15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Proof-of-Concept Study on the Use of Prostate Artery Embolization Before Definitive Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is an effective therapy for alleviating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia; however, is not well studied in patients with concurrent prostate cancer (PCa). We demonstrate a proof of concept for PAE before definitive radiation therapy (RT) in patients with PCa.

          Methods and Materials

          From December 2017 to July 2019, 9 patients with PCa underwent PAE for the indication of LUTS from benign prostatic hyperplasia with concurrent PCa. Five received radiation and all follow-ups at our institution and were therefore included in the analysis. Median follow-up was 18 months from the time of PAE. Side effects during radiation were quantified using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring system. Pre- and post-PAE plans were compared in the 5 patients by performing an isovolumetric expansion of the post-PAE plan (treated plan) equivalent to the measured volume reduction after PAE. Patient 1 (PT-01) and PT-02 had prostate RT alone whereas PT-03, PT-04, and PT-05 had prostate with elective nodal coverage RT. Mean doses to organs at risk were compared between the 2 plans.

          Results

          The mean International Prostate Symptom Score reduction after PAE was 13.8 (5.0-30.0; P = .02). The mean prostatic volume reduction after PAE was 23.1% (7.2%-47.7%). There were no Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 (severe) or higher during radiation. Post-PAE plans in PT-01 and PT-02 had on average 23.2%, 39.8%, and 22.9% decrease in mean dose across the bladder, rectum, and penile bulb, respectively, compared with the pre-PAE plans. There were no appreciable differences in dosimetry in PT03, PT-04, and PT-05 who had nodal coverage. There was no biochemical failure in any of the patients.

          Conclusions

          We demonstrate a proof of concept that PAE is a clinically significant adjunctive therapy for alleviating LUTS and achieving significant volume reduction before RT, resulting in decreased radiation-related toxicity from RT for PCa.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)--incidence, management, and prevention.

          To update the complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), including management and prevention based on technological evolution. Based on a MEDLINE search from 1989 to 2005, the 2003 results of quality management of Baden-Württemberg, and long-term personal experience at three German centers, the incidence of complications after TURP was analyzed for three subsequent periods: early (1979-1994); intermediate (1994-1999); and recent (2000-2005) with recommendations for management and prevention. Technological improvements such as microprocessor-controlled units, better armamentarium such as video TUR, and training helped to reduce perioperative complications (recent vs. early) such as transfusion rate (0.4% vs. 7.1%), TUR syndrome (0.0% vs. 1.1%), clot retention (2% vs. 5%), and urinary tract infection (1.7% vs. 8.2%). Urinary retention (3% vs. 9%) is generally attributed to primary detrusor failure rather than to incomplete resection. Early urge incontinence occurs in up to 30-40% of patients; however, late iatrogenic stress incontinence is rare (<0.5%). Despite an increasing age (55% of patients are older than 70), the associated morbidity of TURP maintained at a low level (<1%) with a mortality rate of 0-0.25%. The major late complications are urethral strictures (2.2-9.8%) and bladder neck contractures (0.3-9.2%). The retreatment rate range is 3-14.5% after five years. TURP still represents the gold standard for managing benign prostatic hyperplasia with decreasing complication rates. Technological alternatives such as bipolar and laser treatments may further minimize the risks of this technically difficult procedure.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Surgical Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: AUA Guideline

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Benign prostatic hyperplasia: prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate--a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial.

              To compare prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the care of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This prospective randomized clinical trial was approved by the institutional review board. A total of 114 patients provided written informed consent and were randomly assigned to undergo PAE (n = 57) or TURP (n = 57). The groups were compared regarding relevant adverse events and complications. Functional results--including improvement of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL), peak urinary flow, postvoiding residual urine volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and prostate volume--were assessed at 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up between January 20, 2007, and January 31, 2012. Student t test, χ(2) test, Fisher exact test, and repeated measures analysis of variance were used, as appropriate. Overall technical success rates for TURP and PAE were 100% and 94.7%, respectively; the clinical failure rates were 3.9% and 9.4%, respectively. The six functional results showed improvements after TURP and PAE at all follow-up time points when compared with preoperative values (P = .001). However, the TURP group showed greater degrees of improvement in the IPSS, QOL, peak urinary flow, and postvoiding residual urine volume at 1 and 3 months, as well as greater reductions in the PSA level and prostate volume at all follow-up time points, when compared with the PAE group (P < .05). The PAE group showed more overall adverse events and complications (P = .029), mostly related to acute urinary retention (25.9%), postembolization syndrome (11.1%), and treatment failures (5.3% technical; 9.4% clinical). Both procedures resulted in significant clinical improvements in the treatment of BPH. However, the advantages of the PAE procedure must be weighed against the potential for technical and clinical failures in a minority of patients. RSNA, 2013
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Advances in Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2452-1094
                21 November 2020
                May-Jun 2021
                21 November 2020
                : 6
                : 3
                : 100619
                Affiliations
                [a ]Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
                [b ]Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida
                [c ]Interventional Radiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author: Nainesh Parikh, MD Nainesh.Parikh@ 123456moffitt.org
                [1]

                J.P. and D.S. contributed equally to this study and manuscript

                Article
                S2452-1094(20)30349-3 100619
                10.1016/j.adro.2020.11.004
                7966837
                33748542
                9ad08c4f-c28d-4ec6-af6e-c99c7e6eab2b
                © 2020 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 19 August 2020
                : 1 October 2020
                : 9 November 2020
                Categories
                Clinical Investigation

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content174

                Cited by1

                Most referenced authors112