Interventional News Issue 78—July 2020 US Edition

Page 1

July 2020 | Issue 78

A decade of PAE data demonstrates the procedure’s safety and efficacy: “Its time is now” Ten-year data published in Radiology show that prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a safe and effective treatment for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which can result in long-term improvements in lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and quality of life. Francisco Carnevale (University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil) and colleagues note that, prior to their study, long-term experience with PAE for BPH was “limited”. They state that this research is an “important contribution” towards the wider medical community’s understanding of PAE not as an experimental procedure, but “as another alternative for patients suffering from LUTS related to BPH”.

C

arnevale and colleagues set out to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term results of PAE for BPH through a retrospective, single-centre study. Between June 2008 and June 2018, a total of 317 men (mean age, 65±8 years) were treated with the minimally-invasive procedure for the alleviation of moderate to severe BPH-related symptoms. PAE was performed with 100–500μm embolic microspheres, and the investigators report a 100% technical success rate for the procedure. Patient follow-up ranged from three months to 96 months (mean, 27 months). International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life score, maximum urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume, prostatespecific antigen (PSA), and prostate volume were all assessed at baseline and during follow-up. Mean maximum improvement was as follows: IPSS, 16±7 points; quality-of-life score, 4±1 points; prostatic volume reduction, 39±39cm3 (39%±29); maximum urinary flow rate, 6±10mL/sec (155%±293); and post-void residual volume, 70±121mL (48%±81) (p<0.05 for all). Early clinical failure occurred in six (1.9%) and symptom recurrence in 72 (23%) men at a median follow-up of 72 months. Unilateral PAE was associated with higher LUTS recurrence (42% vs. 21%; p=0.04), but the study authors note that the unilateral PAE cohort were on average slightly older than those treated with bilateral PAE (71 years old vs. 65 years old). However, log-rank analysis comparing unilateral and bilateral PAE groups showed no statistically significant difference in the median time to recurrence (48 months and 72 months, respectively; p=0.19). Embolic particle size did not relate to symptom recurrence, with no difference observed in the median time to recurrence among men treated with microspheres 100–300μm or 300–500μm in diameter. Baseline PSA was inversely related with recurrence, and was found to be an independent predictor of recurrence outcomes after PAE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.9 per nanograms per millilitre of PSA; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8, 0.9; p<0.001). None of the patients presented with urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction, an “important finding”, according to Carnevale. Speaking to Interventional News, Carnevale stresses the significance of this research, the first decadelong dataset to follow-up outcomes in over 300 PAE

Francisco Carnevale

patients: “It was published in the most reviewed journal with the highest impact factor in the radiology field. Urological societies have been waiting for these long-term data to decide if [they trust that] PAE can be offered as another alternative treatment for patients suffering from LUTS related to BPH. These data consolidate the pioneering, multidisciplinary work done by the Radiology and Urology Departments at the University of São Paulo Medical School. Without this mutual collaboration, this important contribution would not be achieved. “To bring a new, alternative treatment to the medical community is not an easy assignment,” he continued. “This 10-year experience of using PAE confirms that this minimally invasive procedure is not only an alternative for candidates suffering from LUTS due to BPH-enlarged prostates. Several publications from different centres all over the world have shown that

To bring a new, alternative treatment to the medical community is not an easy assignment.” Continued on page 2

Bill Rilling:

Profile

Page 16

Afshin Gangi:

CIRSE and COVID-19 Page 20

IR beyond COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted every facet of medicine, with the initial spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus overwhelming many healthcare services. Now with several months’ experience treating COVID-19 patients, and following the mitigating effects of global travel restrictions and government-imposed “lockdowns”, many interventional radiologists are looking to the future, attempting to ascertain how their service may have been irrevocably altered. AMIDST THE INITIAL chaos of cases that besieged hospitals in the early Spring, Italian oncologists Filippo Pietrantonio and Marina Chiara (both Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy) chronicled their dawning realisation of the severity of the pandemic in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Oncology: “At this moment, we feel unprotected. Although everyone in the newspapers is praising physicians as heroes, we feel alone, thrown into jeopardy, thrown into an abyss. Our region has left us to fight the cancer battle and the COVID-19 war without true protection.” However, those early months—characterised by the scramble for personal protective equipment (PPE), the cancelling of electives, and the segregation of hospitals into COVID-positive and COVID-negative work spaces—have taught much. William Rilling (Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA) expressed to this newspaper: “I think that IR as a specialty has stepped up and shown that we can respond to a public health crisis. Much of our efforts during the pandemic were to support our colleagues in the intensive care unit, forming teams to perform portable urgent procedures if necessary during the surge of COVID-19 patients. Much of our interventional oncology (IO) practice has continued as usual during the pandemic. Globally, I think there has been a shift in some regions toward increased IO treatments, which use fewer hospital resources, PPE, and probably also [have] less decrement in the immune system compared to surgery. Over the long term, some of these advantages may result in changes in practice patterns; for example, there has been an increase in overall Y90 treatments in the USA during the pandemic—we do not know if this trend will last.” For more on COVID-19 and IR, see pages 19–22.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.