Evidence Hub

Prostatic Artery Embolization Is Safe and Effective for Medically Recalcitrant Radiation-Induced Prostatitis

N. Parikh, E. Keshishian, Ayushman Sharma, M. Roca, B. Manley, M. Poch, G. Grass, J. Torres-Roca et al.

Advances in Radiation Oncology, 2020

8 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Purpose Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) represents 90% of all chronic prostatitis cases and may occur after radiation therapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer. Medical therapy is effective in approximately 50% of cases, with no therapy demonstrating consistent efficacy in refractory cases. Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) is effective in men with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. We report clinical improvement after PAE in a case series of men with CP/CPPS after RT. Methods and Materials Nine men (median age 72 years; range, 61-83 years) with CP/CPPS after RT for prostate cancer underwent PAE. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Score was recorded in 5 patients (median 23; range, 4-26), Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index score in 6 patients (median 22.5; range, 6-34), and quality of life (QoL) score in 8 patients (median 5; range, 2-6). Median baseline prostate volume was 49 cm3 (range, 22-123 cm3). Patients were followed up at 6 and 12 weeks with QoL, International Prostate Symptom Score, and/or Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index score and magnetic resonance imaging. Results Technical success (ie, bilateral embolization) was achieved in 78% (n = 7) of patients with the other 2 patients having undergone unilateral embolization with no major complications. Clinical success was seen in 89% (n = 8) of patients and QoL improved in 78% (n = 7) during the follow-up period. Conclusion CP/CPPS after RT for localized…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 8 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free