Prostatic artery embolization in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: perfusion cone-beam CT to evaluate planning and treatment response.

Main Article Content

Marco Pandolfi
Alessandro Liguori
Martina Gurgitano
Antonio Arrichiello
Letizia Di Meglio
Giovanni Maria Rodà
Alice Guadagni
Salvatore Alessio Angileri
Anna Maria Ierardi
Giorgio Buccimazza
Daniela Donat
Aldo Paolucci
Gianpaolo Carrafiello

Keywords

LUTS, CBCT, Perfusion, Perfusion CBCT, PAE, Prostatic Artery Embolization, Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

Abstract

This proof of concept is to evaluate the utility of perfusion cone-beam computed tomography (CT) in patients undergoing prostatic artery (PA) embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with moderate or severe-grade lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). PAE is a novel minimally invasive therapy and is both safe and effective procedure with low risks and high technical successes, making this procedure as the best alternative to surgery. A lot of technical changes would compromise clinical outcomes after procedure, including a variable prostate vascular anatomy, thin PA, and extensive atherosclerotic disease. The purpose of our study is to exploit the advantages of Perfusion Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) that could impact treatment and help interventional radiologists for treatment planning, diagnosis and for assessing the technical feasibility during PAE, mitigating the risk of nontarget embolization and suggesting clinical outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative clinical pre- and post-treatment values will be compared, to reach the best possible results.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 314 | PDF Downloads 89

