CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04081636ProBE-PCUpdated Dec 23, 2025

Prostate Biopsy, Transrectal vs. Transperineal: Efficacy and Complications

An interventional study of Systematic Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx) and Targeted Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx) in Prostate Cancer, PSA and Infection, sponsored by Albany Medical College. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to male participants. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-12-23.

Sponsored by Albany Medical College · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
840
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
Male
01

Study summary

This study evaluates the difference between 2 prostate biopsy methods, transrectal (through the rectal wall) and transperineal (through the skin) needle biopsy.

Men who are in need of prostate biopsy due to clinical suspicions of prostate cancer will be randomly assigned (1:1) to either transrectal or transperineal approach.

This research study will scientifically determine if one biopsy method is better than the other in reducing complications and improving cancer detection.

Read the detailed description

There are two ways to take biopsy (tissue) samples from the prostate. The more commonly used method is trans-rectal needle biopsy of the prostate (TR-Bx) with a needle inserted through a probe in the rectum to reach the prostate.

TR-Bx is usually performed in the office, using local anesthesia, and often using a targeted biopsy approach using MRI/ultrasound fusion technique.

Trans-perineal biopsy (TP-Bx) with a needle inserted directly through the skin to reach the prostate.

Typically, TP-BX is performed in the outpatient surgical setting due significant pain associated with the procedure, requiring the use anesthesia and/or sedation.

TP-Bx. procedure is very uncommon in the USA and is often performed using ultrasound alone (less accurate), without the benefit of MRI guided targeted biopsy.

Now, with the availability of new devices, we are able to perform both TR-Bx and TP-Bx using MRI/ultrasound fusion guided targeted approach, in the office setting, using local anesthesia alone.

With the TR-Bx, there has been increasing risk of infection related complications, sepsis and hospital admissions.

The newer approach of biopsy TP-Bx may cause fewer infections and may have a higher accuracy of finding cancer.

Using validated questionnaires such as IIEF-6, IPSS and TRUS-BxQ, this randomized study of TR-BX and TP-Bx will address these questions:

  • Differences in the risk of infectious complications
  • Differences in the overall cancer detection rate and the high-grade cancer detection rate
  • Differences in the hemorrhagic and urinary side effects
  • Tolerability of both techniques with local anesthesia alone
  • Difference in the results of of MRI/US fusion targeted biopsy
  • Differences in the cost of the procedures
02

Conditions studied

  • Prostate Cancer
  • PSA
  • Infection

Keywords

  • Prostate biopsy
  • PSA
  • infection
  • bleeding
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 840 is above the median of 58 across 4,822 interventional studies indexed under Prostatic Neoplasms.

Browse Prostatic Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

Albany Medical College is the lead sponsor of 80 studies on the registry; 14 are open to participants now.

Of its 17 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 3 (18%) have results posted.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
Male
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • All patients who are scheduled to undergo prostate biopsy for suspected prostate cancer as part of their regular medical care
  • Either with or without an MRI

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with no access to rectum (due to previous rectal surgery)
  • Any abnormalities of the perineal skin (e.g. infection)
  • Patients whose procedure requires sedation or general anesthesia
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
840 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Systematic Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx)

    Ultrasound guided; needle inserted through the rectum to reach the prostate

    Procedure: Systematic Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx)

  • Active comparator
    Targeted Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx)

    MRI-guided; needle inserted through the rectum to reach the prostate

    Procedure: Targeted Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx)

  • Experimental
    Systematic Transperineal biopsy (TP-Bx)

    Ultrasound guided; needle inserted directly through the skin to reach the prostate

    Procedure: Systematic Transperineal biopsy (TP-Bx)

  • Experimental
    Targeted Transperineal biopsy (TP-Bx)

    MRI-guided; needle inserted directly through the skin to reach the prostate

    Procedure: Targeted Transperineal biopsy (TP-Bx)

Interventions

  • ProcedureSystematic Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx)

    Through the rectum

    Also known as: ultrasound guided

  • ProcedureTargeted Transrectal biopsy (TR-Bx)

    Through the rectum

    Also known as: MRI guided

  • ProcedureSystematic Transperineal biopsy (TP-Bx)

    Through the perineal skin

    Also known as: ultrasound guided

  • ProcedureTargeted Transperineal biopsy (TP-Bx)

    Through the perineal skin

    Also known as: MRI guided

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Rate of infectious complications

    Whether or not patient had an infection after the biopsy

    Time frame: 30 days

  2. Clinically significant cancer detection rate

    The rate of grade group 2 prostate cancer detected in each study arm

    Time frame: 14 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of Bleeding complications

