Outcome prediction of prostatic artery embolization: post hoc analysis of a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Single Center Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To assess efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective single-center, single-arm, pilot study, 9 men with advanced PCa underwent PAE. PAE was performed with the use of 250-400 µm Embozene microspheres (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA). International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), urinary peak flow (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) was assessed at 12 weeks and up to 12 months. Changes in total prostate volume (TPV) and tumor responses by PSA, changes in tumor volume and evaluation of tumor regression by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were assessed at 12 weeks after PAE.

RESULTS

IPSS reduction in median 6 points (0-19) and a significant decrease in PVR from median 70 (20-600) mL to 10 (0-280) mL could be achieved within 12 weeks after PAE. Median TPV and tumor volumes (TV) increased slightly from 19.7 (6.4-110.8) mL to 23.4 (2.4-66.3) mL and 6.4 (4.6-18.3) mL to 8.1 (2.4-25.6) mL at a median of 12 weeks after the procedure. Significant tumor necrosis (≥ 50%) was found in one patient. Eight patients showed > 50% of viable tumor on post-PAE MRI according to MRI. Only one Clavien-Dindo Grade 1 adverse event related to PAE occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

PAE with the use of 250-400 µm microspheres is feasible, safe and effective in some patients with advanced PCa regarding functional outcomes. A cytoreductive effect might be achieved in individual patients but must be further assessed.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03457805.

[Minimally-Invasive Surgical Techniques (MIST): Shedding Light on the Mist]

As life expectancy increases and there is growing demand for BPH treatments, innovative technologies have been developed, allowing for swift recovery, symptom relief, low complication rates, and the possibility of performing procedures on an outpatient basis, often under local anaesthesia. This review aims to describe the outcomes of newly developed minimally-invasive surgical therapies (MIST) for BPH treatment in terms of functional voiding parameters and sexual function. These therapies are categorized into primarily ablative (Aquablation [Aquabeam]), non-ablative (Prostatic Urethral Lift (PUL, Urolift), temporary implantable devices [iTind]), and secondarily ablative procedures (convective water vapor ablation, Rezum, Prostate Artery Embolization [PAE]). All MIST technologies have advanced the medical care of patients with BPH while preserving ejaculation. However, there is a shortage of long-term data specifically addressing re-intervention rates and the preservation of functional voiding parameters. Although there is promising data from regulatory trials and randomized studies, all MIST therapies are potentially associated with severe complications. Patients considering such methods must be thoroughly informed about their inferiority compared with established transurethral procedures like TUR-P and enucleation.

Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Obstruction: 5-year Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) are two of the surgical options for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO). Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of PAE and TURP for LUTS/BPO treatment at long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, open-label, single-centre trial at a Swiss tertiary care centre. The main outcome was the change in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) after PAE versus TURP. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, functional measures, and adverse events assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 mo. Between-group differences in the change from baseline to 5 yr were tested using two-sided Mann-Whitney and t tests.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Of the 103 patients with refractory LUTS/BPO who were randomised between 2014 and 2017, 18/48 who underwent PAE and 38/51 who underwent TURP reached the 60-mo follow-up visit. The mean reduction in IPSS from baseline to 5 yr was -7.78 points after PAE and -11.57 points after TURP (difference 3.79 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.66 to 8.24; p = 0.092). TURP was superior for most patient-reported secondary outcomes except for erectile function. At 5 yr, PAE was less effective than TURP regarding objective parameters, such as the improvement in maximum urinary flow rate (3.59 vs 9.30 ml/s, difference -5.71, 95% CI -10.72 to -0.70; p = 0. 027) and reduction in postvoid residual volume (27.81 vs 219.97 ml; difference 192.15, 95% CI 83.79-300.51; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The improvement in LUTS/BPO at 5 yr after PAE was inferior to that achieved with TURP. The limitations of PAE should be considered during patient selection and counselling.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we show the long-term results of prostate artery embolisation (PAE) in comparison to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostate enlargement causing urinary symptoms. PAE shows good long-term results in properly selected patients, although the improvements are less pronounced than with TURP. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02054013.

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.

Clinical, Technical, and MRI Features Associated with Patients' Outcome at 3 Months and 2 Years following Prostate Artery Embolization: Is There an Added Value of Radiomics?

Our aim was to investigate which features were associated with clinical successes at short- and mid-terms following prostate artery embolization (PAE) for symptomatic benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH). All adults treated by PAE for BPH at our referral center between January 2017 and March 2021, with pre-treatment MRI, technical success, and follow-up at 3 months and 2 years were included in this single-center retrospective study. Radiologists reviewed the prostatic protrusion index (PPI), adenomatous dominant BPH (adBPH), and Wasserman classification on pre-treatment MRI. Radiomics analysis was achieved on the transitional zone on pre-treatment T2-weighted imaging (WI) and ADC, and comprised reproducibility assessment, unsupervised classifications, and supervised radiomics scores obtained with cross-validated Elasticnet regressions. Eighty-eight patients were included (median age: 65 years), with 81.8% clinical successes at 3 months and 60.2% at 2 years. No feature was associated with success at 3 months, except the radiomics score trained on T2-WI and ADC (AUROC = 0.694). Regarding success at 2 years, no radiomics approaches provided significant performances; however, Wasserman type-1 and change in international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at 3 months ≤ -35% were associated with success in multivariable analysis (OR = 5.82, p = 0.0296, and OR = 9.04, p = 0.0002). Thus, while radiomics provided limited interest, Wasserman classification and early IPSS changes appeared predictive of mid-term outcomes.