References

[1] K. T. McVary et al., “Update on AUA Guideline on the Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” J. Urol., May 2011, vol. 185, no. 5, pp. 1793–1803.
[2] R. C. Langan, “Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” Prim. Care - Clin. Off. Pract., 2019, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 223–232.
[3] J. P. McWilliams et al., “Society of Interventional Radiology Multisociety Consensus Position Statement on Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: From the Society of Interventional Radiology, the Card,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., May 2019, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 627-637.e1.
[4] M. J. Barry et al., “The American Urological Association Symptom Index for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” J. Urol., Feb. 2017, vol. 197, no. 2S.
[5] W. S. Choi and H. Son, “The change of IPSS 7 (nocturia) score has the maximum influence on the change of Qol score in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms,” World J. Urol., Apr. 2019, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 719–725.
[6] M. Sapoval et al., “Traitement des adénomes de la prostate par embolisation,” Presse Med., Apr. 2019, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 447–453.
[7] M. Petrillo et al., “State of the art of prostatic arterial embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia,” Gland Surg., Apr. 2018, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 188–199.
[8] A. Bachmann, G. H. Muir, S. F. Wyler, and M. Rieken, “Surgical Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Trials: The Future is Now!,” Eur. Urol., Apr. 2013, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 677–679.
[9] O. Reich et al., “Morbidity, Mortality and Early Outcome of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of 10,654 Patients,” J. Urol., Jul. 2008, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 246–249.
[10] R. S. Pompe et al., “Postoperative complications of contemporary open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using standardised reporting systems,” BJU Int., Nov. 2018, vol. 122, no. 5, pp. 801–807.
[11] C. Gratzke et al., “Complications and Early Postoperative Outcome After Open Prostatectomy in Patients With Benign Prostatic Enlargement: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Study,” J. Urol., Apr. 2007, vol. 177, no. 4, pp. 1419–1422.
[12] C. Smith, P. Craig, S. Taleb, S. Young, and J. Golzarian, “Comparison of Traditional and Emerging Surgical Therapies for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men: A Review,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Aug. 2017, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1176–1184.
[13] D. Christidis, S. McGrath, M. Perera, T. Manning, D. Bolton, and N. Lawrentschuk, “Minimally invasive surgical therapies for benign prostatic hypertrophy: The rise in minimally invasive surgical therapies,” Prostate Int., Jun. 2017, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 41–46.
[14] A. Uflacker, Z. J. Haskal, T. Bilhim, J. Patrie, T. Huber, and J. M. Pisco, “Meta-Analysis of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., Nov. 2016, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 1686-1697.e8.
[15] G. Andrade et al., “Radiation Exposure of Patients and Interventional Radiologists during Prostatic Artery Embolization: A Prospective Single-Operator Study,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., Apr. 2017, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 517–521.
[16] T. Bilhim et al., “Prostatic Arterial Supply: Anatomic and Imaging Findings Relevant for Selective Arterial Embolization,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., Nov. 2012, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1403–1415.
[17] R. D. Garcia-Monaco, L. G. Garategui, M. V. Onorati, N. M. Rosasco, and O. A. Peralta, “Cadaveric Specimen Study of Prostate Microvasculature: Implications for Arterial Embolization,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., Sep. 2019, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1471-1479.e3.
[18] S. Bagla and K. M. Sterling, “Pitfalls of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Prostate Artery Embolization,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Dec. 2014, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1430–1435.
[19] N. Rotolo et al., “Comparison of cone-beam CT-guided and CT fluoroscopy-guided transthoracic needle biopsy of lung nodules,” Eur. Radiol., Feb. 2016, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 381–389.
[20] C. Floridi et al., “Clinical impact of cone beam computed tomography on iterative treatment planning during ultrasound-guided percutaneous ablation of liver malignancies,” Med. Oncol., Jun. 2017, vol. 34, no. 6, p. 113.
[21] G. Carrafiello et al., “Unenhanced Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Fusion Imaging in Direct Percutaneous Sac Injection for Treatment of Type II Endoleak: Technical Note,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Mar. 2016, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 447–452.
[22] A. M. Ierardi, E. Duka, A. Radaelli, N. Rivolta, G. Piffaretti, and G. Carrafiello, “Fusion of CT Angiography or MR Angiography with Unenhanced CBCT and Fluoroscopy Guidance in Endovascular Treatments of Aorto-Iliac Steno-Occlusion: Technical Note on a Preliminary Experience,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Jan. 2016, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 111–116.
[23] C. Floridi et al., “Percutaneous Lung Tumor Biopsy Under CBCT Guidance with PET-CT Fusion Imaging: Preliminary Experience,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Nov. 2019, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 1644–1648.
[24] M. Q. Wang, F. Duan, K. Yuan, G. D. Zhang, J. Yan, and Y. Wang, “Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Cone-Beam CT in Conjunction with DSA for Identifying Prostatic Arterial Anatomy,” Radiology, Jan. 2017, vol. 282, no. 1, pp. 271–280.
[25] A. Ganguly et al., “Cerebral CT Perfusion Using an Interventional C-Arm Imaging System: Cerebral Blood Flow Measurements,” Am. J. Neuroradiol., Sep. 2011, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1525–1531.
[26] J. D. Louie et al., “Incorporating Cone-beam CT into the Treatment Planning for Yttrium-90 Radioembolization,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., May 2009, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 606–613.
[27] Q. Tang, S. Kim, R. Clarkson, Y.-B. Cho, D. Moseley, and I. Yeung, “Sci-Sat AM(1): Imaging-03: On-line dynamic contrast enhanced cone-beam CT for measuring,” Med. Phys., Jul. 2008, vol. 35, no. 7Part3, pp. 3414–3415.
[28] A. M. Ierardi et al., “Type 2 endoleaks in endovascular aortic repair: cone beam CT and automatic vessel detection to guide the embolization,” Acta radiol., Jun. 2018, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 681–687.
[29] G. Carrafiello et al., “Usefulness of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Automatic Vessel Detection Software in Emergency Transarterial Embolization,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Apr. 2016, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 530–537.
[30] T. Bilhim et al., “Unilateral Versus Bilateral Prostatic Arterial Embolization for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Patients with Prostate Enlargement,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., Apr. 2013, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 403–411.
[31] L. Li, X. Liu, and K. Herr, “Postoperative Pain Intensity Assessment: A Comparison of Four Scales in Chinese Adults,” Pain Med., Apr. 2007, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 223–234.
[32] B. Malling, M. A. Røder, K. Brasso, J. Forman, M. Taudorf, and L. Lönn, “Prostate artery embolisation for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Eur. Radiol., Jan. 2019, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 287–298.
[33] J. M. Pisco et al., “Medium- and Long-Term Outcome of Prostate Artery Embolization for Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Results in 630 Patients,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., Aug. 2016, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1115–1122.
[34] Y. Gao et al., “Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Prostatic Arterial Embolization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate—A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial,” Radiology, Mar. 2014, vol. 270, no. 3, pp. 920–928.
[35] I. Insausti et al., “Randomized Comparison of Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., Jun. 2020, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 882–890.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>