Cambridge Prostate Biopsy DevicE: CAMPROBE
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Developing a safer and more accurate device for biopsies of suspected prostate cancer
IRAS ID
159644
Contact name
Vincent Gnanapragasam
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Cambridge
Duration of Study in the UK
4 years, 11 months, 30 days
Research summary
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the UK and its incidence is rising. The current method of diagnosing prostate cancer is with a needle biopsy of the prostate guided by a transrectal ultrasound probe inserted into the rectum. Tens of thousands of these procedures are performed annually in the UK and the rates are rising. This method however carries a significant risk of side effects including bleeding, fever and severe infections as the needle has to traverse the bowel a number of times. Moreover multiple punctures are needed. Despite this invasive procedure, it is now known that over 30% of cancers will be missed. A safer and more accurate alternative is to biopsy the prostate through the skin between the rectum and the scrotum (perineal biopsies). This approach results in fewer infections and is more accurate in diagnosing prostate cancer. This method however currently still requires multiple punctures of the perineum and patients usually require a general anaesthetic to tolerate this procedure. We have developed the concept of the CAMPROBE (Cambridge Prostate Biopsy Device) that will allow us to replicate the safety and accuracy of a perineal biopsy approach but can be undertaken in the outpatient clinic using local anaesthesia. We are now ready to move forward into studies in patients to evaluate the device. Our main aim in this study is to assess the acceptance of the device to undertake prostate biopsies under local anaesthetic and in the outpatient department as an alternative to the standard transrectal biopsies. We will also measure the effect of the device on a patient’s risk of infection, bleeding, urinary problems and sexual problems after a procedure. All of these are known to be important side effects of the current standard method of undertaking prostate biopsies. If we show that this device is practical to use and acceptable to patients we will plan larger direct comparison with the current standard method in a future study.
REC name
East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/EE/1172
Date of REC Opinion
19 Nov 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion