Search

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., (© 2024. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).)

Context: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is increasingly performed worldwide for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). In contrast, the role of PAE in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is unclear., Objective: This systematic review summarizes the current available literature on PAE in patients with PCa regarding oncological and functional outcome., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A structured search for the relevant literature from 1985 to 2022 was performed in Medline, Embase, and York CRD. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed using the ROBINS tool., Evidence Synthesis: Thirteen trials (12 case series and one animal study using a canine model) were included in this systematic review. Four studies had a prospective study design. The risk of bias was rated moderate to serious in all the studies., Conclusions: PAE in patients with PCa seems to be a safe procedure and effective regarding the improvement of LUTS. Despite PAE having been shown to be feasible in different treatment scenarios of localized or advanced PCa, the oncological benefits are debatable due to an unreliable tumor response and a lack of controlled trials including long-term follow-up., Patient Summary: We investigated the literature to determine the role of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with prostate cancer regarding oncological and functional outcomes. The results suggest a similar safety profile and efficacy in terms of functional outcomes to those reported earlier for PAE in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. The role of PAE regarding oncological outcomes has to be assessed further., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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∙cm 2 (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∙cm 2 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∙cm 2 ) 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., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: This study aims to specify and explain the previous findings of unexpectedly high rates of ejaculatory disorders, i.e. 56%, found after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in a randomized controlled trial comparing safety and efficacy of PAE and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)., Patients and Methods: Case report forms of the randomized controlled trial were analyzed to specify the grade of postoperative ejaculatory dysfunction 3 months postoperatively. In addition, study participants with assessable ejaculation were asked to complete the four-item Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Dysfunction Short Form (MSHQ-EjD) referring to their ejaculatory function at present, as well as before treatment and 3 months after. Potential explanations for ejaculatory disorders after PAE were derived from histological examination of five radical prostatectomy specimens of patients that underwent PAE 6 weeks before radical prostatectomy within a proof-of-concept trial at the study site, St. Gallen Cantonal Hospital. An experienced uropathologist systematically examined the whole-gland embedded tissue with focus on structures that are involved into ejaculation., Results: While patients after TURP predominantly suffered from anejaculation (52%), diminished ejaculation was found more often after PAE (40%). Significantly higher MSHQ-EjD scores were found 3 months after PAE and at a median follow-up of 31 months. Histological examination showed marked changes of structures involved into ejaculation (e.g., prostatic glands, seminal vesicles, ejaculatory ducts) after PAE., Conclusion: Although anejaculation occurs less frequently after PAE (16%) compared to TURP (52%), patients have to be informed about the relevant risk of ejaculatory disorders, especially diminished ejaculation.

Context: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has been introduced into clinical practice for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH-LUTS) despite a lack of high-level evidence., Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of PAE versus established surgical therapies., Evidence Acquisition: Medline, Embase, and York CRD were searched up to June 23, 2018. Only comparative studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3., Evidence Synthesis: Five studies including 708 patients met the selection criteria. Risk of bias was rated high for most of the studies. Mean reduction in the International Prostate Symptom Score was lower after PAE compared with standard surgical therapies (mean difference 3.80 points [95% confidence interval: 2.77-4.83]; p<0.001). PAE was less efficient regarding improvements in all functional parameters assessed including maximum urinary flow, post void residual, and reduction of prostate volume. In contrast, patient-reported erectile function (International Index of Erectile Function 5) was better after PAE and significantly fewer adverse events occurred after PAE., Conclusions: Moderately strong evidence confirms efficacy and safety of PAE in the treatment of BPH-LUTS in the short term. Significant advantages regarding safety and sexual function, but clear disadvantages regarding all other patient-reported and functional outcomes were found for PAE. Large-scale randomized controlled trials including longer follow-up periods are mandatory before PAE can be considered as a standard therapy and to define the ideal indication for PAE in the management of BPH-LUTS., Patient Summary: We reviewed the role of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of symptoms associated with benign overgrowth of the prostate. The results suggest that PAE is not as effective as established surgical therapies but has fewer side effects. Further research is required to determine whether PAE is the best treatment for certain types of patients. PAE should, therefore, not yet be considered a standard treatment., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify predictors for different treatment outcomes after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia., Patients and Methods: A post hoc analysis of data derived from the 48 patients undergoing PAE in a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial was performed. Relative changes in the International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), absolute changes in maximum urinary flow rate (Q max ), and relative changes in magnetic resonance imaging-assessed prostate volume from baseline to 12 weeks were defined as the outcomes measures of interest. Their association with various baseline characteristics and measures, technical details of PAE, and early postoperative measures were analysed using Spearman rank correlations and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The most promising predictors were further evaluated in receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses., Results: Higher total prostate and central gland (i.e. central plus transitional zone) volumes were associated with more pronounced improvements in the IPSS (Spearman rank correlation [rs]: -0.35 and -0.34; P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively) and the Q max (rs: 0.31 and 0.39; P = 0.05 and P = 0.01, respectively). ROC curve analyses suggested that volumes of 39 and 38 mL for total prostate and central gland volume, respectively, would be the optimal thresholds with which to predict PAE success as measured by the IPSS. Other anatomical characteristics of the prostate, such as the central gland index, also showed an even more distinct correlation to the improvement in Q max (rs: 0.46, P = 0.003). The relative changes in prostate volume were clearly dependent on the technical performance of PAE. Occurrence of postoperative pain and blood levels of prostate-specific antigen and C-reactive protein emerged as potential early-stage outcome predictors after PAE., Conclusion: Baseline and peri-operative findings might help to guide patient selection and outcome prediction for PAE. Patients with larger prostates have a higher chance of success with PAE. Larger-scale clinical trials including a longer follow-up are warranted to further elucidate the most suitable patients for PAE., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To perform a post hoc analysis of in-hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)., Patients and Methods: In-hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two-sided t-tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t-test)., Results: The mean total costs per patient (±sd) were higher for TURP, at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE, at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE, with a mean difference of €1627 (P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE., Conclusions: Since in-hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient's clinical condition and expectations - rather than finances - should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Purpose: To assess the frequency and potential predictors of prostatic central gland tissue detachment (CGD), an enucleation-like reaction that sporadically occurred in a randomized controlled trial assessing efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE)., Materials and Methods: Trial data were analyzed to identify patients with CGD after PAE. Clinical parameters, MR imaging findings, technical details of PAE, and periinterventional data were compared between patients with and without CGD to identify parameters for prediction, induction, or early detection of CGD after PAE., Results: CGD occurred after PAE in 3 of 48 patients (6.3%); these cases had good functional outcomes, but CGD was associated with increased risk of ejaculatory dysfunction and occurrence of complications. Frequency of preoperative transurethral bladder catheterization (100% vs 13.3%; P = .005), central gland index (mean ± standard deviation, 0.86 ± 0.02 vs 0.69 ± 0.14; P < .001), amount of particles applied (1.93 mL ± 0.12 vs 0.96 mL ± 0.36; P < .001), maximum early postoperative pain score (7.33 ± 2.08 vs 1.89 ± 2.40; P = .009), and blood C-reactive protein (CRP) levels after 48 hours (69.0 vs 18.58 mg/dL; P = .045) and 1 week (113.50 vs 5.16 mg/dL; P = .004) were significantly higher in cases of CGD., Conclusions: CGD is a rare reaction that might be triggered by prostatic zonal anatomy, embolization technique, and mechanical or inflammatory processes. It should be considered in patients with severe postoperative pain and high CRP levels who experience voiding dysfunction after PAE to avoid complications. Investigation of larger cohorts might further elucidate this tissue response., (Copyright © 2018 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To provide initial data on tumoricidal efficacy of embolization on prostate cancer via histopathologic examination of prostatectomy specimens after embolization., Materials and Methods: In this bicentric prospective trial, 12 men with localized prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy 6 weeks after prostatic artery embolization (PAE) from October 2016 to May 2017. PAE was performed with the use of 100-μm Embozene microspheres (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). Response of prostate cancer tissue to PAE was assessed according to tumor regression grades. The major outcome measure was complete histopathologic absence of viable cancer cells, including secondary foci, in the prostatectomy specimens., Results: Complete necrosis of the index lesion was found in 2 patients and partial necrosis in 5. Considering secondary cancerous foci, viable cancer cells were found in all 12 patients. Pathologic specimens were characterized by demarcated zones of necrotic tissue predominantly located in the central gland. Two patients required additional surgery to remove necrotic bladder tissue caused by PAE., Conclusions: PAE with the use of 100-μm microspheres failed to achieve complete elimination of tumor cells. Extensive tumor regression was induced in some lesions, highlighting the need for further assessment of PAE as a potential treatment option for prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2018 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a prevalent entity in elderly men and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) still represents the gold standard of surgical treatment despite its considerable perioperative morbidity. Recently, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) was described as a novel effective and less invasive treatment alternative. Despite promising first results, PAE still has to be considered experimental due to a lack of good quality studies. Prospective randomized controlled trials comparing PAE with TUR-P are highly warranted., Methods/design: This is a single-centre, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment effects and adverse events of PAE and TURP in a tertiary referral centre. One hundred patients who are electable for both treatment options are randomized to either PAE or TURP. Changes of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) after 3 months are defined as primary endpoint. Changes in bladder diaries, laboratory analyses, urodynamic investigations and standardised questionnaires are assessed as secondary outcome measures. In addition contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis before and after the interventions will provide crucial information regarding morphological changes and vascularisation of the prostate. Adverse events will be assessed on every follow-up visit in both treatment arms according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse events and the Clavien classification., Discussion: The aim of this study is to assess whether PAE represents a valid treatment alternative to TURP in patients suffering from BPH in terms of efficacy and safety., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02054013.