Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer

NCT ID: NCT06517901

Last Updated: 2025-10-03

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

1306 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2025-04-18

Study Completion Date

2027-06-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection can be performed using one of two techniques:

1. Software-based fusion of MRI and ultrasound images (software fusion) or
2. Visually estimated MRI-informed (cognitive fusion) technique

To date, there is a lack of adequately powered RCTs directly comparing the cognitive vs fusion targeted biopsy. This randomized study will directly compare the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer following either the cognitive or the fusion targeted prostate biopsy in men with suspicious lesions noted on multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) of prostate.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

For prostate cancer detection, pre-biopsy multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) followed by MRI-targeted prostate biopsy is standard of care which is supported by the guidelines from the American Urological Association and the European Association of Urology. The MRI-targeted prostate biopsy is associated with a significant increase in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) compared to the ultrasound guided biopsy. The MRI-targeted biopsy can be performed using one of two techniques including software-based fusion of MRI and ultrasound images (software fusion) or visually guided MRI-informed (cognitive fusion) technique.

With regards to the diagnostic performance in detecting csPCa, current literature does not demonstrate a clear advantage to one targeting technique over the other. A systematic review and meta-analysis (published in early 2024) by Falagario et al evaluated all of the comparative studies of the above-mentioned MRI-targeting techniques. Of the 20 studies included, six reported improved detection of csPCa with fusion technique, one reported an advantage to the cognitive technique, while thirteen reported no significant difference. Of note, the majority of the studies were retrospective, with high risk of bias, that lacked uniform definition of csPCa, and employed variable mp-MRI technique (1.5T vs 3T) and scoring system (Likert vs PIRADS). There were only three small, prospective, randomized studies (RCT) available in the systematic review of literature. One RCT reported the fusion technique to be superior while two demonstrated no difference in csPCa detection rates. There was no significant difference in the detection of csPCa between the targeting techniques, however, low quality of evidence and heterogeneity warranted well-designed prospective studies.

Other studies, as well as personal experience, point to somewhat improved cancer detection the cognitive MRI-targeting approach, although the rates may be affected by patient selection related to lesion size and location.

Thus, the investigators are conducting an RCT to direct compare the csPCa detection rates following either the cognitive or the fusion targeted prostate biopsy in men with suspicious lesions noted on mp-MRI of prostate. The investigators hypothesize that the diagnostic accuracy MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive fusion technique is either similar to or not significantly inferior to the software fusion technique.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Software fusion biopsy

Software fusion biopsy: Biopsy of the MRI-detected lesion using an image fusion platform such as UroNav or similar.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Software fusion prostate biopsy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Software fusion biopsy: Each participant in this study arm will first undergo biopsy of the MRI-detected lesion using an image fusion platform such as UroNav or similar. Three biopsy cores will be taken per lesion, with a maximum of three lesions being sampled per participant. Then systematic samples will be taken from the remainder of the prostate as per standard protocol (10-12 cores).

Cognitive fusion biopy

Cognitive fusion biopsy: Biopsy of the MRI-detected lesion using visual estimation and/or measurements to identify landmarks and lesions.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Cognitive fusion prostate biopsy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Cognitive fusion biopsy: Each participant in this study arm will first undergo biopsy of the MRI-detected lesion using visual estimation and/or measurements of lesion. Three biopsy cores will be taken per lesion, with a maximum of three lesions being sampled per participant. Then systematic samples will be taken from the remainder of the prostate as per standard protocol (10-12 cores).

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Software fusion prostate biopsy

Software fusion biopsy: Each participant in this study arm will first undergo biopsy of the MRI-detected lesion using an image fusion platform such as UroNav or similar. Three biopsy cores will be taken per lesion, with a maximum of three lesions being sampled per participant. Then systematic samples will be taken from the remainder of the prostate as per standard protocol (10-12 cores).

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Cognitive fusion prostate biopsy

Cognitive fusion biopsy: Each participant in this study arm will first undergo biopsy of the MRI-detected lesion using visual estimation and/or measurements of lesion. Three biopsy cores will be taken per lesion, with a maximum of three lesions being sampled per participant. Then systematic samples will be taken from the remainder of the prostate as per standard protocol (10-12 cores).