[Minimally invasive treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia : The German S2e guideline 2023-part 4]

BACKGROUND

Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive for benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) are one of the most frequent diseases in men and can have a significant impact on quality of life. Instrumental therapies are common, and many patients seek minimally invasive treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

Presentation and evidence-based evaluation of the minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Summary and overview of chapters 11-13 on minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO of the current long version of the German S2e guideline.

RESULTS

In case of absolute indication for surgery or after unsatisfactory or undesired medical therapy, minimally invasive treatments such as UroLift® (Neotract Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA), Rezῡm™ (Boston Scientific, Malborough, MA, USA), iTIND™ (Olympus America Inc., Westborough, MA, USA), and prostatic artery embolization (PAE) can be considered. These indirect/delayed ablative therapies offer lower morbidity and the possibility of performing them under local anesthesia, but they are inferior to direct ablative/resective techniques in terms of effectiveness and sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated German S2e guideline summarizes evidence-based recommendations for new minimally invasive therapies for LUTS/BPO, which present alternative treatment options for selected patients.

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 arterial embolisation for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE) compared to other procedures for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised studies (NRSs) enrolling men with BPH undergoing PAE vs other surgical interventions via a comprehensive search up until 8 November 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model, and rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) of RCTs and NRSs.

RESULTS

We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE vs transurethral resection of prostate (TURP; six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE vs sham (one RCT). This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes in a comparison of PAE vs TURP. Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urological symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; low CoE) and quality of life (QoL; MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; low CoE) measured by International Prostatic Symptom Score. We are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19-2.97; very low CoE). Long-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptom scores (MD 2.58, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; low CoE) and QoL (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; low CoE). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20-4.05; very low CoE).

CONCLUSION

Compared to TURP, the impact on urological symptoms and QoL improvement as perceived by patients appears to be similar. This review did reveal major uncertainty as to how major adverse events compare.

Long-Term Efficacy and Recurrence Prediction of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

PURPOSE

To explore the efficacy of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) during long-term follow-up and analyze predictors related to LUTS recurrence.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study involving 125 BPH patients with LUTS who underwent PAE from February 2014 to February 2020. The median follow-up was 36 months. Clinical success was defined as reductions in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) score and no need for any other treatment for LUTS; otherwise, it was regarded as a clinical failure. Recurrence was defined as a clinical failure that occurred after an initial success. Cumulative clinical success rates, recurrence rates and re-intervention rates were evaluated. Friedman test was performed to compare differences in IPSS, QoL and prostatic volume (PV) among baseline and follow-up times. Predictors for LUTS recurrence were analyzed with the univariate and multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Technical success (bilateral PAE) rate was 92.8% (116/125). Significant differences in IPSS, QoL and PV were observed between baseline and follow-up time points (P < 0.001). The cumulative clinical success rates at 2, 3, 4 and 5 years were 82.4%, 65.5%, 52.4% and 37.4%. The cumulative recurrence rates and re-intervention rates at 1, 2 and 5 years were 6.8%, 12.7%, 60.4% and 5.9%, 10.2%, 50.8%, respectively. Unilateral PAE was an significant predictor of recurrence (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PAE is an effective treatment option for LUTS. Unilateral PAE is a significant independent predictor of LUTS recurrence.

Influence of Prostate Artery Embolization on Different Qualities of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is an increasingly used minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of PAE on voiding and storage symptoms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between July 2014 and May 2019, 351 consecutive men with BPO who underwent PAE were included in a single-center study.

INTERVENTION

PAE is an interventional radiological procedure embolizing the prostatic arteries with microspheres.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint represented assessment of the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo after PAE. Secondary endpoints comprised assessment of IPSS quality of life (QoL), International Index of Erectile Function, peak urinary flow rate, postvoid residual volume, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen at the same time points. Data were analyzed using standard statistical methods, generalized estimating equations (symptom improvement over time as odds ratios), and McNemar-Bowker test (degree of improvement compared between symptoms).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Clinical success rates for PAE were 68%, 73%, and 66% at 1, 12, and 24 mo, respectively. The median IPSS improved significantly from 22 to 10 points after 2 yr (p < 0.001). Storage (-50%) and voiding (-58%) symptoms improved similarly (each p < 0.001), with nocturia decreasing least frequently but significantly (p < 0.001). After 1 and 2 yr, 35% (95% confidence interval [CI] 29-41%) and 30% (95% CI 21-40%) of patients reported alleviated storage, and 39% (95% CI 33-45%) and 38% (95% CI 29-49%) reported alleviated voiding symptoms, respectively. QoL improved from 5 to 2 points (p < 0.001). The main limitation is the number of patients lost during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

PAE significantly improved voiding and storage symptoms to a similar extent. This study may aid in counseling patients about this minimally invasive BPO treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with voiding and storage symptoms from benign prostate enlargement. Our analysis shows that PAE improves relevant lower urinary tract symptoms.

Prostatic Artery Embolisation: Do We Still Need It and for Whom?

Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) is now endorsed by international evidence-based guidelines as a treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms presumed secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) for selected patients. PAE is a truly minimally invasive technique, with proven efficacy and safety demonstrated for the short- to mid-term. As it has a unique treatment approach (endovascular instead of transurethral), its profile and ideal application differ clearly from other treatments for LUTS/BPO, which must be considered for patient selection. This mini review examines the role of PAE in the treatment of LUTS/BPO on the basis of current evidence. PATIENT SUMMARY: For properly selected patients, prostatic artery embolisation (PAE), in which arteries feeding the prostate are blocked in a nonsurgical procedure, is one of the treatment options for obstruction of urine outflow caused by benign enlargement of the prostate. This article examines the role of PAE according to the evidence available in the literature.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up to 8 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 years with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs.  MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age was 66 years, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 22.8, and prostate volume of participants was 72.8 mL. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. Prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up, and two RCTs and one NRS with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months).  Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; 6 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 78%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life as measured by the IPSS-quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; 5 RCTs, 300 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence). While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.97; 4 RCTs, 250 participants; I² = 24%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.27; 4 RCTs, 303 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). PAE may make little to no difference in erectile function measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function (MD -0.50 points, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.88; 2 RCTs, 120 participants; I² = 68%; low-certainty evidence). Based on NRS evidence, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 1 NRS, 260 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD 2.58 points, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 73%; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (MD 0.50 points, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.05; 2 RCTs, 206 participants; I² = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.32 to 10.93; 1 RCT, 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). While PAE may result in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 3.09 points, 95% CI -0.76 to 6.94; 1 RCT, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence), PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to TURP, PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE likely increases retreatment rates. While erectile function may be similar, PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the outcomes of this review was low or very low except for retreatment (moderate-certainty evidence), signaling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.

Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia—A Primer for Interventional Radiologists

Male patients over 50 years with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are potential candidates for prostatic artery embolization (PAE). PAE is not a perfect fit for all BPH patients. Careful pre- and postpostprocedural evaluation/consultation with correct selection of patients should be tailored on an individual basis. Evaluated parameters include the following: LUTS severity quantification with validated questionnaires as the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL), erectile and ejaculatory evaluation with validated questionnaires, blood tests including full blood count, coagulation profile, renal function and total/free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume measured by multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMR) of the prostate and/or transrectal ultrasound, uroflowmetry measuring the peak urinary flowrate (Qmax), and postvoid residual urine (PVR). Correct arterial anatomy identification with either computed tomography (CT) angiography, MR angiography, or intraprocedural cone-beam CT (CBCT) are suggested for a confident procedure and avoiding potential complications. The minimally invasive nature of PAE with a faster recovery, preserving the sexual function, and comparable results to standard prostatic surgery make the procedure an attractive choice for many male patients suffering with this condition. Patients should be informed about the potential for higher retreatment rates and shorter duration of treatment effect when compared with standard prostatic surgery. In this comprehensive review, we provide an updated toolbox for all interventional radiologists interested in the PAE practice for patients with BPH. We explain how to evaluate patients during consultation before and after PAE, describe the preprocedural imaging required, explain the technique, and narrate how to optimize outcomes. Finally, we review the level of evidence of PAE for BPH.

Protection of nontarget structures in prostatic artery embolization

Objective

To describe the efficacy and safety of protective embolization during prostatic artery embolization, as well as to discuss its clinical relevance.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective, observational, single-center study including 39 patients who underwent prostatic artery embolization to treat lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia between June 2008 and March 2018. Follow-up evaluations, performed at 3 and 12 months after the procedure, included determination of the International Prostate Symptom Score, a quality of life score, and prostate-specific antigen levels, as well as ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and uroflowmetry.

Results

Protective embolization was performed in 45 arteries: in the middle rectal artery in 19 (42.2%); in the accessory internal pudendal artery in 11 (24.4%); in an internal pudendal artery anastomosis in 10 (22.2%); in the superior vesical artery in four (8.9%); and in the obturator artery in one (2.2%). There was one case of nontarget embolization leading to a penile ulcer, which was attributed to reflux of microspheres to an unprotected artery. There were no complications related to the protected branches. All of the patients showed significant improvement in all of the outcomes studied (p < 0.05), and none reported worsening of sexual function during follow-up.

Conclusion

Protective embolization can reduce nontarget embolization during prostatic artery embolization without affecting the results of the procedure. In addition, no adverse events other than those expected or previously reported were observed. Therefore, protective embolization of pudendal region is safe.

More Than Detection of Adenocarcinoma - Indications and Findings in Prostate MRI in Benign Prostatic Disorders

BACKGROUND

 Multiparametric MRI of the prostate has become a fundamental tool in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer and is recommended before (or after negative) biopsy to guide biopsy and increase accuracy, as a staging examination (high-risk setting), and prior to inclusion into active surveillance. Despite this main field of application, prostate MRI can be utilized to obtain information in a variety of benign disorders of the prostate.

METHODS

 Systematic bibliographical research with extraction of studies, national (German) as well as international guidelines (EAU, AUA), and consensus reports on MRI of benign disorders of the prostate was performed. Indications and imaging findings of prostate MRI were identified for a) imaging the enlarged prostate, b) prostate MRI in prostatic artery embolization, c) imaging in prostatitis and d) imaging in congenital anomalies.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

 Different phenotypes of the enlarged prostate that partly correlate with severity of symptoms are discussed. We provide an overview of the different types of prostatitis and possible imaging findings, highlighting abscesses as a severe complication. The most common congenital anomalies of the prostate are utricular cysts, whereas anomalies like aplasia, hypoplasia, and ectopia are rare disorders. Knowledge of indications for imaging and imaging appearance of these conditions may improve patient care and enhance differential diagnosis.

KEY POINTS

  · Current guidelines do not implement indications for mpMRI apart from prostate carcinoma.. · MRI can distinguish different anatomical phenotypes of prostatic enlargement.. · Prostatic artery embolization represents a valuable treatment option in cases of symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement.. · Different forms of prostatitis exist and may mimic prostate carcinoma in MRI.. · MRI can be used to evaluate anatomical prostate anomalies..

CITATION FORMAT

· Oerther B, Sigle A, Franiel T et al. More Than Detection of Adenocarcinoma - Indications and Findings in Prostate MRI in Benign Prostatic Disorders. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; DOI: 10.1055/a-1719-1463.

Using prostate contrast retention (PCR) as the procedural endpoint in prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia

OBJECTIVES

The failure rate following prostate artery embolization (PAE) is around 20%, which may in part result from inadequate embolization. Prostate contrast retention (PCR) adequacy on immediate post-embolization cone-beam CT may provide better assessment of embolization completeness than arterial contrast stasis seen on fluoroscopy alone. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of PAE using PCR adequacy as the procedural endpoint.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all PAE cases using this technique at a single large volume center was conducted. Following initial embolization of the main prostatic arteries, if PCR was inadequate, additional embolization was performed. Technical success (adequate PCR) was defined as > 75% global prostate gland contrast staining. Clinical success was determined in accordance to CIRSE standards of practice.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-five patients (mean age 68 ± 8.4 years) underwent PAE from June 2017 to March 2019. Technical and clinical success rates were 98.8% and 96.4% respectively. Clinical success rate was significantly higher in patients with adequate PCR. International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QoL) scores significantly improved at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up when compared to baseline. Prostate volume (PV) and post-voiding residual bladder volume were significantly reduced at 3, 6, and 12 months in comparison to baseline. Mild (Clavien-Dindo grade I/II) and moderate (grade III) complication rates were 12.1% and 3.6% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

By using PCR adequacy as a guide to determine the procedure endpoint for PAE, it may be possible to achieve more complete embolization and thus higher clinical success rates.

KEY POINTS

• By using PCR adequacy as a guide to determine the procedure endpoint for PAE, it may be possible to achieve more complete embolization and thus higher clinical success rates.

Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) have a Differential Impact on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): Retrospective Analysis of the Multicentre UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) Study

PURPOSE

To compare the relative IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) improvement in storage and voiding symptoms between prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of the UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) multicentre database was conducted with inclusion of all patients with full IPSS questionnaire score data. The voiding and storage subscore improvement was compared between interventions. Student's t-test (paired and unpaired) and ANOVA (Analysis of variance) were used to identify significant differences between the groups.

RESULTS

146 patients (121 PAE, 25 TURP) were included in the analysis. Storage symptoms were more frequently the most severe symptom ('storage' in 75 patients vs 'voiding' in 17 patients). Between groups, no significant difference was seen in raw storage subscore improvement (TURP 4.9 vs PAE 4.2; p = 0.34) or voiding subscore improvement (TURP 8.4 vs PAE 6.7; p = 0.1). ANOVA demonstrated a greater proportionate reduction (relative to total IPSS) towards voiding symptoms in the TURP group (27.3% TURP vs 9.9% PAE, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although both TURP and PAE improve voiding symptoms more than storage, a significantly larger proportion of total symptom reduction is due to voiding in the TURP cohort, with PAE providing a more balanced improvement between voiding and storage.

Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-yr Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Single-centre Trial

BACKGROUND

Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) still remains under investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of PAE and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of LUTS/BPO at 2 yr of follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomised, open-label trial was conducted. There were 103 participants aged ≥40 yr with refractory LUTS/BPO.

INTERVENTION

PAE versus TURP.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and other questionnaires, functional measures, prostate volume, and adverse events were evaluated. Changes from baseline to 2 yr were tested for differences between the two interventions with standard two-sided tests.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The mean reduction in IPSS after 2 yr was 9.21 points after PAE and 12.09 points after TURP (difference of 2.88 [95% confidence interval 0.04-5.72]; p =  0.047). Superiority of TURP was also found for most other patient-reported outcomes except for erectile function. PAE was less effective than TURP regarding the improvement of maximum urinary flow rate (3.9 vs 10.23 ml/s, difference of -6.33 [-10.12 to -2.54]; p <  0.001), reduction of postvoid residual urine (62.1 vs 204.0 ml; 141.91 [43.31-240.51]; p =  0.005), and reduction of prostate volume (10.66 vs 30.20 ml; 19.54 [7.70-31.38]; p =  0.005). Adverse events were less frequent after PAE than after TURP (total occurrence n = 43 vs 78, p =  0.005), but the distribution among severity classes was similar. Ten patients (21%) who initially underwent PAE required TURP within 2 yr due to unsatisfying clinical outcomes, which prevented further assessment of their outcomes and, therefore, represents a limitation of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferior improvements in LUTS/BPO and a relevant re-treatment rate are found 2 yr after PAE compared with TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP. The disadvantages of PAE regarding functional outcomes should be considered for patient selection and counselling.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Prostatic artery embolisation is safe and effective. However, compared with transurethral resection of the prostate, its disadvantages regarding subjective and objective outcomes should be considered for individual treatment choices.

