Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1).

Biopsy Magnetic resonance imaging Prostate cancer Transperineal Transrectal

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 25 01 2024
accepted: 26 01 2024
medline: 26 2 2024
pubmed: 26 2 2024
entrez: 25 2 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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. To compare the significant PCa detection rate between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted TR and TP approaches in biopsy-naïve patients. In this noninferiority controlled trial, we randomized (ratio 1:1) 270 MRI-positive biopsy-naïve patients. MRI-targeted TP versus TR biopsy. 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. 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. 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. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of two biopsy approaches for prostate cancer diagnosis. Both approaches seem complementary according to the lesion location.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 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 METHODS
In this noninferiority controlled trial, we randomized (ratio 1:1) 270 MRI-positive biopsy-naïve patients.
INTERVENTION METHODS
MRI-targeted TP versus TR biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES METHODS
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 CONCLUSIONS
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 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 RESULTS
This trial compared the efficacy and safety of two biopsy approaches for prostate cancer diagnosis. Both approaches seem complementary according to the lesion location.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38403523
pii: S2588-9311(24)00049-X
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.019
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Guillaume Ploussard (G)

La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France. Electronic address: g.ploussard@gmail.com.

Eric Barret (E)

Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.

Gaëlle Fiard (G)

Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC-IMAG, Grenoble, France.

Louis Lenfant (L)

AP-HP - Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Bernard Malavaud (B)

Comprehensive Cancer Cancer IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.

Gianluca Giannarini (G)

Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy.

Christophe Almeras (C)

Clinique Capio La Croix du Sud Cabinet d'Urologie, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.

Richard Aziza (R)

Comprehensive Cancer Cancer IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.

Raphaële Renard-Penna (R)

AP-HP - Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Jean-Luc Descotes (JL)

CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

François Rozet (F)

Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.

Jean-Baptiste Beauval (JB)

Capio La Croix du Sud Clinic, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.

Ambroise Salin (A)

La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.

Morgan Rouprêt (M)

AP-HP - Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Classifications MeSH