European urology oncology · 2024
Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1).
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ploussard Guillaume, Barret Eric, Fiard Gaëlle, Lenfant Louis, Malavaud Bernard, Giannarini Gianluca, Almeras Christophe, Aziza Richard, Renard-Penna Raphaële, Descotes Jean-Luc, Rozet François, Beauval Jean-Baptiste, Salin Ambroise, Rouprêt Morgan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines favor transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies over the transrectal (TR) approach due to a reduced sepsis risk. Yet, evidence from controlled trial comparing both approaches within the MRI-targeted pathway for significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the significant PCa detection rate between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted TR and TP approaches in biopsy-naïve patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this noninferiority controlled trial, we randomized (ratio 1:1) 270 MRI-positive biopsy-naïve patients.
INTERVENTION: MRI-targeted TP versus TR biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: The primary outcome was the detection rate of significant PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2) in MRI-targeted biopsies. Secondary outcomes were any-grade PCa detection, detection on concomitant systematic biopsy, complications, and functional outcomes.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Targeted biopsies identified significant PCa in 47.2% of TP and 54.2% of TR participants (-7%, p = 0.6235). On a per-lesion analysis, posterior lesions yielded higher detection rates via TR (59.0% vs 44.3%, p = 0.0443), while anterior lesions were more frequently detected via TP (40.6% vs 26.5%, p = 0.2228). The overall (any grade) cancer detection rate in targeted biopsies was comparable between groups: 71.3% (TP) versus 64.1% (TR; p = 0.2209) with significantly more ISUP 1 cases detected in the TP arm. Adverse events of grade ≥2 were not different between TP (35.7%) and TR (40.5%, p = 0.4256). One TR patient (0.8%) experienced grade 3 sepsis. Quality of life, and urinary and sexual function, as well as pain scores, were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a comparable overall detection rate for any-grade PCa, noninferiority of TP over TR for MRI-targeted biopsies for significant PCa detection was not demonstrated. However, MRI lesion location influenced biopsy route performance, suggesting that a pragmatic approach based on lesion location might enhance significant PCa assessment.
PATIENT SUMMARY: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of two biopsy approaches for prostate cancer diagnosis. Both approaches seem complementary according to the lesion location.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the significant PCa detection rate between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted TR and TP approaches in biopsy-naïve patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this noninferiority controlled trial, we randomized (ratio 1:1) 270 MRI-positive biopsy-naïve patients.
INTERVENTION: MRI-targeted TP versus TR biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: The primary outcome was the detection rate of significant PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2) in MRI-targeted biopsies. Secondary outcomes were any-grade PCa detection, detection on concomitant systematic biopsy, complications, and functional outcomes.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Targeted biopsies identified significant PCa in 47.2% of TP and 54.2% of TR participants (-7%, p = 0.6235). On a per-lesion analysis, posterior lesions yielded higher detection rates via TR (59.0% vs 44.3%, p = 0.0443), while anterior lesions were more frequently detected via TP (40.6% vs 26.5%, p = 0.2228). The overall (any grade) cancer detection rate in targeted biopsies was comparable between groups: 71.3% (TP) versus 64.1% (TR; p = 0.2209) with significantly more ISUP 1 cases detected in the TP arm. Adverse events of grade ≥2 were not different between TP (35.7%) and TR (40.5%, p = 0.4256). One TR patient (0.8%) experienced grade 3 sepsis. Quality of life, and urinary and sexual function, as well as pain scores, were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a comparable overall detection rate for any-grade PCa, noninferiority of TP over TR for MRI-targeted biopsies for significant PCa detection was not demonstrated. However, MRI lesion location influenced biopsy route performance, suggesting that a pragmatic approach based on lesion location might enhance significant PCa assessment.
PATIENT SUMMARY: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of two biopsy approaches for prostate cancer diagnosis. Both approaches seem complementary according to the lesion location.