    The type of bleeding and its severity (blood in urine or stool)

    Time frame: 30 days

  2. Tolerability under local anesthesia

    Pain scores; Need for additional analgesia

    Time frame: 30 days

  3. Patient reported urinary function measures using IPSS questionaire

    International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) to measure urinary function

    Time frame: 30 days

  4. Cost of the procedures

    Differences in the actual cost of the procedures (including supplies, time)

    Time frame: 30 days

  5. Patient reported sexual function measures using IIEF questionaire

    International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) to measure sexual dysfunction

    Time frame: 30 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Albany Medical College
    Albany, New York 12208, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Choi YH, Kang MY, Sung HH, Jeon HG, Chang Jeong B, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM. Comparison of Cancer Detection Rates Between TRUS-Guided Biopsy and MRI-Targeted Biopsy According to PSA Level in Biopsy-Naive Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Feb;17(1):e19-e25. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.007. Epub 2018 Sep 13. PubMed 30415878 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29552975 ↗
  • Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, van der Kwast TH, Matveev VB, van der Poel HG, De Santis M, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Yuan CY, Cornford P, Mottet N, Lam TB, Rouviere O. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250-266. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026. Epub 2017 Mar 21. PubMed 28336078 ↗
  • Wu YP, Li XD, Ke ZB, Chen SH, Chen PZ, Wei Y, Huang JB, Sun XL, Xue XY, Zheng QS, Xu N. Risk factors for infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Infect Drug Resist. 2018 Sep 17;11:1491-1497. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S171162. eCollection 2018. PubMed 30271182 ↗
  • Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, Weidner W, Loeb S. Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):353-365. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Aug 17. PubMed 27543165 ↗
  • Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V, Stroup SP. An Update of the American Urological Association White Paper on the Prevention and Treatment of the More Common Complications Related to Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2017 Aug;198(2):329-334. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.103. Epub 2017 Mar 29. PubMed 28363690 ↗
  • Saade EA, Suwantarat N, Zabarsky TF, Wilson B, Donskey CJ. Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli Infections After Transrectal Biopsy of the Prostate in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Pathog Immun. 2016;1(2):243-257. doi: 10.20411/pai.v1i2.123. PubMed 27774521 ↗
  • Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Feb 13;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0. PubMed 30760274 ↗
  • Skouteris VM, Crawford ED, Mouraviev V, Arangua P, Metsinis MP, Skouteris M, Zacharopoulos G, Stone NN. Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Versus Transperineal Mapping Prostate Biopsy: Complication Comparison. Rev Urol. 2018;20(1):19-25. doi: 10.3909/riu0785. PubMed 29942197 ↗
  • Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, Wagenlehner FME. Prostate Biopsy-related Infection: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors, Prevention Strategies, and Management Approaches. Urology. 2017 Jun;104:11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.011. Epub 2016 Dec 19. PubMed 28007492 ↗
  • Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih YT, Ward JF, McRae SE, Chapin BF, Pisters LL, Pettaway CA, Kim J, Demirel HC, Davis JW. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018 Nov;21(4):524-532. doi: 10.1038/s41391-018-0056-7. Epub 2018 Jul 9. PubMed 29988098 ↗
  • Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, Spevack L, Hajek D, Tunis A, Lai E, Loblaw A; Collaborators. Transperineal Prostate Biopsies Using Local Anesthesia: Experience with 1,287 Patients. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate, Complications and Patient Tolerability. J Urol. 2019 Jun;201(6):1121-1126. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000156. PubMed 30835607 ↗
  • Meyer AR, Joice GA, Schwen ZR, Partin AW, Allaf ME, Gorin MA. Initial Experience Performing In-office Ultrasound-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anesthesia Using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System. Urology. 2018 May;115:8-13. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.01.021. Epub 2018 Feb 1. PubMed 29409845 ↗
  • Mian BM, Kaufman RP Jr, Berstein A, Fisher HAG. Letter: Complications Following Transrectal and Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: Results of the ProBE-PC Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024 Sep;212(3):511-512. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000004081. Epub 2024 Jun 7. No abstract available. PubMed 38847318 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 38700844 ↗

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 Dec 23, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04081636
Lead sponsor
Albany Medical College
Responsible party
Badar M. Mian (Professor of Surgery, Albany Medical College) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 9, 2019
Start date
Sep 2, 2019
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2024
Completion
Dec 31, 2024
Last update
Dec 23, 2025

Study contacts

Badar M Mian, MD
principal investigator · Albany Medical College

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 Dec 2025. 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