Comparison of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial

Dominik Abt, Lukas Hechelhammer, Gautier Müllhaupt, Stefan Markart, Sabine Güsewell, Thomas M Kessler, Hans-Peter Schmid, Daniel S Engeler, Livio Mordasini, Dominik Abt, Lukas Hechelhammer, Gautier Müllhaupt, Stefan Markart, Sabine Güsewell, Thomas M Kessler, Hans-Peter Schmid, Daniel S Engeler, Livio Mordasini

Abstract

Objective: To compare prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in terms of patient reported and functional outcomes.

Design: Randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial.

Setting: Urology and radiology departments of a Swiss tertiary care centre.

Participants: 103 patients aged ≥40 years with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomised between 11 February 2014 and 24 May 2017; 48 and 51 patients reached the primary endpoint 12 weeks after PAE and TURP, respectively.

Interventions: PAE performed with 250-400 μm microspheres under local anaesthesia versus monopolar TURP performed under spinal or general anaesthesia.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome was change in international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 weeks after surgery; a difference of less than 3 points between treatments was defined as non-inferiority for PAE and tested with a one sided t test. Secondary outcomes included further questionnaires, functional measures, magnetic resonance imaging findings, and adverse events; changes from baseline to 12 weeks were compared between treatments with two sided tests for superiority.

Results: Mean reduction in IPSS from baseline to 12 weeks was -9.23 points after PAE and -10.77 points after TURP. Although the difference was less than 3 points (1.54 points in favour of TURP (95% confidence interval -1.45 to 4.52)), non-inferiority of PAE could not be shown (P=0.17). None of the patient reported secondary outcomes differed significantly between treatments when tested for superiority; IPSS also did not differ significantly (P=0.31). At 12 weeks, PAE was less effective than TURP regarding changes in maximum rate of urinary flow (5.19 v 15.34 mL/s; difference 10.15 (95% confidence interval -14.67 to -5.63); P<0.001), postvoid residual urine (-86.36 v -199.98 mL; 113.62 (39.25 to 187.98); P=0.003), prostate volume (-12.17 v -30.27 mL; 18.11 (10.11 to 26.10); P<0.001), and desobstructive effectiveness according to pressure flow studies (56% v 93% shift towards less obstructive category; P=0.003). Fewer adverse events occurred after PAE than after TURP (36 v 70 events; P=0.003).

Conclusions: The improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia seen 12 weeks after PAE is close to that after TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP but has disadvantages regarding functional outcomes, which should be considered when selecting patients. Further comparative study findings, including longer follow-up, should be evaluated before PAE can be considered as a routine treatment.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054013.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from St Gallen Cantonal Hospital for the submitted work; no financial relationship with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Study enrolment and randomisation (CONSORT flow diagram)
Fig 2
Fig 2
Primary outcome and patient reported secondary outcomes in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia receiving prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). (A) Improvements in the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) after PAE and TURP. (B) Mean difference in IPSS (primary efficacy endpoint) between treatment groups. Secondary endpoints between PAE and TURP for (C) IPSS related quality of life (QoL); (D) chronic prostatitis symptoms index (CPSI) assessing pain, urinary symptoms, and quality of life; and (E) international index of erectile function (IIEF). I bars in (A, C, D, E) indicate 95% confidence intervals. Boxes in (B) show the interquartile range, with central lines indicating the median. Each whisker extends to the most extreme data point, which deviates no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the box. Points indicate observations, which lie beyond the extremes of the whiskers. Preop=before the operation (that is, baseline). P values (apart from part B) are reported for differences of change from baseline between both treatments. Means are calculated from the complete dataset at each visit. Occasional missing values for parts (D) and (E) cause slight differences between the mean change from baseline to a follow-up visit and the difference between mean values at individual time points reported in the text
Fig 3
Fig 3
Functional secondary outcome parameters in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia receiving prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Parameters include (A) maximum urinary flow rate, (B) postvoid residual urine, (C) concentrations of prostate specific antigen (PSA), (D) Prostate volume reduction as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging, (E) desobstruction as measured by detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate (PdetQmax), and (F) urodynamic obstruction as measured by International Continence Society (ICS) classification. I bars=95% confidence intervals; dots=means calculated from the complete dataset at each visit. P values are reported for differences of change from baseline between both treatments. Preop=before the operation (that is, baseline); postop=after the operation. Occasional missing values for secondary outcomes may cause the mean change from baseline to a follow-up visit in (parts A-E) to differ slightly from the difference between mean values at individual time points reported in the text
Fig 4
Fig 4
Frequency of treatment related adverse events, postoperative pain, and ejaculatory disorders in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia receiving prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). VAS=visual analogue scale (≥6 points=severe pain). Postoperative pain during hospital stay and ejaculatory disorders were not defined as deviation from the normal postoperative course; therefore, these events were not included in the total number of adverse events but assessed separately

References

    1. Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, Ewing LL. The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol 1984;132:474-9. 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)49698-4
    1. Taub DA, Wei JT. The economics of benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States. Curr Urol Rep 2006;7:272-81. 10.1007/s11934-996-0006-0
    1. van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, McDonnell J, Chapple CR, Berges R, Rutten FF, TRIUMPH Pan-European Expert Panel Medical consumption and costs during a one-year follow-up of patients with LUTS suggestive of BPH in six european countries: report of the TRIUMPH study. Eur Urol 2006;49:92-102. 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.09.016.
    1. Malaeb BS, Yu X, McBean AM, Elliott SP. National trends in surgical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the United States (2000-2008). Urology 2012;79:1111-6. 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.084.
    1. Gravas S, Cornu JN, Drake MJ, et al. EAU Guidelines on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). 2018 .
    1. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, et al. American Urological Association Guideline: management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Revised, 2010. .
    1. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, et al. Urology Section of the Bavarian Working Group for Quality Assurance Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 2008;180:246-9. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.058.
    1. Ahyai SA, Gilling P, Kaplan SA, et al. Meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement. Eur Urol 2010;58:384-97. 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.005.
    1. Lukacs B, Cornu JN, Aout M, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia in real-life practice in france: a comprehensive population study. Eur Urol 2013;64:493-501. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.026.
    1. DeMeritt JS, Elmasri FF, Esposito MP, Rosenberg GS. Relief of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related bladder outlet obstruction after transarterial polyvinyl alcohol prostate embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:767-70. 10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61638-8
    1. Shim SR, Kanhai KJ, Ko YM, Kim JH. Efficacy and safety of prostatic arterial embolization: systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Urol 2017;197:465-79. 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.100.
    1. Bagla S, Smirniotopoulos J, Orlando J, Piechowiak R. Cost analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017;40:1694-7. 10.1007/s00270-017-1700-7.
    1. Gao YA, Huang Y, Zhang R, et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate—a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical trial. Radiology 2014;270:920-8. 10.1148/radiol.13122803.
    1. Russo GI, Kurbatov D, Sansalone S, et al. Prostatic arterial embolization vs open prostatectomy: a 1-year matched-pair analysis of functional outcomes and morbidities. Urology 2015;86:343-8. 10.1016/j.urology.2015.04.037.
    1. Carnevale FC, Iscaife A, Yoshinaga EM, Moreira AM, Antunes AA, Srougi M. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) versus original and perfected prostate artery embolization (PAE) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): preliminary results of a single center, prospective, urodynamic-controlled analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016;39:44-52. 10.1007/s00270-015-1202-4.
    1. McWilliams JP, Kuo MD, Rose SC, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology Society of Interventional Radiology position statement: prostate artery embolization for treatment of benign disease of the prostate. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014;25:1349-51. 10.1016/j.jvir.2014.05.005.
    1. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 1964. .
    1. International conference on harmonisation: Good clinical practice guideline. . html.
    1. Abt D, Mordasini L, Hechelhammer L, Kessler TM, Schmid HP, Engeler DS. Prostatic artery embolization versus conventional TUR-P in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: protocol for a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial. BMC Urol 2014;14:94. 10.1186/1471-2490-14-94.
    1. Bagla S, Rholl KS, Sterling KM, et al. Utility of cone-beam CT imaging in prostatic artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013;24:1603-7. 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.06.024.
    1. Martins Pisco J, Pereira J, Rio Tinto H, Fernandes L, Bilhim T. How to perform prostatic arterial embolization. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2012;15:286-9. 10.1053/j.tvir.2012.09.002
    1. Carnevale FC, Antunes AA. Prostatic artery embolization for enlarged prostates due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. How I do it. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013;36:1452-63. 10.1007/s00270-013-0680-5.
    1. Carnevale FC, Moreira AM, Antunes AA. The “PErFecTED technique”: proximal embolization first, then embolize distal for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2014;37:1602-5. 10.1007/s00270-014-0908-z.
    1. Milam DF. Transurethral resection of the prostate. In: Smith JA, Howards SS, McGuire EJ, Preminger GM, eds. Hinman’s atlas of urologic surgery. Elsevier, 2012. 10.1016/B978-1-4160-4210-5.00080-3.
    1. Barry MJ, Williford WO, Chang Y, et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia specific health status measures in clinical research: how much change in the American Urological Association symptom index and the benign prostatic hyperplasia impact index is perceptible to patients? J Urol 1995;154:1770-4. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66780-6
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-13. 10.1097/
    1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) common terminology criteria for adverse events. (CTCAE) version 4.0. .
    1. Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. International Continence Society Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:261-74. 10.1002/nau.10066
    1. Neyer M, Reissigl A, Schwab C, et al. Bipolar versus monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate: results of a comparative, prospective bicenter study—perioperative outcome and long-term efficacy. Urol Int 2013;90:62-7. 10.1159/000343688.
    1. Barry MJ, Cockett AT, Holtgrewe HL, McConnell JD, Sihelnik SA, Winfield HN. Relationship of symptoms of prostatism to commonly used physiological and anatomical measures of the severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 1993;150:351-8. 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35482-4
    1. Hakenberg OW, Pinnock CB, Marshall VR. Does evaluation with the International Prostate Symptom Score predict the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate? J Urol 1997;158:94-9. 10.1097/00005392-199707000-00025.
    1. Peters TJ, Donovan JL, Kay HE, et al. The International Continence Society “benign prostatic hyperplasia” study: the botherosomeness of urinary symptoms. J Urol 1997;157:885-9. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65075-4
    1. Hill B, Belville W, Bruskewitz R, et al. Transurethral needle ablation versus transurethral resection of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. J Urol 2004;171:2336-40. 10.1097/01.ju.0000127761.87421.a0
    1. Mattiasson A, Wagrell L, Schelin S, et al. Five-year follow-up of feedback microwave thermotherapy versus TURP for clinical BPH: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Urology 2007;69:91-6, discussion 96-7. 10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1115.
    1. Bilhim T, Bagla S, Sapoval M, Carnevale FC, Salem R, Golzarian J. Prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Radiology 2015;276:310-1. 10.1148/radiol.2015141853.
    1. Lebdai S, Delongchamps NB, Sapoval M, et al. Early results and complications of prostatic arterial embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 2016;34:625-32. 10.1007/s00345-015-1665-6.
    1. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Wegleitung R-06-05 Diagnostische Referenzwerte (DRW) für interventionelle radiologische Anwendungen (version 01.01.2018). .
    1. Andrade G, Khoury HJ, Garzón WJ, et al. Radiation exposure of patients and interventional radiologists during prostatic artery embolization: a prospective single-operator study. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017;28:517-21. 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.01.005.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe