CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06071195AllinOne_MRIUpdated Sep 27, 2024

All-in-One Prostate Cancer Staging with MRI

An observational study in Prostate Cancer, sponsored by European Institute of Oncology. Recruiting at 3 sites in Italy. Open to male participants aged 35 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-09-27.

Sponsored by European Institute of Oncology · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Jun 2026, 3 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Dec 2021; still recruiting 4 years 9 months later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
400
Ages
35 Years and older
Sex
Male
01

Study summary

Prior to treatment, it is essential to assess not only the extent of prostate cancer within the prostate, but also to determine whether the disease has initiated metastatic spread. Whole-body MRI has become a viable option for the detection of metastatic disease derived from a number of cancers, but is typically performed in a separate scanning session to an initial dedicated prostate MRI in which the local disease is assessed. In patients known to be at high risk for significant prostate cancer prior to this initial MRI, and thus highly likely to proceed to treatment, this delays arriving at a definitive treatment decision. The investigators will evaluate the sensitivity of a protocol that combines bi-parametric prostate MRI, performed according to PI-RADS v2.1 guidelines, with a whole-body MRI based on the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P) guidelines, for an All-in-One, local and systemic staging of intermediate-favorable or high risk prostate cancer patients. The resulting staging decisions will be compared to the results of systemic staging with those obtained by computed tomography and bone scintigraphy in the standard staging pathway.

Read the detailed description

Accurate tumor staging for unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients should underpin both prognostication and management decisions. This void necessitates evaluation of the local, primary disease as well as spread to distant sites including lymph nodes and possible distant metastases.

Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) has become the reference standard practice for local imaging-based assessment in prostate cancer (PCa). Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) is seeing growing for detection of distant, metastatic disease, and is particularly suited to detection of bone metastases, which are common in PCa. The possibility of a one-stop staging modality has been raised, wherein mp-MRI + whole body MRI (WB-MRI) would be used to further assess nodal and metastatic disease status in a single sitting. Currently however, international guidelines consider bone scintigraphy (BS) and pelvic computed tomography (CT) for distant disease to be the mainstays of imaging-based staging decisions. A further concern with transitioning to All-in-One prostate staging with MRI relates to the duration of scanning required, as an excessive scan duration is likely to lead to patient discomfort, motion and consequently reduce image quality.

The prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) v2.1 standard published by Turkbey et al. provides guidelines for mp-MRI of the prostate that are widely used as the basis for assessment of local, primary PCa. Recent evidence suggests that some components of the PI-RADS mp-MRI protocol are of little or no benefit to men with a very high risk of aggressive PCa, defined as prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≥10 ng/mL and + digital rectal exam, even before initial biopsy or repeated biopsy. In particular, dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging and T2-weighted images (T2WI) in a third orthogonal plane does not improve the overall accuracy of mp-MRI. Therefore, biparametric MRI (bp-MRI; i.e. T2WI in two planes, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI, without contrast agent injection)) has been suggested to reduce examination time and cost, while retaining sufficient diagnostic accuracy to "rule out" high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men.

WB-MRI offers greater sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy for bone and nodal disease than BS and conventional CT. Further, a meta-analysis by Woo et al. has shown MRI (DWI + conventional sequences) to have excellent sensitivity and specificity in particular for detection of bone metastases in patients with PCa. The pooled per-patient sensitivity and specificity of MRI in the 10 studies included in the meta-analysis were 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.93-0.99), respectively. Similar performance for WB-MRI is reported in the meta-analysis of Shen et al. who found the diagnostic performance of WB-MRI to be similar to that of choline PET/CT, with both being superior to BS in the detection of bone metastases. The pooled sensitivities and specificities in this meta-analysis were 0.97/0.95 and 0.79/0.82 for WB-MRI and BS respectively. WB-MRI appears to be more accurate than conventional CT, which not surprising the pooled sensitivities and specificities of CT alone have been reported as 0.42 and 0.82 in a pair of meta-analyses . A recent work by Johnston et al., found that a WB-MRI protocol consisting of unenhanced T1-weighted DIXON and diffusion-weighted scans provides much higher diagnostic accuracy than BS (sensitivity/specificity 0.90/0.88 vs 0.60/1.00) for the primary staging of intermediate- and high-risk PCa. They also found high and very similar sensitivities/specificities for WB-MRI and BS in respect to nodal disease, with values of 1.00/0.96 and 1.00/0.82 for N1 disease and 0.75/ 0.93 and 0.75/0.92 for M1a disease respectively.

The investigators are continuing their studies into the role and the added value of WB-MRI in oncologic patients with advanced cancer (prostate, breast, melanoma], lymphoma).

The investigators propose to evaluate the sensitivity of a protocol that combines bp-MRI of the prostate, following the PI-RADS v2.1 guideline, with WB-MRI based on MET-RADS-P guidelines, for an All-in-One, local and systemic staging of unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients and to compare the results of systemic staging with those obtained with CT and BS in the standard staging pathway. The combination of bp-MRI and WB-MRI is expected to require a scan time of roughly 40 minutes, allowing it to be performed in a conventional mp-MRI scan time allotment.

02

Conditions studied

  • Prostate Cancer

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Prostate Cancer
  • Staging
  • Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging
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 planned enrollment of 400 is above the median of 200 across 1,181 observational studies indexed under Prostatic Neoplasms.

Browse Prostatic Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

European Institute of Oncology is the lead sponsor of 178 studies on the registry; 113 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
35 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Male
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients

Inclusion criteria

  • at least one of: International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥ 3 (Gleason Score ≥ 4+3); cT3 initial diagnosis with any PSA level; PSA ≥ 20 ng/mL with any Gleason score;
  • and all the following: Signed informed consent; Patients eligible to active treatment (either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) and/or hormone therapy; Life expectancy ≥ 10 years;

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Contraindications to MRI (e.g. severe claustrophobia or MRI unsafe device);
  • Previous or ongoing hormone therapy or radiation therapy for prostate cancer;
  • Significant intercurrent morbidity that, in the judgment of the investigator, would limit compliance with study protocols;
  • Previous mp-MRI performed within six weeks of the outpatient visit and compliant with PI-RADS v2.1 guidelines;
  • Prostate cancer with significant sarcomatoid or spindle cell or neuroendocrine small cell components;
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
400 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Prostate Cancer Patients

    Patients will undergo a combined whole-body MRI + multiparametric prostate MRI examination along with routine staging examinations (PET, CT / bone scintigraphy). Reporting will be performed without and with reference to the whole-body MRI examination. Differences in the resulting staging and in management recommendations based on the two reportings will be recorded.

    Diagnostic Test: Prostate Cancer Patients

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testProstate Cancer Patients

    see arm/group description

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Staging Sensitivity

    Sensitivity (SE) of the evaluated diagnostic procedures based on the case report forms (CRFs) compiled at the time of reporting

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Staging Specificity

    Specificity (SP) and the overall accuracy of the evaluated diagnostic procedures based on the CRFs compiled at the time of reporting

