CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03859804Updated Mar 1, 2019

Comparison of Pain Levels in Fusion Prostate Biopsy and Standard TRUS-Guided Biopsy

An interventional study of Standard transrectal 12 core biopsy and MRI- US fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) in Pain Due to Certain Specified Procedures, Prostate Cancer and Biopsy, sponsored by TC Erciyes University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to male participants aged 50 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-03-01.

Sponsored by TC Erciyes University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years 2 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Dec 2016, registered Feb 2019).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
252
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
50 Years to 75 Years
Sex
Male
01

Study summary

The aim of this study was to compare the pain levels in transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided standard 12-core prostate biopsy (SPB) and multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MpMRI)-guided fusion prostate biopsy (FPB).

Read the detailed description

The study included patients that underwent prostate biopsy under local anesthesia (intrarectal 2% lidocaine gel + periprostatic nerve block) due to suspected prostate cancer. Patients detected with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score (PIRADS) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided FPB (Group I) and the patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS \<3 lesion on MpMRI underwent TRUS-guided SPB (Group II). Pain assessment was performed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 5 min after the procedure. Following the procedure, the patients were asked to indicate the most painful biopsy step among the three steps (1: insertion of the probe into the rectum, 2: probe manipulation, 3: the piercing of the biopsy needle).

02

Conditions studied

  • Pain Due to Certain Specified Procedures
  • Prostate Cancer
  • Biopsy

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • fusion
  • prostate
  • biopsy
  • pain
03

In context

Prostatic Neoplasms

6,370 studies on the registry are indexed under Prostatic Neoplasms; 1,400 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 252 is above the median of 58 across 4,822 interventional studies indexed under Prostatic Neoplasms.

Browse Prostatic Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

TC Erciyes University is the lead sponsor of 341 studies on the registry; 76 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
50 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
Male
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

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

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
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
252 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • 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

    Procedure: MRI- US fusion prostate biopsy (FPB)

  • 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).

    Procedure: Standard transrectal 12 core biopsy

Interventions

  • ProcedureStandard transrectal 12 core biopsy

    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

    Also known as: Group 2

  • ProcedureMRI- US fusion prostate biopsy (FPB)

    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)

    Also known as: Group 1

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. To detect painful steps of biopsy procedure by asking patients verbally

    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

    Time frame: Within 5 minutes after biopsy

  2. Over all Visual analogue Score (VAS) score of procedure(From 0 to 100 points, 100 is max pain score according to patient)

    pain assessment was performed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

    Time frame: Within 5 minutes after prostate biopsy

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Department of Urology, Ercieys University, Faculty Of Medicine,
    Kayseri, 38039, Turkey
08

References and documents

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. PubMed 25220842 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 25626035 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 26237632 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 30265884 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 30660493 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27428215 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29463177 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16280735 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29531569 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27648052 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29084411 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 30588947 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 8499991 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16765193 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29545039 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 26055645 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27711100 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27785093 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 28443752 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29170792 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 25745791 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12970728 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 11490233 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 1, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03859804
Lead sponsor
TC Erciyes University
Responsible party
Abdullah Demirtas (Abdullah Demirtas, Md, Assoc. Prof., TC Erciyes University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 1, 2019
Start date
Dec 1, 2016
Primary completion
Jan 31, 2019
Completion
Feb 1, 2019
Last update
Mar 1, 2019

Study contacts

Abdullah T Demirtaş, MD
principal investigator · Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine Department of Urolgoy

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion