Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prostate volume: does it predict patient outcomes following prostate artery embolisation? A retrospective cohort study.
Wise, Robert; Fu, Howell; Tapping, Charles Ross.
Affiliation
  • Wise R; Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. robert.wise@ouh.nhs.uk.
  • Fu H; Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.
  • Tapping CR; Department of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.
CVIR Endovasc ; 7(1): 51, 2024 Jun 27.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38935182
ABSTRACT
Prostate artery embolisation (PAE) is a minimally invasive procedure commonly performed to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) is a validated patient questionnaire quantifying LUTS and is used for patient selection for PAE, but it is largely subjective. Prostate volume is an easily estimated objective parameter across multiple imaging modalities. No strict threshold of prostate volume is established as a selection criterion for PAE, but it is generally accepted that prostate volume should be over 40 to 50 mL.We looked at a sample of 65 cases performed at a large teaching hospital between 2017 and 2019 with a minimum of four years follow up. Embospheres between 100 to 500 microns were injected into the prostatic arteries bilaterally (if technically feasible). A 'bullet shape' model was used to estimate prostatic volume from initial CT. N = 13 had an estimated volume < 51 mL (range 31-50 mL). IPSS before and at 3 months post-procedure were collected.80% of patients indicated a beneficial response to PAE (IPSS improvement > 5). 23% of patients required further PAE procedure or surgery. No major complications were recorded. The mean change in IPSS under 51 mL compared to over 51 mL cohort was 10.2 versus 11 (standard deviation 7.5 versus 7.3) (p = 0.44, 2 tailed Student's T-test).There was no statistically significant difference in the IPSS improvement or outcome of small volume prostates under 51 mL compared to large volume. Our results suggest that prostate volume should not be used to exclude patients for PAE.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: CVIR Endovasc Year: 2024 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: CVIR Endovasc Year: 2024 Document type: Article