Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion Does Not Influence the Efficacy of Prostatic Artery Embolization

A correlation study between prostate necrosis rate calculated by 3D Slicer software and clinical efficacy of prostatic artery embolization, along with an analysis of predictors of clinical success after prostatic artery embolization

PURPOSE

To analyze the correlation between the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and the clinical efficacy at 1-year after PAE, and to explore potential predictors of clinical success after PAE for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

The prostate magnetic resonance imaging data at 1-month after PAE were imported into 3D Slicer software for calculating the prostate necrosis rate and thus analyzing the relationship between the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE and the efficacy score ratio at 1-year after PAE. The 151 patients with PAE technical success were divided into a clinical success group (n = 126) and a clinical failure group (n = 25). Independent predictors of clinical success after PAE were analyzed by multifactorial logistic regression, and the predictive performance of each factor was evaluated by applying the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

There was a linear negative correlation between the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE and the efficacy score ratio at 1-year after surgery (P < 0.001). In the clinical success group, both the initial prostate volume (PV) and the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE were significantly higher than in the clinical failure group (P < 0.001), and acute urinary retention (AUR) and adenomatous-dominant BPH were also associated with clinical success (P < 0.05). Multifactorial logistic regression analysis revealed that larger initial PV, a higher prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after surgery, and AUR were independent predictors of clinical success after PAE. The AUC values for these three indicators and their combination were 0.720, 0.928, 0.599, and 0.951, respectively, in which the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE demonstrating a high predictive value.

CONCLUSION

The higher the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE, the better the clinical efficacy at 1-year after PAE is likely to be, and the prostate necrosis rate at 1-month after PAE is expected to become a predictor of clinical success after PAE.

The prostatic middle lobe: clinical significance, presentation and management

The role of the prostatic middle lobe in the presentation and management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is under-appreciated. Middle lobe enlargement is associated with intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), which causes a unique type of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) via a 'ball-valve' mechanism. IPP is a reliable predictor of BOO and the strongest independent factor for failure of medical therapy necessitating conversion to surgical intervention. Men with middle lobe enlargement tend to exhibit mixed symptoms of both the storage and the voiding types, but symptomatology will vary depending on the degree of IPP present. Initial assessments such as uroflowmetry and post-void residual volumes are inadequate to detect IPP and could confound the clinical picture. Radiological evaluation of prostate morphology is key to assessment as it provides important prognostic information and can help with operative planning. Treatment strategies employed for BPH should consider the shape and morphology of prostate adenomata, specifically the presence of middle lobe enlargement and the degree of associated IPP.

Prostatic Arterial Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Associated with Benign Prostatic Enlargement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an emerging minimally invasive technique for lower urinary tract symptom reduction from benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). While the technique is becoming increasingly popular with patients and interventional radiologists, most urologists remain skeptical of the PAE's long-term efficacy and comparative success to the gold standard transurethral resection of the prostate.

RECENT FINDINGS

PAE has been found in multiple meta-analyses to perform similarly to the gold standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with regard to patient-driven measures like IPSS and IPSS-QoL, while also performing favorably in objective measurements including Qmax and PVR out to at least 12 months post intervention. Furthermore, PAE has a demonstrated shorter hospital length of stay and fewer adverse events when compared to TURP. PAE provides patients with an alternative to transurethral options for the management of LUTS in the setting of bladder outlet obstruction. While long-term evidence demonstrating the durability of PAE is still forthcoming, the procedure has been demonstrated to be safe according to multiple meta-analyses. Patients deserve to be counseled on PAE as an alternative to surgery and made aware that while the overall treatment effect may not be as robust or durable, the procedure carries a favorable adverse event profile that is attractive to patients wishing to avoid a trans-urethral approach.

Influence of benign prostatic hyperplasia patterns detected with MRI on the clinical outcome after prostatic artery embolization

BACKGROUND

To investigate the influence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patterns detected with MRI on clinical outcomes after prostatic artery embolization (PAE).

MATERIALS & METHODS

This retrospective study included 71 consecutive patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate followed by PAE at a single centre. MRI scans were evaluated and BPH patterns were determined according to Wasserman type and a modified BPH classification. Additionally, scans were evaluated regarding the presence of adenomatous-dominant benign prostatic hyperplasia (AdBPH). LUTS were assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and urinary flow rate (Qmax). Follow-up examination included MRI and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

For clinical outcome at follow-up, IPSS showed median reduction of 54% (IQR 41-75%) and Qmax improved by 4.1 ml/s. We noted significant reduction in volume, intraprostatic protrusion, and prostatic urethral angle in our collective (p < 0.01). Median volume reduction was 25% (IQR 15%-34%). Bilateral embolization was a significant predictor for volume reduction at follow-up. Multiple linear regression analysis showed significant effect of high initial volume on reduction in IPSS after treatment (p < 0.01). Presence of AdBPH was significantly associated with both, volume loss and clinical improvement in terms of IPSS reduction (p < 0.01). Neither BPH pattern based on the Wassermann type nor modified BPH classification were significantly related with postinterventional IPSS and volume loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Men benefit from PAE regardless the macroscopic BPH MRI pattern. Preinterventional prostate volume and presence of AdBPH on MRI should be considered for outcome prognosis after PAE.

Prostatic artery embolization using reflux-control microcatheter: prospective experience addressing feasibility

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) using a reflux control microcatheter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, single-center investigation that included 10 patients undergoing PAE for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). Baseline, 3-month, and 12-month efficacy endpoints were obtained for all patients and included prostate-specific antigen (PSA), uroflowmetry, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical assessment using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) questionnaire and the IPSS-Quality of life (QoL) item. Complications were assessed using the Cirse classification system.

RESULTS

Ten patients entered statistical analysis and presented with significant LUTS improvement 12 months after PAE, as follows: mean IPSS reduction of 86.6% (2.8 vs. 20.7, - 17.9, P < 0.001), mean QoL reduction of 79.4% (1.1 vs. 5.4, - 4.3, P < 0.001), mean prostatic volume reduction of 38.4% (69.3 cm³ vs. 112.5 cm³, - 43.2 cm³, P < 0.001), mean peak urinary flow (Qmax) increase of 199.4% (19.9 mL/s vs. 6.6 mL/s, + 13.3 mL/s, P = 0.006) and mean PSA reduction of 50.1% (3.0 ng/mL vs. 6.1 ng/mL, - 3.0 ng/mL, P < 0.001). One patient (10%) needed transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) after PAE due to a ball-valve effect. One microcatheter (10%) needed to be replaced during PAE due to occlusion. Non-target embolization was not observed in the cohort.

CONCLUSION

This initial experience suggests that PAE using a reflux control microcatheter is effective and safe for the treatment of LUTS attributed to BPH.

Updates on Preprocedural Evaluation and Patient Selection for Prostatic Artery Embolization

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is a safe and effective treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Patient evaluation is a critical and important part of this growing practice. History taking should include symptoms score evaluations for lower urinary tract symptoms, erectile function, and prostatitis symptoms score. The objective evaluations commonly include measurement of prostate specific antigen, postvoid residual volume, and uroflowmetry as well as urodynamic studies in selective patients. Imaging evaluation may include computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography, elucidating prostate volume, prostate gland morphology, vasculature, and prostate cancer. With evolving knowledge on PAE, we aim to discuss patient evaluation and selection based on updated evidence and discuss specific scenarios.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Indications, Preparation, Techniques, Imaging Evaluation, Reporting, and Complications

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous growth of the transitional zone of the prostate, which surrounds the prostatic urethra. Consequently, it can cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and bladder outlet obstruction symptoms that may substantially reduce a patient's quality of life. Several treatments are available for BPH, including medications such as α-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors and surgical options including transurethral resection of the prostate and prostatectomy. Recently, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option for selected men with BPH and moderate to severe LUTS. Adequate pre- and postprocedural evaluations with clinical examinations and questionnaires, laboratory tests, and urodynamic and imaging examinations (particularly US, MRI, and CT) are of key importance to achieve successful treatment. Considering that the use of PAE has been increasing in tertiary hospital facilities, radiologists and interventional radiologists should be aware of the main technical concepts of PAE and the key features to address in imaging reports in pre- and postprocedural settings. An invited commentary by Lopera is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.