Aquablation Therapy in Large Prostates (80-150 mL) for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Final WATER II 5-Year Clinical Trial Results.

PURPOSE: We report 5-year safety and efficacy outcomes of the Aquablation procedure for the treatment of men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia and large-volume prostate glands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 101 men with moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia symptoms and prostate volumes between 80 and 150 mL underwent a robotic-assisted Aquablation procedure in a prospective multicenter international trial (NCT03123250). Herein we report the final 5-year results. RESULTS: The study successfully met its safety and efficacy performance goal, which was based upon transurethral resection of the prostate outcomes typically done in smaller prostates, at 3 months. Mean prostate volume was 107 mL (range 80-150) at baseline. Patient symptoms showed a significant improvement where the mean (SD) International Prostate Symptom Score of 22.6 (6.4) at baseline to 6.8 (4.6) at 5 years, resulting in a change score of 15.9 (7.7, P < .001). Uroflowmetry measurements also demonstrated improvement where the mean maximum urinary flow rate increased from 8.6 (SD 3.4) to 17.1 (9.8) mL/s at 5 years, resulting in a change score of 9.2 (11.1) mL/s at 5 years (P < .001). A regression analysis evaluating change in PSA as a function of baseline PSA across all time points out to 5 years resulted in a 50% reduction. A prespecified subgroup analysis using a baseline prostate volume cutoff of 100 mL showed no difference in efficacy outcomes through 5 years. Freedom from a secondary benign prostatic hyperplasia procedure at 5 years was 96.3% based on Kaplan-Meier. CONCLUSIONS: At 5-years of prospective follow-up, the Aquablation procedure was shown to be safe with durable efficacy and low rates of retreatment in men with large prostates (80-150 mL).

Five-year outcomes for Aquablation therapy compared to TURP: results from a double-blind, randomized trial in men with LUTS due to BPH.

INTRODUCTION: To determine if Aquablation therapy can maintain long term effectiveness in treating men with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with a baseline prostate volume between 30 and 80 mL at 5 years compared to TURP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blinded, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial, 181 patients with moderate to severe LUTS secondary to BPH underwent TURP or Aquablation. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo persistent Grade 1 or Grade 2 or higher operative complications at 3 months. The assessments included IPSS, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and uroflow (Qmax). The patients were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint was successfully achieved at 3 months where the Aquablation group had a lower event rate than TURP (26% vs. 42%, p = .0149 for superiority). Procedure-related ejaculatory dysfunction was lower for Aquablation (7% vs. 25%, p = .0004). The primary efficacy endpoint was successfully achieved at 6 months, where the mean IPSS decreased from baseline by 16.9 points for Aquablation and 15.1 points for TURP; the mean difference in change score at 6 months was 1.8 points larger for Aquablation (p < .0001 for non-inferiority, p = .1346 for superiority). At 5 years, IPSS scores improved by 15.1 points in the Aquablation group and 13.2 points in TURP (p = .2764). However, for men with larger prostates (≥ 50 mL), IPSS reduction was 3.5 points greater across all follow up visits in the Aquablation group compared to the TURP group (p = .0123). Improvement in peak urinary flow rate was 125% and 89% compared to baseline for Aquablation and TURP, respectively. The risk of patients needing a secondary BPH therapy, defined as needing BPH medication or surgical intervention, up to 5 years due to recurrent LUTS was 51% less in the Aquablation arm compared to the TURP arm. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in net health outcomes from Aquablation therapy outweigh those offered by a TURP when considering the efficacy benefit along with the lower risk of needing a secondary BPH therapy and avoiding retrograde ejaculation. Following Aquablation therapy, symptom reduction and uroflow improvement at 5 years have shown to be durable and consistent across all years of follow up compared to TURP. Larger prostates (≥ 50 mL) demonstrated a larger safety and efficacy benefit for Aquablation over TURP.

Three-year outcomes after Aquablation therapy compared to TURP: results from a blinded randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: To compare 3-year efficacy and safety after prostate resection with Aquablation therapy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-one patients assigned to either Aquablation therapy or TURP were followed for 3 years postoperatively. Patients and follow up assessors were blinded to treatment. Assessments included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ-EjD), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and uroflow. RESULTS: Over 3 years of treatment, improvements in IPSS scores were statistically similar across groups. Mean 3-year improvements were 14.4 and 13.9 points in the Aquablation and TURP groups, respectively (difference of 0.6 points, 95% CI -3.3-2.2, p = .6848). Similarly, 3-year improvements in Qmax were 11.6 and 8.2 cc/sec (difference of 3.3 [95% CI -0.5-7.1] cc/sec, p = .0848). At 3 years, PSA was reduced significantly in both groups by 0.9 and 1.1 ng/mL, respectively; the reduction was similar across groups (p = .5983). There were no surgical retreatments for BPH beyond 20 months for either Aquablation or TURP. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year BPH symptom reduction and urinary flow rate improvement were similar after TURP and Aquablation therapy. No subjects required surgical retreatment beyond 20 months postoperatively. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02505919).

Two-Year Outcomes After Aquablation Compared to TURP: Efficacy and Ejaculatory Improvements Sustained.