Reasons to consider prostatic artery embolization

PURPOSE

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a truly minimally invasive treatment option for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms presumed secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) over the last few years and is now supported by evidence-based international guidelines. Here, we provide an overview on the profile of PAE based on the most relevant and recent literature.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of literature on PAE was conducted on PubMed-Medline. The most relevant literature was summarized narratively.

RESULTS

While there is still a lack of long-term data, efficacy and safety data have been published for the short to mid-term. As with any minimally invasive technique, relief of bladder outlet obstruction is less pronounced after PAE compared to more invasive resective techniques. This is likely to be associated with higher re-intervention rates during the longer term. However, due to its beneficial safety profile, PAE represents an interesting option for many patients and could fill a niche between pharmacotherapy and formal surgical intervention. Given its unique treatment approach, i.e. endovascular instead of transurethral, PAE has a clearly different profile compared to other minimally invasive treatments. Performance with local anesthesia with possible continuation of anticoagulant drugs and no upper prostate size limit are the most important advantages of PAE.

CONCLUSION

PAE represents a valuable supplement in the treatment armamentarium of LUTS/BPH if patients are selected appropriately.

Pharmacological and interventional treatment of benign prostatic obstruction: An evidence‐based comparative review

Introduction

The recommended treatment for bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) after the failure of behavioral therapy and fluid modification includes pharmacological, minimally invasive interventional, and surgical approaches. Each option has different risk and benefit profiles, and the urologist must be aware of the unique characteristics of each option in order to be able to accurately counsel the patients based on their individual values and preferences. We provide a comparative review of the commonest pharmacological and most widely performed interventional/surgical treatments for BPO, discussing the evidence for the treatment characteristics that are most useful for the practicing urologist.

Methods

A search of the PubMed database was performed for articles reporting on the following treatments for LUTS due to BPO: α‐blockers, 5α‐reductase inhibitors, phosphpdiesterase‐5 inhibitors, prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), convective radiofrequency water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum), Temporary implantable Nitinol Device (iTIND), prostate artery embolization (PAE), transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), Aquablation, and anatomical endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (AEEP). We performed a narrative review focussing on the following outcomes: efficacy, safety, durability, duration of catheterization, length of stay, re‐treatment rate, efficacy in special situations (enlarged median lobe, prostate size, urinary retention, and anticoagulant use), and sexual adverse events.

Results

AEEP offers the greatest long‐term improvement in maximum flow rate, IPSS, and prostate volume reduction, with lowest re‐treatment rate, followed by PVP, TURP, and Aquablation. Urolift, Rezum, and PAE have similar efficacy for prostate volume up to 80cc, and all are more effective than the pharmacological treatment. Urolift offers the lowest rate of sexual dysfunction, followed by Rezum, and both can be performed as a day case under local anesthesia.

Conclusion

Several treatment options exist to treat voiding LUTS due to BPO. Newer minimally invasive treatments reduce the hospital stay and postoperative complications, whereas AEEP provides the greatest long‐term symptom improvement at the expense of higher morbidity and sexual dysfunction. Men should be counseled regarding all suitable treatment options as some may favor reduced efficacy in association with reduced side effects.

[Surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction: Guidelines from the Committee for Male Voiding Disorders of the French Urology Association]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Committee (CTMH) of the French Urology Association was to propose an update of the guidelines for surgical and interventional management of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

METHODS

All available data published on PubMed® between 2018 and 2020 were systematically searched and reviewed. All papers assessing surgical and interventional management of adult patients with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) were included for analysis. After studies critical analysis, conclusions with level of evidence and French guidelines were elaborated in order to answer the predefined clinical questions.

RESULTS/GUIDELINES

Offer a trans-uretral incision of the prostate to treat patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with a prostate volume<30cm³, without a middle lobe. TUIP increases the chances of preserving ejaculation. Propose mono- or bipolar trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) to treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS with a prostate volume between 30 and 80cm³. Vaporization by Greenlight™ or by bipolar energy can be offered as an alternative to TURP. Offer a Greenlight™ laser vaporization to patients at risk of bleeding. Offer endoscopic prostate enucleation to surgically treat patients with moderate to severe LUTS as an alternative to TURP and open prostatectomy (OP). Minimally invasive prostatectomy is an alternative to OP in centers without access to adequate endoscopic procedures. Embolization of the prostatic arteries may be offered in the event of a contraindication or refusal of surgery for prostates with a volume>80cm³. Prostatic uretral lift is an alternative in patients interested in preserving their ejaculatory function and with a prostate volume<70cm³ without a middle lobe. Aquablation and Rezum™ are under evaluation and should be offered in research protocols.

CONCLUSION

Major changes in surgical management of BPO have occurred and aim at reducing morbidity and improving quality of life of patients.

Efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) vs. transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients affected by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We also reviewed mean changes from baseline in PAE at selected follow-up points.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to May 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials on PAE were collected according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3, STATA 14, and GraphPad Prism 8. Pooled patient-reported scores and functional outcomes were calculated by using a fixed or random-effect model.

RESULTS

Eleven articles met our selection criteria and ten independent patient series were included in the final analysis. Pooled estimates suggested no significant difference between TURP and PAE for patient-reported outcomes including International Prostate Symptom Score (2.32 (- 0.44 to 5.09)) and quality of life (0.18 (- 0.41 to 0.77)) at 12 months. PAE was less effective regarding improvements in most functional outcomes such as maximum flow rate, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen. Moreover, PAE may be associated with relatively fewer complications, lower cost, and shorter hospitalization. After the PAE procedure, the overall weighted mean differences for all outcomes except sexual health scores were significantly improved from baseline during follow-up to 24 months.

CONCLUSION

PAE is non-inferior to TURP with regard to improving patient-reported outcomes, though most functional parameters undergo more changes after TURP than after PAE. Moreover, PAE can significantly continue to relieve symptoms for 24 months without causing serious complications.

KEY POINTS

• PAE is as effective as TURP in improving subjective symptom scores, with fewer complications and shorter hospitalization times. • PAE is inferior to TURP in the improvement of most functional outcomes. • Improvements due to PAE are durable during follow-up to 24 months.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up until 25 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs.  MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age, IPSS, and prostate volume of participants were 66 years, 22.8, and 72.8 mL, respectively. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. PAE versus TURP We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up and one RCT with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months).  Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.40 to 3.50; 369 participants; 6 RCTs; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. There may be little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.68; 309 participants; 5 RCTs; I² = 56%; low-certainty evidence) as measured by the IPSS quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively. While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.10; 250 participants; 4 RCTs; I² = 26%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE may increase re-treatments (RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.98; 204 participants; 3 RCTs; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Based on 18 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 47 more (0 more to 214 more) per 1000 men undergoing PAE.   We are very uncertain about the effects on erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -6.35 to 6.29; 129 participants; 2 RCTs; I² = 78%; very low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Index of Erectile Function at 5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function. NRS evidence when available yielded similar results. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 260 participants; 1 NRS; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on urologic symptom scores (MD 0.30, 95% CI -3.17 to 3.77; 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to TURP. Quality of life may be similar (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.89; 95 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.13; 107 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may increase re-treatment rates (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.29; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence); based on 56 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group. this corresponds to 143 more (25 more to 430 more) per 1000 men in the PAE group.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP up to 12 months (short-term follow-up), PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE may increase re-treatment rates. We are uncertain about erectile function, but PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Longer term (follow-up of 13 to 24 months), we are very uncertain as to how both procedures compare with regard to urologic symptom scores, but quality of life appears to be similar. We are very uncertain about major adverse events but PAE may increase re-treatments. We did not find longer term evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the main outcomes of this review was low or very low, signalling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with different intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) grades.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 128 patients (aged 50-86 years) who underwent PAE from 2013 to 2017. IPP grades were classified as follows: grade I (<10 mm), grade II (10-19 mm), and grade III (≥20 mm). Nineteen patients (14.8%) had grade I [mean IPP 7.8 mm, prostatic volume (PV) 64.1 cm³], 77 (60.2%) had grade II (mean IPP 14.9 mm, PV 87.0 cm³), and 32 (25%) had grade III (mean IPP 26.2 mm, PV 132.6 cm³), P < .01. The outcomes, including PV, international prostate symptom score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL), were compared between the IPP grades at the 12-month follow-up. Clinical failure was defined as IPSS >7 or QoL >2.

RESULTS

IPP decreased (I: -8.2%, II: -27.3%, and III: -38.7%, P = .01), and all other endpoints improved (P < .01). Adjusted covariance analysis, considering baseline PV as a confounding factor, showed no correlation between the 12-month outcomes and baseline IPP. Clinical failure was observed in 17/128 patients (13.3%) and was similar in prevalence among the IPP groups (P = .20). Minor complications occurred in 43 patients (33.6%) and major in 3 (2.3%). There were statistical differences in the complications between IPP grades II and III (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

PAE was similarly effective in all the IPP grades at the 12-month follow-up, and there was no difference in the clinical failure between the groups. Complications in IPP grade III were more frequent than those in IPP grade II.

Current Debates Regarding Optimal Patient Evaluation and Procedural Technique for Prostatic Artery Embolization

There are active debates surrounding patient evaluation and procedural techniques of prostate artery embolization. This review evaluates the available evidence on the value of urodynamics, the effect of prostate gland size, the benefits of pre- and intraprocedural cross-sectional imaging, the utility of a balloon-occlusion microcatheter, the differences among embolic particle sizes and types, and the merits of radial versus femoral arterial access.

Predictors of technical outcome for prostatic artery embolisation using pre-procedural CT angiography

OBJECTIVES

Predicting patients that will pose procedural technical challenges in prostate artery embolisation (PAE) remains difficult, with prolonged procedural times impacting on both patient dose and resource planning. Understanding the factors that influence these parameters as well as the likelihood of technical success is therefore important in effective patient selection and procedural planning.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for 75 consecutive patients who underwent PAE. Multiple patient predictor variables available from planning computed tomography angiography (CTA) were identified and measured objectively. The vessel angles navigated during the procedure, prostate volume, prostate artery (PA) diameter, PA origin, aortic atheroma, iliac tortuosity and baseline demographics were correlated with outcome variables (fluoroscopy time, air kerma (AK), dose area product (DAP), the number of cone beam CTs (CBCTs)) performed and whether bilateral embolisation was possible (technical success). Data were analysed using linear regression, ANOVA, t tests and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Aortic atheroma severity significantly increased fluoroscopy time (p = 0.004), whilst air kerma (AK) was significantly greater in patients with smaller prostatic arteries (p = 0.009) and smaller pre-procedural prostate volumes (p = 0.038). Increased vascular tortuosity and prostatic artery origin were not shown to significantly affect fluoroscopy time or DAP. Smaller prostate artery size (p = 0.007) also increases the likelihood of either unilateral embolisation or technical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-operative prediction of technical outcome measures in PAE remains challenging. However, vascular calcification, prostatic artery diameter and prostate volume are likely to be important factors when considering the risk/benefits of PAE.

