Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and indwelling urinary catheter: A retrospective multicenter study

International audiencePurpose: the purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the clinical success at three months of prostate artery embolization (PAE), assess PAE safety in centers with various experiences and identify factors associated with PAE success.Patients and methods: this multicenter, retrospective study included patients who underwent PAE for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) including those with indwelling urinary catheter. PAE clinical success was defined as either 25% improvement of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or 1-point improvement of quality of life (QoL) score, or catheter removal at three months. Multivariable analyses were performed using a logistic regression adjusted on patient variables, technical parameters and center experience in PAE.Results: a total of 383 men (mean age, 68.4±9.7 [standard deviation] years; range: 46-94) with LUTS, including 99 (25.8%) patients with indwelling urinary catheter, were included in seven centers from January 2017 to March 2019. Five patients reported major complications (1.3%), three (0.8%) penile ulceration, three (0.8%) acute urinary retention, one (0.3%) prostatic abscess, and 56 (14.6%) minor complications. Follow up data were available for 271 patients (center 1: n= 159; other centers: n= 112). Clinical success was reported in 232 patients (85.6%). In multivariable analyses, presence of cardiovascular comorbidities (diabetes, stroke history, myocardial infarction and lower limb artery disease) was the single independent variable inversely associated with PAE clinical success (odds ratio= 0.396; 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.91; P= 0.029). There was no center effect.Conclusion: our results show that PAE is safe and effective in centers with various PAE experiences. Cardiovascular comorbidity is the single independent variable associated with PAE failure

Characterization of high-grade prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI: assessment of PI-RADS version 2.1 and version 2 descriptors across 21 readers with varying experience (MULTI study)

International audienceAbstract Objective To assess PI-RADSv2.1 and PI-RADSv2 descriptors across readers with varying experience. Methods Twenty-one radiologists (7 experienced (≥ 5 years) seniors, 7 less experienced seniors and 7 juniors) assessed 240 ‘predefined’ lesions from 159 pre-biopsy multiparametric prostate MRIs. They specified their location (peripheral, transition or central zone) and size, and scored them using PI-RADSv2.1 and PI-RADSv2 descriptors. They also described and scored ‘additional’ lesions if needed. Per-lesion analysis assessed the ‘predefined’ lesions, using targeted biopsy as reference; per-lobe analysis included ‘predefined’ and ‘additional’ lesions, using combined systematic and targeted biopsy as reference. Areas under the curve (AUCs) quantified the performance in diagnosing clinically significant cancer (csPCa; ISUP ≥ 2 cancer). Kappa coefficients ( κ ) or concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) assessed inter-reader agreement. Results At per-lesion analysis, inter-reader agreement on location and size was moderate-to-good ( κ = 0.60–0.73) and excellent (CCC ≥ 0.80), respectively. Agreement on PI-RADSv2.1 scoring was moderate ( κ = 0.43–0.47) for seniors and fair ( κ = 0.39) for juniors. Using PI-RADSv2.1, juniors obtained a significantly lower AUC (0.74; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.70–0.79) than experienced seniors (0.80; 95%CI 0.76–0.84; p = 0.008) but not than less experienced seniors (0.74; 95%CI 0.70–0.78; p = 0.75). As compared to PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 downgraded 17 lesions/reader (interquartile range [IQR]: 6–29), of which 2 (IQR: 1–3) were csPCa; it upgraded 4 lesions/reader (IQR: 2–7), of which 1 (IQR: 0–2) was csPCa. Per-lobe analysis, which included 60 (IQR: 25–73) ‘additional’ lesions/reader, yielded similar results. Conclusions Experience significantly impacted lesion characterization using PI-RADSv2.1 descriptors. As compared to PI-RADSv2, PI-RADSv2.1 tended to downgrade non-csPCa lesions, but this effect was small and variable across readers

Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study

International audienceBACKGROUND:Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients.METHODS:In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3-36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5-38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8-8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6-11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria).INTERPRETATION:There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy