Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
메타분석
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
151 participants were included.
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
attention to manage the urological symptoms in patients with prostate cancer (PCa)
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
Overall, the studies showed a high risk of bias. [CONCLUSION] This meta-analysis revealed that PAE and PACE are feasible, effective, and safe techniques to control the urological symptoms in patients with PCa, and even as adyuvant treatment for local therapies.
[PURPOSE] Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has received attention to manage the urological symptoms in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
- 연구 설계 meta-analysis
APA
Lucas-Cava V, Sánchez-Margallo FM, Sun F (2025). Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 48(9), 1263-1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-025-04107-6
MLA
Lucas-Cava V, et al.. "Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.." Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, vol. 48, no. 9, 2025, pp. 1263-1277.
PMID
40640416 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[PURPOSE] Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has received attention to manage the urological symptoms in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This meta-analysis evaluates its effectiveness and safety in patients with PCa.
[MATERIAL AND METHODS] A systematic review was performed by searching in PudMed and Web of Science databases for studies including either PAE or prostatic artery chemoembolization (PACE) in patients with PCa. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. The primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success, oncological efficacy and adverse events (AEs). The secondary outcomes were International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), prostate volume (PV), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
[RESULTS] Eleven single-arm studies with 151 participants were included. The pooled technical and clinical success rates were 95.53% (95%CI: 87.23, 99.95) and 90.31% (95%CI: 73.44, 99.85), respectively, whereas the oncological efficacy was 65.89% (95%CI: 32.18, 93.13). AEs showed low rates of minor 23.88% (95%CI: 8.88, 42.39) and major 0.6% (95%CI: 0.00, 3.67). Although, PAE tended to fewer AEs compared to PACE, 20.76% vs 31.03% for minor, and 1.01% vs 0.32% for major AEs, respectively. In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in IPSS (- 10.24, 95%CI: - 14.60,- 5.89), QoL (- 2.28, 95%CI: - 3.25, - 1.32), PV (- 22.16, 95%CI: - 34.20, - 10.13), and PSA (- 7.32, 95%CI: - 12.34, - 2.29), with greater improvements after PACE. Overall, the studies showed a high risk of bias.
[CONCLUSION] This meta-analysis revealed that PAE and PACE are feasible, effective, and safe techniques to control the urological symptoms in patients with PCa, and even as adyuvant treatment for local therapies.
[MATERIAL AND METHODS] A systematic review was performed by searching in PudMed and Web of Science databases for studies including either PAE or prostatic artery chemoembolization (PACE) in patients with PCa. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. The primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success, oncological efficacy and adverse events (AEs). The secondary outcomes were International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL), prostate volume (PV), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA).
[RESULTS] Eleven single-arm studies with 151 participants were included. The pooled technical and clinical success rates were 95.53% (95%CI: 87.23, 99.95) and 90.31% (95%CI: 73.44, 99.85), respectively, whereas the oncological efficacy was 65.89% (95%CI: 32.18, 93.13). AEs showed low rates of minor 23.88% (95%CI: 8.88, 42.39) and major 0.6% (95%CI: 0.00, 3.67). Although, PAE tended to fewer AEs compared to PACE, 20.76% vs 31.03% for minor, and 1.01% vs 0.32% for major AEs, respectively. In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in IPSS (- 10.24, 95%CI: - 14.60,- 5.89), QoL (- 2.28, 95%CI: - 3.25, - 1.32), PV (- 22.16, 95%CI: - 34.20, - 10.13), and PSA (- 7.32, 95%CI: - 12.34, - 2.29), with greater improvements after PACE. Overall, the studies showed a high risk of bias.
[CONCLUSION] This meta-analysis revealed that PAE and PACE are feasible, effective, and safe techniques to control the urological symptoms in patients with PCa, and even as adyuvant treatment for local therapies.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- A Phase I Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Suba-Itraconazole in Men with Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer (HITMAN-PC): Dose Escalation Results.
- Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Comprehensive analysis of androgen receptor splice variant target gene expression in prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.