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

2 of 3 sites recruiting
  • Spedali Civili di Brescia
    Brescia, BS 25123, Italy
    Recruiting
  • Istituto Europeo di Oncologia
    Milano, MI 20141, Italy
    Recruiting
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Ospedale Borgo Roma
    Verona, VR 37134, Italy
    Not yet recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bjurlin MA, Rosenkrantz AB, Beltran LS, Raad RA, Taneja SS. Imaging and evaluation of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2015 Nov;12(11):617-28. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2015.242. Epub 2015 Oct 20. PubMed 26481576 ↗
  • Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. Epub 2019 Mar 18. PubMed 30898406 ↗
  • Pasoglou V, Larbi A, Collette L, Annet L, Jamar F, Machiels JP, Michoux N, Vande Berg BC, Tombal B, Lecouvet FE. One-step TNM staging of high-risk prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): toward an upfront simplified "all-in-one" imaging approach? Prostate. 2014 May;74(5):469-77. doi: 10.1002/pros.22764. Epub 2013 Dec 24. PubMed 24375774 ↗
  • Morote J, Celma A, Roche S, de Torres IM, Mast R, Semedey ME, Regis L, Planas J. Who Benefits from Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Suspicion of Prostate Cancer? Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Nov;2(6):664-669. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.11.009. Epub 2018 Dec 14. PubMed 31411977 ↗
  • Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH, Moon MH. Head-to-Head Comparison Between Biparametric and Multiparametric MRI for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):W226-W241. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.19880. Epub 2018 Sep 21. PubMed 30240296 ↗
  • Choi MH, Kim CK, Lee YJ, Jung SE. Prebiopsy Biparametric MRI for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection With PI-RADS Version 2: A Multicenter Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):839-846. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20498. Epub 2019 Feb 19. PubMed 30779662 ↗
  • Obmann VC, Pahwa S, Tabayayong W, Jiang Y, O'Connor G, Dastmalchian S, Lu J, Shah S, Herrmann KA, Paspulati R, MacLennan G, Ponsky L, Abouassaly R, Gulani V. Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid Biparametric MRI Protocol for Detection of Histologically Proven Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2018 Dec;122:133-138. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.032. Epub 2018 Sep 7. PubMed 30201301 ↗
  • Boesen L, Norgaard N, Logager V, Balslev I, Bisbjerg R, Thestrup KC, Winther MD, Jakobsen H, Thomsen HS. Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men: The Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer (BIDOC) Study. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Jun 1;1(2):e180219. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0219. PubMed 30646066 ↗
  • Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, Chen L, Li J, Peng T. Diagnostic Performance of Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Aug;211(2):369-378. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18946. Epub 2018 Jun 12. PubMed 29894216 ↗
  • Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L, Coche E, Danse E, Jamar F, Machiels JP, Vande Berg B, Omoumi P, Tombal B. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):68-75. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.020. Epub 2012 Feb 17. PubMed 22366187 ↗
  • Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Bone Metastasis in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2018 Jan;73(1):81-91. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.042. Epub 2017 Apr 12. PubMed 28412063 ↗
  • Shen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z. Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 2014 Nov;43(11):1503-13. doi: 10.1007/s00256-014-1903-9. Epub 2014 May 20. PubMed 24841276 ↗
  • Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogeveen YL, Severens JL, Barentsz JO. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008 Apr;63(4):387-95. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022. Epub 2008 Feb 4. PubMed 18325358 ↗
  • Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC, Zattoni F. Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013 Jun;63(6):1040-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.039. Epub 2012 Sep 25. PubMed 23036576 ↗
  • Johnston EW, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu HS, Ramachandran N, Sokolska M, Bainbridge A, Moore C, Ahmed HU, Punwani S. Multiparametric whole-body 3.0-T MRI in newly diagnosed intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement for nodal and metastatic staging. Eur Radiol. 2019 Jun;29(6):3159-3169. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5813-4. Epub 2018 Dec 5. PubMed 30519933 ↗
  • Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N, Koh DM, De Keyzer F, Collins DJ, Sala E, Schlemmer HP, Petralia G, Vargas HA, Fanti S, Tombal HB, de Bono J. METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer: Practical Guidelines for Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Evaluations of Multiorgan Involvement in Advanced Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):81-92. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.033. Epub 2016 Jun 14. PubMed 27317091 ↗
  • Pricolo P, Ancona E, Summers P, Abreu-Gomez J, Alessi S, Jereczek-Fossa BA, De Cobelli O, Nole F, Renne G, Bellomi M, Padhani AR, Petralia G. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) reporting with the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer (MET-RADS-P): inter-observer agreement between readers of different expertise levels. Cancer Imaging. 2020 Oct 27;20(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s40644-020-00350-x. PubMed 33109268 ↗
  • Zugni F, Ruju F, Pricolo P, Alessi S, Iorfida M, Colleoni MA, Bellomi M, Petralia G. The added value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with advanced breast cancer. PLoS One. 2018 Oct 12;13(10):e0205251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205251. eCollection 2018. PubMed 30312335 ↗
  • Petralia G, Padhani A, Summers P, Alessi S, Raimondi S, Testori A, Bellomi M. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: is it all we need for detecting metastases in melanoma patients? Eur Radiol. 2013 Dec;23(12):3466-76. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2968-x. Epub 2013 Jul 25. PubMed 23884300 ↗
  • Montoro J, Laszlo D, Zing NP, Petralia G, Conte G, Colandrea M, Martinelli G, Preda L. Comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance and FDG-PET/CT in the assessment of Hodgkin's lymphoma for staging and treatment response. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014 May 15;8:429. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2014.429. eCollection 2014. PubMed 24963346 ↗

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 Sep 27, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06071195
Lead sponsor
European Institute of Oncology
Collaborators
Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 6, 2023
Start date
Dec 22, 2021
Primary completion
Jun 22, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 22, 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 27, 2024

Study contacts

Giuseppe Petralia, MD
Contact
giuseppe.petralia@ieo.it
+39 02 94372901
Paul Summers, PhD
Contact
paul.summers@ieo.it
Giuseppe Petralia, MD
principal investigator · European Institute of Oncology, IEO IRCCS

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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