Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) and Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) have a Differential Impact on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): Retrospective Analysis of the Multicentre UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the relative IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) improvement in storage and voiding symptoms between prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). METHOD: Retrospective analysis of the UK-ROPE (UK Register of Prostate Embolization) multicentre database was conducted with inclusion of all patients with full IPSS questionnaire score data. The voiding and storage subscore improvement was compared between interventions. Student's t-test (paired and unpaired) and ANOVA (Analysis of variance) were used to identify significant differences between the groups. RESULTS: 146 patients (121 PAE, 25 TURP) were included in the analysis. Storage symptoms were more frequently the most severe symptom ('storage' in 75 patients vs 'voiding' in 17 patients). Between groups, no significant difference was seen in raw storage subscore improvement (TURP 4.9 vs PAE 4.2; p = 0.34) or voiding subscore improvement (TURP 8.4 vs PAE 6.7; p = 0.1). ANOVA demonstrated a greater proportionate reduction (relative to total IPSS) towards voiding symptoms in the TURP group (27.3% TURP vs 9.9% PAE, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although both TURP and PAE improve voiding symptoms more than storage, a significantly larger proportion of total symptom reduction is due to voiding in the TURP cohort, with PAE providing a more balanced improvement between voiding and storage.

Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity-matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK-ROPE study).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to conduct an indirect comparison of PAE with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: As a joint initiative between the British Society of Interventional Radiologists, the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, we conducted the UK Register of Prostate Embolization (UK-ROPE) study, which recruited 305 patients across 17 UK urological/interventional radiology centres, 216 of whom underwent PAE and 89 of whom underwent TURP. The primary outcomes were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement in the PAE group at 12 months post-procedure, and complication data post-PAE. We also aimed to compare IPSS score improvements between the PAE and TURP groups, using non-inferiority analysis on propensity-score-matched patient pairs. The clinical results and urological measurements were performed at clinical sites. IPSS and other questionnaire-based results were mailed by patients directly to the trial unit managing the study. All data were uploaded centrally to the UK-ROPE study database. RESULTS: The results showed that PAE was clinically effective, producing a median 10-point IPSS improvement from baseline at 12 months post-procedure. PAE did not appear to be as effective as TURP, which produced a median 15-point IPSS score improvement at 12 months post-procedure. These findings are further supported by the propensity score analysis, in which we formed 65 closely matched pairs of patients who underwent PAE and patients who underwent TURP. In terms of IPSS and quality-of-life (QoL) improvement, there was no evidence of PAE being non-inferior to TURP. Patients in the PAE group had a statistically significant improvement in maximum urinary flow rate and prostate volume reduction at 12 months post-procedure. PAE had a reoperation rate of 5% before 12 months and 15% after 12 months (20% total rate), and a low complication rate. Of 216 patients, one had sepsis, one required a blood transfusion, four had local arterial dissection and four had a groin haematoma. Two patients had non-target embolization that presented as self-limiting penile ulcers. Additional patient-reported outcomes, pain levels and return to normal activities were very encouraging for PAE. Seventy-one percent of PAE cases were performed as outpatient or day cases. In contrast, 80% of TURP cases required at least 1 night of hospital stay, and the majority required 2 nights. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that PAE provides a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the TURP arm. The safety profile and quicker return to normal activities may be seen as highly beneficial by patients considering PAE as an alternative treatment to TURP, with the concomitant advantages of reduced length of hospital stay and need for admission after PAE. PAE is an advanced embolization technique demanding a high level of expertise, and should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists who have been trained and proctored appropriately. The use of cone-beam computed tomography is encouraged to improve operator confidence and minimize non-target embolizations. The place of PAE in the care pathway is between that of drugs and surgery, allowing the clinician to tailor treatment to individual patients' symptoms, requirements and anatomical variation.

One year symptom severity and health-related quality of life changes among Black African patients undergoing uterine fibroid embolisation.

BACKGROUND: The main aim in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids by various modalities including uterine fibroid embolisation (UFE) is to alleviate symptoms and ultimately improve the quality of life. The efficacy of this modality of treatment in Black African women with significant fibroid burden and large uterine volumes is not clear. The main objective of the study was to examine potential changes in symptom severity among Black African patients 1 year following UFE for symptomatic uterine fibroids in a resource-constrained setting, rated using a validated questionnaire (UFS-QOL). Secondary outcomes examined were changes in quality of life and potential associations with age, parity, uterine volume and fibroid number prior to UFE. Additional interventions after UFE were also recorded. METHODS: A prospective before and after study of Black African patients undergoing UFE was undertaken. Participants underwent pelvic MR imaging prior to UFE and completed the UFS-QOL, a validated condition-specific questionnaire at baseline and at 1 year. Ninety five participants were recruited and data from 80 completing 1 year of follow up were available for analysis of changes in the symptom severity scores. RESULTS: The mean reduction in symptom severity score was 29.6 [95% CI 23.6 to 35.6, P < 0.001] and the mean improvement in HRQOL score was 35.7 [95% CI 28.4 to 42.9, P < 0.001]. A greater number of fibroids identified prior to UFE was associated with a more substantial improvement in symptom severity score (rs = 0.28, n = 80, P = 0.013) and participants of higher parity reported a greater improvement in HRQOL score (r = 0.336, P = 0.002). Major and minor surgical interventions were needed in 5 (6.3%) and 10 (12.5%) participants respectively. CONCLUSIONS: UFE is associated with clinically useful and statistically significant symptom relief in Black African patients. Symptom improvement following UFE is not compromised by a large fibroid burden and the rate of subsequent intervention is within an acceptable range. UFE is a safe alternative and efforts are needed to widen access to this non-surgical treatment modality.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.