrasonography
Risk Assessment
Prospective Studies
Single-Blind Method
Aged
Middle Aged
Male
Neoplasm Grading
Image-Guided Biopsy
Multimodal Imaging
Urology & Nephrology
1103 Clinical Sciences
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2018-12-06
About
Spiral Depositing with Spiral Publishing with Spiral Symplectic
Contact us
Open access team Report an issue
Other Services
Scholarly Communications Library Services
logo

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus

London SW7 2AZ, UK

tel: +44 (0)20 7589 5111

Accessibility Modern slavery statement Cookie Policy

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback