Jae Hung Jung1,2, Karen Ann McCutcheon3, Michael Borofsky4, Shamar Young5, Jafar Golzarian6, Balaji Reddy7, Tae Young Shin8, Myung Ha Kim9, Vikram Narayan4, Philipp Dahm4,10. 1. Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South. 2. Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, South. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 4. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 6. Division of Interventional Radiology and Vascular Imaging, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 7. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Department of Urology, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea, South. 9. Yonsei Wonju Medical Library, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, South. 10. Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: João M Pisco; Tiago Bilhim; Luis C Pinheiro; Lucia Fernandes; Jose Pereira; Nuno V Costa; Marisa Duarte; António G Oliveira Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Raymond C Rosen; Joseph A Catania; Stanley E Althof; Lance M Pollack; Michael O'Leary; Allen D Seftel; David W Coon Journal: Urology Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Juan Victor Ariel Franco; Luis Garegnani; Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay; Michael Borofsky; Philipp Dahm Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 5.400
Authors: Juan Va Franco; Luis Garegnani; Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay; Michael Borofsky; Philipp Dahm Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-28