Comparison of Pain Levels in Fusion Prostate Biopsy and Standard TRUS-Guided Biopsy
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Kayseri, Turkey, 38039
- Department of Urology, Ercieys University, Faculty Of Medicine,
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Elevated blood prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels according to patients age. PSA >2ng/ml for whom aged between 50-60, and PSA >4ng/ml for whom were above 60 years old
- Having suspicious digital rectal examination
- having multi-parametric prostate MRI before prostate biopsy
- Having MRI defined lesions which were PIRADS - 3 -4-5
Exclusion Criteria:
- PSA > 50 ng/ml
- previous negative biopsy
- neurological disorders that could affect the pain level such as paraplegia or hemiplegia, analgesics use for any reason on the day of or the day before the procedure,
- patients underwent biopsy under general anesthesia,
- having such diseases as anal fissure or hemorrhoidal disease that could alter the pain threshold
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
- Allocation: Non-Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Group 1
In Group 1, Patients detected with a PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided MRI- US fusion prostate biopsy.
In this fusion biopsy, 12 core standard biopsy and 2-4 cores of biopsies from lesions defined on multiparametric prostate MRI
|
FPB was performed by obtaining 10-12 core samples in each patient, followed by the acquisition of 2-4 core samples for each suspected lesion detected on MpMRI (combined biopsy)
Other Names:
|
|
Active Comparator: Group 2
In Group 2, patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS <3 lesion on MpMRI underwent Transrectal ultrasound guided 12 core prostate biopsy (SPB).
|
TRUS-guided SPB was performed by obtaining 12 core samples in each patient.
6 cores from left and right.
the cores labeled as, apex, mid, base, apex far lateral, mid far lateral and base far lateral
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
To detect painful steps of biopsy procedure by asking patients verbally
Time Frame: Within 5 minutes after biopsy
|
to ask patients most painful step of procedure that verbally defined them before biopsy as 1: insertion of the probe into the rectum, 2: probe manipulation, and 3: the piercing of the biopsy needle
|
Within 5 minutes after biopsy
|
|
Over all Visual analogue Score (VAS) score of procedure(From 0 to 100 points, 100 is max pain score according to patient)
Time Frame: Within 5 minutes after prostate biopsy
|
pain assessment was performed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)
|
Within 5 minutes after prostate biopsy
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Abdullah T Demirtaş, MD, Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine Department of Urolgoy
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. Epub 2014 Oct 9.
- Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942.
- Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BP, Mulders PF, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016 Mar;117(3):392-400. doi: 10.1111/bju.13247. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
- Hwang SI, Lee HJ, Lee SE, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SC, Choe G. Value of MR-US fusion in guidance of repeated prostate biopsy in men with PSA < 10 ng/mL. Clin Imaging. 2019 Jan-Feb;53:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.09.012. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
- Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP, Gayet M, Engelbrecht MRW, Jager GJ, Wijkstra H, de Reijke TM, Beerlage HP. The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2019 May;37(5):298.e1-298.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.005. Epub 2019 Jan 17.
- Luan Y, Huang TB, Gu X, Zhou GC, Lu SM, Tao HZ, Liu BD, Ding XF. Effect of prostate volume on the peripheral nerve block anesthesia in the prostate biopsy: A strobe-compliant study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(28):e4184. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004184.
- Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V, Perrouin-Verbe MA, Demany N, Serey-Effeil S, Callerot P, Coquet JB, Doucet L, Deruelle C, Joulin V, Nonent M, Fournier G, Valeri A. The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018 Jun;52(3):174-179. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2018.1438509. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
- Autorino R, De Sio M, Di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, Perdona S, Cindolo L, D'Armiento M. How to decrease pain during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a look at the literature. J Urol. 2005 Dec;174(6):2091-7. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000181212.51025.06.
- Mazdak H, Abtahi AM, Momeni F, Izadpanahi MH. A comparison of pain control and complications using three different ways of anesthesia in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. J Res Med Sci. 2018 Feb 20;23:17. doi: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_639_17. eCollection 2018.
