AzTrials
AzTrials

Prostate CancerNCT02761135

Does End-fire Technique Increase Detection Rate of Prostate Cancer at First Re-biopsy Compared to Side-fire Technique?

An observational study of Prostate Cancer, run by Kronoberg County Council at 1 site in Sweden.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in Sweden. During investigation of suspected cancer transrectal ultrasound with needle biopsies from prostate leeds to diagnosis. The most common technique today is side-fire where the needle enter the prostate in angle from the probe. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age, men only
Conditions the study is for
Prostate Cancer
How many people
364 participants
Where
1 siteSweden
Study dates
Jan 2011to Mar 2018
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages Any age
  • Men only
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Study population: Men admitted to Urological reception in Vaxjo and Ljungby for a first-time re-biopsy for investigating prostate cancer.

Who may be able to join

  • first re-biopsy
  • PSA over 3ng/ml
  • T1c to T2a palpatory finding

Who cannot join

  • prostate cancer
  • T2b or more advanced cancer
  • more than one previous biopsy done

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Sweden1 site
  • Section of Urology, Department of surgery, Regional Hospital Växjö

    Vaxjo, Kronoberg County

Other trials in Sweden

About this study

Official title: Does End-fire Technique Increase Detection Rate of Prostate Cancer at First Re-biopsy Compared to Side-fire Technique, in Investigating a Raised Prostatic Specific Antigen (PSA)?

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in Sweden. During investigation of suspected cancer transrectal ultrasound with needle biopsies from prostate leeds to diagnosis.

The most common technique today is side-fire where the needle enter the prostate in angle from the probe. In end-fire technique the needle enters the prostate at tip of probe without angle. The difference in techniques side-fire vs. end-fire affects the possibility to reach the ventral and apical aspects of prostate.

Read more

Today´s standard is at least five cores from each side of the prostate at first biopsy. If first sample is negative there will usually be another urological exam and a first re-biopsy.

The study aim to compare these two methods in cancer detection. The investigators' hypothesis is that when using end-fire technique at first re-biopsy, investigators find more cancers compared to side-fire.

Patients are prospectively randomized into two groups, both assessing 12 core biopsies according to study protocol.

Primary endpoint is cancer detection. Data will be collected about patient age, PSA-level, prostate size, digital rectal exam, hypoechogenic zones and length of cancers.

Conditions
Prostate Cancer
Keywords
Biopsy technique, Transrectal ultrasonography probe, Side-fire, Prostate cancer, End-fire
Medical subject headings
Prostatic Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Study groups in NCT02761135
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Side-fireUsing side-fire technique during transrectal ultrasound.
End-fireUsing end-fire technique during transrectal ultrasound.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Cancer detection

    After finished study inclusion, data will be analyzed and presented within 12-18 months.

    Measured: Study inclusion continues until 400 patients is included. Estimated time frame from study start 5 years.

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted4 May 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2011
  3. Primary completionMar 2018
  4. Study completionMar 2018

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
364 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02761135
Sponsor's protocol ID
Endfirestudie
Status last verified
May 2018
First submitted
21 May 2015
Last updated
22 May 2018
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
Individual data sharing
Yes

Publications

  • Ortegren J, Holmberg JT, Lekas E, Mana S, Martensson S, Richthoff J, Sundqvist P, Kjolhede H, Bratt O, Liedberg F. A randomised trial comparing two protocols for transrectal prostate repeat biopsy: six lateral posterior plus six anterior cores versus a standard posterior 12-core biopsy. Scand J Urol. 2019 Aug;53(4):217-221. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2019.1628102. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

    PubMed 31204873

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Prostate Cancer, run by Kronoberg County Council at 1 site in Sweden.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Sweden. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Cancer detection (time frame: Study inclusion continues until 400 patients is included. Estimated time frame from study start 5 years.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02761135, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 May 2018.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in