Epirubicin-loaded beads transarterial prostatic arterial chemoembolization is a promising treatment for advanced prostate cancer with lower urinary tract obstruction or hematuria-a case series report

Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Single Center Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To assess efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective single-center, single-arm, pilot study, 9 men with advanced PCa underwent PAE. PAE was performed with the use of 250-400 µm Embozene microspheres (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA). International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), urinary peak flow (Qmax) and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) was assessed at 12 weeks and up to 12 months. Changes in total prostate volume (TPV) and tumor responses by PSA, changes in tumor volume and evaluation of tumor regression by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were assessed at 12 weeks after PAE.

RESULTS

IPSS reduction in median 6 points (0-19) and a significant decrease in PVR from median 70 (20-600) mL to 10 (0-280) mL could be achieved within 12 weeks after PAE. Median TPV and tumor volumes (TV) increased slightly from 19.7 (6.4-110.8) mL to 23.4 (2.4-66.3) mL and 6.4 (4.6-18.3) mL to 8.1 (2.4-25.6) mL at a median of 12 weeks after the procedure. Significant tumor necrosis (≥ 50%) was found in one patient. Eight patients showed > 50% of viable tumor on post-PAE MRI according to MRI. Only one Clavien-Dindo Grade 1 adverse event related to PAE occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

PAE with the use of 250-400 µm microspheres is feasible, safe and effective in some patients with advanced PCa regarding functional outcomes. A cytoreductive effect might be achieved in individual patients but must be further assessed.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03457805.

Prostatic Artery Embolization in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is increasingly performed worldwide for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). In contrast, the role of PAE in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review summarizes the current available literature on PAE in patients with PCa regarding oncological and functional outcome.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A structured search for the relevant literature from 1985 to 2022 was performed in Medline, Embase, and York CRD. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed using the ROBINS tool.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Thirteen trials (12 case series and one animal study using a canine model) were included in this systematic review. Four studies had a prospective study design. The risk of bias was rated moderate to serious in all the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

PAE in patients with PCa seems to be a safe procedure and effective regarding the improvement of LUTS. Despite PAE having been shown to be feasible in different treatment scenarios of localized or advanced PCa, the oncological benefits are debatable due to an unreliable tumor response and a lack of controlled trials including long-term follow-up.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We investigated the literature to determine the role of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in patients with prostate cancer regarding oncological and functional outcomes. The results suggest a similar safety profile and efficacy in terms of functional outcomes to those reported earlier for PAE in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. The role of PAE regarding oncological outcomes has to be assessed further.

The role of surgery for loco-regional and advanced urological cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is a general misconception that surgery is the antithesis of palliation. However, symptom mitigation, the basic tenet of palliative interventions, can be achieved by invasive procedures. Surgical care, thus, plays an important role in palliative oncology, alongside radiation and systemic therapy. There is global movement to improve palliation in oncology, and thus it is timely to evaluate the role of surgical interventions can play in this setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many of the surgical interventions done with palliative intent were first established as curative options. Most studies looked at interventions for local control of primary tumour including extirpative surgeries, while some studies studied pain relief for bone metastases. Results show that patients have an acceptable survival outcome and complication rate comparable to those done in the curative setting. However, not all studies report functional outcomes and symptom-relief consistently, highlighting an unmet need.

SUMMARY

More studies are needed to further define the role of surgery in palliative care. Randomized controlled trials studying surgical intervention in the palliative setting will be challenging because of lack of equipoise, inherent bias in patient and disease characteristics in those who undergo surgery. Nonetheless, studies should endeavour to study symptom-free survival and PROMs as meaningful endpoints of interventions performed in a palliative setting rather than solely focus on hard oncological endpoints of survival.