- Wang N, Fu Y, Ma H, Wang J, Gao Y. Advantages of caudal block over intrarectal local anesthesia plus periprostatic nerve block for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Pak J Med Sci. 2016 Jul-Aug;32(4):978-82. doi: 10.12669/pjms.324.9823.
- Yang Y, Liu Z, Wei Q, Cao D, Yang L, Zhu Y, Wei X, Tang Z, Liu L, Han P. The Efficiency and Safety of Intrarectal Topical Anesthesia for Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2017;99(4):373-383. doi: 10.1159/000481830. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
- Alabi TO, Tijani KH, Adeyomoye AA, Jeje EA, Anunobi CC, Ogunjimi MA, Ojewola RW, Akanmu ON, Oliyide AE, Orakwe DE. Combined intrarectal lidocaine gel and periprostatic nerve block: A 'balanced' anaesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? Niger Postgrad Med J. 2018 Oct-Dec;25(4):252-256. doi: 10.4103/npmj.npmj_145_18.
- Collins GN, Lloyd SN, Hehir M, McKelvie GB. Multiple transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies--true morbidity and patient acceptance. Br J Urol. 1993 Apr;71(4):460-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1993.tb15993.x.
- Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Wei JT. Local anesthesia in transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology. 2006 Jun;67(6):1283-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.016.
- Robins D, Lipsky M, RoyChoudry A, Wenske S. Assessment of Discomfort and Pain in Patients Undergoing Fusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided vs TRUS-guided Prostate Biopsy. Urology. 2018 Jun;116:30-34. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.02.029. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
- Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Quentin M, Hiester A, Blondin D, Albers P, Antoch G, Schimmoller L. Comparison of patient comfort between MR-guided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol. 2016 Feb;34(2):215-20. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1612-6. Epub 2015 Jun 9.
- Fabiani A, Servi L, Filosa A, Fioretti F, Maurelli V, Tombolini F, Talle M, Mammana G. May ultrasound probe size influence pain perception of needle piercing during transrectal prostate biopsy? A prospective evaluation. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Oct 5;88(3):223-227. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2016.3.223.
- Yan P, Wang XY, Huang W, Zhang Y. Local anesthesia for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 11;9:787-796. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S117451. eCollection 2016.
- Urabe F, Kimura T, Shimomura T, Onuma H, Yamamoto T, Sasaki H, Miki J, Kuruma H, Miki K, Egawa S. Prospective comparison of the efficacy of caudal versus periprostatic nerve block, both with intrarectal local anesthesia, during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostatic needle biopsy. Scand J Urol. 2017 Aug;51(4):245-250. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2017.1318299. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
- Valdez-Flores RA, Campos-Salcedo JG, Torres-Gomez JJ, Sedano-Lozano A, Pares-Hipolito J, Shelton LM, Canizalez-Roman A, Valdez-Flores MA. Prospective comparison among three intrarectal anesthetic treatments combined with periprostatic nerve block during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2018 Feb;36(2):193-199. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2136-z. Epub 2017 Nov 23.
- Gomez-Gomez E, Ramirez M, Gomez-Ferrer A, Rubio-Briones J, Iborra I, J Carrasco-Valiente, Campos JP, Ruiz-Garcia J, Requena-Tapia MJ, Solsona E. Assessment and clinical factors associated with pain in patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy. Actas Urol Esp. 2015 Sep;39(7):414-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2015.01.007. Epub 2015 Mar 6. English, Spanish.
- Bastide C, Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, Ortega JC, Coulange C. Tolerance of pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: risk factors. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2003;6(3):239-41. doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500664.
- Djavan B, Waldert M, Zlotta A, Dobronski P, Seitz C, Remzi M, Borkowski A, Schulman C, Marberger M. Safety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: results of a prospective European prostate cancer detection study. J Urol. 2001 Sep;166(3):856-60.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2014/508
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.