KEY POINTS

• Increased severity of atheroma and the presence of small prostate arteries increase fluoroscopy time and AK respectively during prostate artery embolisation. • Lower pre-procedural prostate volume increases the AK during procedures. • Smaller prostate artery size increases the likelihood of either unilateral embolisation or technical failure.

[A (new) revolution in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia? Aqua-ablation and prostate embolization]

Surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is one of the most common procedures in urology. Numerous alternative methods have been developed in recent years to overcome the potential limitations of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) while providing comparable effectiveness and less morbidity. In a randomized study with a currently available follow-up of 3 years, the Aquabeam® system has shown comparable functional results with a lower rate of adverse events compared to TURP. Sufficient functional results were also found in a cohort study in patients with prostate volumes up to 150 ml. However, the rate of transfusions raises the question of optimal coagulation. Further cohort studies with short-term follow-up confirmed the results of the randomized studies. Prostate artery embolization (PAE) has been compared to TURP in several randomized trials. In randomized studies, the reduction of BPO-associated symptoms after PAE is only slightly inferior to that after TURP. In contrast, the improvement of functional parameters after embolization is inferior to that after TURP. This is primarily due to the inferior desobstruction. In addition, long-term results from randomized studies are lacking, so that no final assessment has yet been possible with regard to the durability of the desobstruction. In summary, both Aquabeam® and PAE are potential alternatives to standard methods, which-in case of adequate patient selection-can supplement the operative armamentarium in the wider concept of an individualized therapy of BPO.

Clinical predictive factors in prostatic artery embolization for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comprehensive review

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been established as a routine treatment for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) all over the world. With increasing clinical experience in the last decade, investigators have sufficient data to assess predictive factors with the purpose to guide patient selection and counseling for PAE or to individualize therapeutic plans after PAE. This paper is a comprehensive review to introduce the concept of clinical predictors and give a systemic classification of various predictive factors in PAE. The authors review each individual factor and its predictive capability and discuss the possible reasons for the inconsistent or conflicting findings in the literature. Based on current evidence, the baseline prostate volume, in particular the transition zone volume and transition zone index; 24 h post-PAE prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level; and prostate infarction and prostate volume reduction at 1–3 months have potential in prediction of treatment outcomes. Patients with Adenomatous-dominant BPH or with indwelling bladder catheter before PAE may have more benefits from PAE. Baseline intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP), C-reactive protein (CRP) level at 48 h and early detection of prostate infarct at 1 day and 1 week after PAE need further investigating.

Position Paper of the German Society for Interventional Radiology (DeGIR) on Prostatic Artery Embolization

BACKGROUND

 In recent years prostate artery embolization (PAE) evolved into a clinically established minimally invasive endovascular treatment option for lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostate syndrome (BPS).

METHODS

 In this interdisciplinary position paper, initiated by the steering group for research of the German Society for Interventional Radiology (IR), the method of PAE is presented and discussed in the context of current evidence.

RESULTS

 PAE is a safe IR procedure for the treatment of BPS. In terms of symptom relief, measured with the IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the PAE has comparable effect, similar to the historic gold standard, transurethral resection (TUR) of the prostate. With regard to reducing subvesical obstruction PAE is inferior to TUR, but does not limit subsequent surgery. Based on current evidence, PAE is recommended by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an alternative therapy. The feasibility under local anaesthesia and the preservation of sexual function are important arguments for patients in favour of interventional therapy. Patient selection and therapy concepts require close interdisciplinary collaboration between urologists and radiologists.

CONCLUSION

 Effectiveness and safety of PAE for the treatment of BPS are proven. Further randomized trials should focus on long term outcome and help to identify most suitable indications for PAE.

KEY POINTS

  · PAE, an endovascular procedure, is a patient-friendly, minimally invasive, alternative therapy option of the BPS. · PAE can reduce the symptoms of the lower urinary tract (LUTS), comparable to transurethral resection (TUR). The deobstructive and volume-reducing potential of the PAE is inferior to that of the TUR. · The main advantages of PAE are use of local anesthesia (no general anesthesia required), short patient recovery and maintenance of sexual function, including antegrade ejaculation.. · Based on current evidence PAE should be considered after conservative drug therapy and before TUR.. · The role of PAE in the context of other minimally invasive procedures (MIST) requires further evaluation with an open minded approach towards PAE.. · PAE is carried out by interventional radiologists, usually on a referral basis from urologists, and requires close interdisciplinary cooperation..

CITATION FORMAT

· Kovacs A, Bücker A, Grimm M et al. Position Paper of the German Society for Interventional Radiology (DeGIR) on Prostatic Artery Embolization. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 835 - 846.

Can Computed Tomography Perfusion Predict Treatment Response After Prostate Artery Embolization: A Feasibility Study

Prostate artery embolization (PAE) is an emerging therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Optimal patient selection is an important step when introducing new treatments and several characteristics associated with a good clinical outcome has previously been proposed. However, no prognostic tool is yet available for PAE. Computed tomography perfusion is an imaging technique that provides hemodynamic parameters making it possible to estimate the prostatic blood flow (PBF). This study investigated the relationship between PBF and the response to PAE. A post hoc analysis including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements before and 24-h after embolization from two prospective studies on sixteen patients undergoing PAE with BPH or prostate cancer were performed. The primary outcome was the correlation between baseline PBF and the change in PSA as a surrogate measure of treatment response. Prostate volume strongly correlated with treatment response and the response was greater with incremental amounts of injected embolic material. PBF was not associated with elevation in PSA and added no information that could guide patient selection.

Radiation Exposure During Prostatic Artery Embolisation: A Systematic Review and Calculation of Associated Risks

Although evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) is increasing, potential associated risks of ionising radiation in this context remain largely unknown. We systematically reviewed reports on radiation exposure (RE) during PAE in the literature and estimated the risk RE poses using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Of 842 studies screened, 22 were included. The overall mean dose area product (DAP) was 181.6 Gy∙cm² (95% confidence interval 125.7-262.4). The risk model for the effects of RE in a 66-yr-old patient exposed to DAP of 200 Gy∙cm² showed that the probability of cancer death from the intervention was 0.117%. The highest specific lifetime risk was expected for leukaemia (0.061%). Wide DAP variation between individual studies (medians ranging from 33.2 to 863.4 Gy∙cm²) indicate large potential to reduce RE during PAE at some study centres. RE must be included in patient counselling on PAE, especially for younger patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We systematically assessed radiation exposure during prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) in the literature and simulated the associated risks in a computer model. PAE exposes patients to very low but not negligible risks, which are most relevant for younger men. This should be discussed with patients before PAE.

Prostatic Artery Embolization Using 100-300-μm Trisacryl Gelatin Microspheres to Treat Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributable to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Single-Center Outcomes Analysis with Medium-Term Follow-up

PURPOSE

To report medium-term outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) using 100-300-μm trisacryl gelatin microspheres to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to evaluate how cone-beam computed tomography-measured prostate gland volume (PGV), median lobe enlargement (MLE), age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) affect these results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-four consecutive patients who underwent PAE from April 2014 through August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients had International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >12, Quality of Life (QoL) score >2, prostate gland volume (PGV) >40 mL, age older than 45 years, and medical therapy failure. Twelve patients were excluded for bladder pathology or prostate cancer. Patients (n = 62, age = 71.8 ± 9.3 years, CCI = 3.5 ± 1.7, PGV = 174 ± 110 mL) had pre-procedure IPSS = 22.4 ± 5.6, QoL score = 4.4 ± 0.9, and post-void residual (PVR) = 172 ± 144 mL. Post-procedure values were compared to baseline at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Associations between outcomes and PGV, MLE, age, and CCI were evaluated. Adverse event recording used Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

One month after PAE (n = 37), IPSS improved to 7.6 ± 5.2 (P < .0001) and QoL score improved to 1.7 ± 1.4 (P < .0001). At 3 months (n = 32), improvements continued, with IPSS = 6.4 ± 5.1 (P < .0001), QoL score = 1.2 ± 1.2 (P < .0001), PVR = 53 ± 41 mL (P < .001), and PGV = 73 ± 38 mL (P < .0001). Results were sustained at 6 months (n = 35): IPSS = 6.4 ± 4.1 (P < .0001), QoL score = 1.2 ± 1.2 (P < .0001), PVR = 68 ± 80 mL (P < .0001), PGV = 60 ± 19 mL (P < .001). At 12 months, patients (n = 26) had IPSS = 7.3 ± 5.5 (P < .0001), QoL score = 1.2 ± 0.8 (P <.0001), PVR = 89 ± 117 mL (P < .0001), PGV = 60 ± 48 mL (P < .01). At 24 months, patients (n = 8) had IPSS = 8.0 ± 5.4 (P < .0001), QoL score = 0.7 ± 0.5 (P < .0001), PVR = 91 ± 99mL (P = 0.17), and PGV = 30 ± 5mL (P = .11). Improvements were independent of PGV, MLE, age, and CCI. Two grade II urinary infections occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

PAE with 100-300-μm microspheres produced sustained substantial improvements in LUTS, PGV, and PVR, which were independent of baseline PGV, MLE, age, or CCI.

Modern imaging and image-guided treatments of the prostate gland: MR and ablation for cancer and prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has proven to be an essential tool for diagnosis, post-treatment follow-up, aggressiveness assessment, and active surveillance of prostate cancer. Currently, this imaging technique is part of the daily practice in many oncological centres. This manuscript aims to review the use of mpMRI in the set of prostatic diseases, either malignant or benign: mpMRI to detect and stage prostate cancer is discussed, as well as its use for active surveillance. Image-guided ablation techniques for prostate cancer are also reviewed. The need to establish minimum acceptable technical parameters for prostate mpMRI, standardize reports, uniform terminology for describing imaging findings, and develop assessment categories that differentiate levels of suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer led to the development of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System that is reviewed. Special focus will also be given on the most up-to-date evidence of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Management of patients with BPH, technical aspects of PAE, expected outcomes and level of evidence are reviewed with the most recent literature. PAE is a challenging technique that requires dedicated anatomical knowledge and comprehensive embolization skills. PAE has been shown to be an effective minimally-invasive treatment option for symptomatic BPH patients, that can be viewed between medical therapy and surgery. PAE may be a good option for symptomatic BPH patients that do not want to be operated and can obviate the need for prostatic surgery in up to 80% of treated patients.