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Visual estimation fusion prostate biopsy

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Men undergoing prostate biopsy (either transrectal or transperineal) for suspected prostate cancer as part of their regular medical care
* Must be eligible to undergo both prostate biopsy procedure (cognitive or fusion)
* Men undergoing their first prostate biopsy procedure or with no previous prostate biopsy within 3 years
* Pre-biopsy mp-MRI of prostate with one or more lesions classified as PIRADS 3-5
* Largest dimension of any lesion on mp-MRI to be ≤ 2 cm
* Prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 20 ng/mL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination

Exclusion Criteria

* mp-MRI detected lesions that are \> 2 cm
* History of prostate biopsy within 3 years
* Previous diagnosis of prostate cancer
* Contraindications to prostate biopsy (eg, fever, evidence of genito-urinary infection, excessive co-morbidities as per treating physician)
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

MALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Albany Medical College

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Badar M Mian, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Albany Medical College

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Lahey Clinic, Inc

Burlington, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status RECRUITING

Albany Medical Center

Albany, New York, United States

Site Status RECRUITING

Pennsylvania State University

Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status NOT_YET_RECRUITING

Manitoba Prostate Centre, CancerCare Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Site Status NOT_YET_RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States Canada

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Badar M Mian, MD

Role: CONTACT

5182623296

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Kimberly Rieger-Christ

Role: primary

781-744-8027

Badar M. Mian, MD

Role: primary

518-262-7558

Brenda Romeo

Role: backup

518-262-8579

Suzanne Boltz

Role: primary

717-531-0003

Zoe Ignation

Role: primary

204-787-2955

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budaus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG, Roobol MJ, Eggener S, Ghei M, Villers A, Bladou F, Villeirs GM, Virdi J, Boxler S, Robert G, Singh PB, Venderink W, Hadaschik BA, Ruffion A, Hu JC, Margolis D, Crouzet S, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Pinto P, Gill I, Allen C, Giganti F, Freeman A, Morris S, Punwani S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Deeks J, Takwoingi Y, Emberton M, Moore CM; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. Epub 2018 Mar 18.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29552975 (View on PubMed)

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.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25626035 (View on PubMed)

Falagario UG, Pellegrino F, Fanelli A, Guzzi F, Bartoletti R, Cash H, Pavlovich C, Emberton M, Carrieri G, Giannarini G. Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025 Jun;28(2):270-279. doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00827-x. Epub 2024 Apr 5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 38580833 (View on PubMed)

Izadpanahi MH, Elahian A, Gholipour F, Khorrami MH, Zargham M, Mohammadi Sichani M, Alizadeh F, Khorrami F. Diagnostic yield of fusion magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy versus cognitive-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients: a head-to-head randomized controlled trial. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021 Dec;24(4):1103-1109. doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00366-9. Epub 2021 Apr 27.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 33907293 (View on PubMed)

Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Gabbert HE, Becker N, Antoch G, Albers P, Schimmoller L. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):713-20. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008. Epub 2015 Jun 23.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26116294 (View on PubMed)

Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, Bosch JLHR, Barentsz JO, Somford DM, van Melick HHE. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):582-590. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040. Epub 2018 Dec 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30522912 (View on PubMed)

Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP Jr, Bernstein A, Fisher HAG. Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Following Transrectal and Transperineal Biopsy: Results of the Prostate Biopsy Efficacy and Complications Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024 Jul;212(1):21-31. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003979. Epub 2024 May 3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 38700844 (View on PubMed)

Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Cohen AJ, Ristau BT, Green DA, Han M, Rezaee ME, Pavlovich CP, Montgomery JS, Kowalczyk KJ, Ross AE, Kundu SD, Patel HD, Wang GJ, Graham JN, Shoag JE, Ghazi A, Singla N, Gorin MA, Schaeffer AJ, Schaeffer EM. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial. Eur Urol. 2024 Jul;86(1):61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015. Epub 2024 Jan 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 38212178 (View on PubMed)

Ploussard G, Barret E, Fiard G, Lenfant L, Malavaud B, Giannarini G, Almeras C, Aziza R, Renard-Penna R, Descotes JL, Rozet F, Beauval JB, Salin A, Roupret M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1). Eur Urol Oncol. 2024 Oct;7(5):1080-1087. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.019. Epub 2024 Feb 24.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 38403523 (View on PubMed)

Ortner G, Mavridis C, Fritz V, Schachtner J, Mamoulakis C, Nagele U, Tokas T. The Added Value of MRI-Based Targeted Biopsy in Biopsy-Naive Patients: A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison. J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 27;13(5):1355. doi: 10.3390/jcm13051355.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 38592166 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

7028

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

SmartTarget: BIOPSY
NCT02341677 COMPLETED NA