INTRODUCTION: To compare 2-year safety and efficacy outcomes after Aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: One hundred eighty-one patients with BPH were assigned at random (2:1 ratio) to either Aquablation or TURP. Patients and follow-up assessors were blinded to treatment. Assessments included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), International Index of Erectile Function and uroflow. The focus of analysis was 2-year outcomes. RESULTS: At 2 years, IPSS scores improved by 14.7 points in the Aquablation group and 14.9 points in TURP (p = .8304, 95% CI for difference - 2.1 to 2.6 points). Two-year improvements in maximum flow rate (Qmax) were large in both groups at 11.2 and 8.6 cc/s for Aquablation and TURP, respectively (p = 0.1880, 95% CI for difference - 1.3 to 6.4). Sexual function as assessed by MSHQ was stable in the Aquablation group and decreased slightly in the TURP group. At 2 years, PSA was reduced significantly in both groups by 0.7 and 1.2 points, respectively; the reduction was similar across groups (p = 0.1816). Surgical retreatment rates after 12 months for Aquablation were 1.7% and 0% for TURP. Over 2 years, surgical BPH retreatment rates were 4.3% and 1.5% (p = 0.4219), respectively. CONCLUSION: Two-year efficacy outcomes after TURP and Aquablation were similar, and the rate of surgical retreatment was low and similar to TURP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02505919. FUNDING: PROCEPT BioRobotics.

Aquablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large prostates (80-150 mL): 6-month results from the WATER II trial.

OBJECTIVE: To present 6-month safety and effectiveness data from a multicentre prospective study of aquablation in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with prostate volumes between 80 and 150 mL. METHODS: Between September and December 2017, 101 men with LUTSattributable to BPHwere prospectively enrolled at 16 centres in Canada and the USA. RESULTS: The mean prostate volume was 107 mL. The mean length of hospital stay after the aquablation procedure was 1.6 days (range: same day to 6 days). The primary safety endpoint (Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or higher or any grade 1 event resulting in persistent disability) at 3 months occurred in 45.5% of men, which met the study design goal of < 65% (P < 0.001). At 6 months, 22% of the patients had experienced a Clavien-Dindo grade 2, 14% a grade 3 and 5% a grade 4 adverse event. Bleeding complications requiring intervention and/or transfusion were recorded in eight patients prior to discharge and in six patients after discharge. The mean International Prostate Symptom Score improved from 23.2 ± 6.3 at baseline to 6.7 ± 5.1 at 3 months, meeting the study's primary efficacy endpoint goal (P < 0.001). The maximum urinary flow rate increased from 8.7 to 18.8 mL/s (P < 0.001) and post-void residual urine volume decreased from 131 at baseline to 47 at 6 months (P < 0.0001). At 6 months, prostate-specific antigen concentration reduced from 7.1 ± 5.9 ng/mL at baseline to 4.0 ± 3.9 ng/mL, a 44% reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Aquablation is safe and effective in treating men with larger prostates (80-150 mL), without significant increase in procedure or resection time.

Symptom relief and anejaculation after aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate: subgroup analysis from a blinded randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) robotic surgery with aquablation would have a more pronounced benefit in certain patient subgroups, such as men with more challenging anatomies (e.g. large prostates, large middle lobes) and men with moderate BPH. METHODS: We conducted prespecified and post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses from a double-blind, multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial that compared transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) using either standard electrocautery vs surgery using robotic waterjet (aquablation) to determine whether certain baseline factors predicted more marked responses after aquablation as compared with TURP. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo persistent grade 1 or grade ≥2 surgical complications. RESULTS: For men with larger prostates (50-80 g), the mean IPSS reduction was four points greater after aquablation than after TURP (P = 0.001), a larger difference than the overall result (1.8 points; P = 0.135). Similarly, the primary safety endpoint difference (20% vs 46% [26% difference]; P = 0.008) was greater for men with large prostate compared with the overall result (26% vs 42% [16% difference]; P = 0.015). Postoperative anejaculation was also less common after aquablation compared with TURP in sexually active men with large prostates (2% vs 41%; P < 0.001) vs the overall results (10% vs 36%; P < 0.001). Exploratory analysis showed larger IPSS changes after aquablation in men with enlarged middle lobes, men with severe middle lobe obstruction, men with a low baseline maximum urinary flow rate, and men with elevated (>100) post-void residual urine volume. CONCLUSIONS: In men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to BPH and larger, more complex prostates, aquablation was associated with both superior symptom score improvements and a superior safety profile, with a significantly lower rate of postoperative anejaculation. The standardized, robotically executed, surgical approach with aquablation may overcome the increased outcome variability in more complex anatomy, resulting in superior symptom score reduction.

WATER: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Aquablation® vs Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial 181 patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent transurethral prostate resection or Aquablation. The primary efficacy end point was the reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score at 6 months. The primary safety end point was the development of Clavien-Dindo persistent grade 1, or 2 or higher operative complications. RESULTS: Mean total operative time was similar for Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection (33 vs 36 minutes, p = 0.2752) but resection time was lower for Aquablation (4 vs 27 minutes, p <0.0001). At month 6 patients treated with Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection experienced large I-PSS improvements. The prespecified study noninferiority hypothesis was satisfied (p <0.0001). Of the patients who underwent Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection 26% and 42%, respectively, experienced a primary safety end point, which met the study primary noninferiority safety hypothesis and subsequently demonstrated superiority (p = 0.0149). Among sexually active men the rate of anejaculation was lower in those treated with Aquablation (10% vs 36%, p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical prostate resection using Aquablation showed noninferior symptom relief compared to transurethral prostate resection but with a lower risk of sexual dysfunction. Larger prostates (50 to 80 ml) demonstrated a more pronounced superior safety and efficacy benefit. Longer term followup would help assess the clinical value of Aquablation.