Interventional News Issue 82—June 2021 US Edition

Page 1

June 2021 | Issue 82

Featured in this issue:

www.interventionalnews.com

14

Gerard Goh and Markus Schlaich: Renal and hepatic artery denervation

Renal interventions: High-flow fistulas divide opinion

Profile: Philip Pereira

page 20

page 22

The road to PAE in the AUA guidelines There are substantial differences amongst guideline recommendations regarding the use of prostate artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO), which can be partially explained by different interpretation of the evidence. This is the conclusion presented by Dominik Abt (Klinik für Urologie, Institut für Medizin, Universität St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland) at the Global Embolization and Cancer Symposium Technologies (GEST) 2021 Focus Day on prostate artery embolization (PAE; 6 March, online). This virtual meeting sought to open discussion between urologists and interventional radiologists regarding the place of PAE in the treatment algorithm, a topic of heated debate in recent years.

S

peaking during the final session of the day, panel that found that the improvements in quality of life chair and co-course organiser Jafar Golzarian measurements and International Prostate Symptom Score (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA) (IPSS) in patients following PAE are “far superior” to those praised the “unique” collaborative attitude of the virtual due to the placebo effect. Speaking to Interventional News meeting, where attendees heard from four urologists and at the time, Bilhim noted that publishing a paper positively four interventional radiology (IR) panellists: “This session describing PAE in a urology journal has historically been exploring the level of evidence and directions for future difficult for interventional radiologists. He hoped that this research in PAE is unique in both the IR and urology publication “might help our way into the urology guidelines communities,” he said, “taking a truly interactive and with PAE”. multidisciplinary approach, which is not common practice.” The sham study enrolled 80 patients, randomised 1:1 He noted that he hoped this cross-disciplinary collaboration to PAE versus a sham procedure with a cross-over design would continue in future meetings. at six months. Summarising their findings, Little relayed: The American Urological Association (AUA) does “They found a statistically significant refutation of the not recommend PAE for the treatment of LUTS/benign placebo effect—PAE does better than sham”. Asking the prostatic hyperplasia question, “Is PAE clinically (BPH) outside the context effective”, Little argued that of a clinical trial, a the answer was a definitive recommendation attributed “Yes”, based on this Level 1 to the expert opinion of a evidence. panel of urologists. This news was unwelcome to AUA guidelines the IR community when Published in the Journal of first announced in 2019, as Vascular and Interventional interventional radiologists Radiology (JVIR) and have been advocating authored by Clifford Davis for the procedure’s (College of Medicine and acceptance by the wider Radiology, University of medical world. Multiple South Florida, Tampa, GEST 2021 PAE panellists. Top row, from left: Shamar IR societies conclude that Florida) et al, the findings of Young, Jafar Golzarian, Art Rastinehad. Middle row, from left: Riad Salem, James Spies, Dominik Abt. Bottom row, PAE is a safe, effective, a Society of Interventional from left: Mark Little, Philipp Dahm, John Kellogg Parsons. minimally invasive Radiology (SIR) consensus treatment option in select panel convened to discuss BPH patients. the development of a research agenda for PAE concluded without consensus: “Level 1 data are required to be Evidence for PAE included in the AUA guidelines for treatment of BPH. Speaking first, Mark Little (Royal Berkshire NHS Because of concerns with all three study designs, the panel Foundation Trust, Reading, UK) discussed recent PAE did not reach a consensus. Further meetings are planned literature. In the last two years, 113 papers on the procedure with the panel to select among these research designs.” have been published. Of these, five were randomised The three research designs mentioned were: i) RCT controlled trials (RCTs), and eight were meta-analyses of of PAE versus sham with crossover of the sham group; systematic reviews. ii) RCT of PAE versus simple prostatectomy; iii) RCT Regarding the clinical effectiveness of PAE, Little said: of PAE versus holmium laser enucleation of the prostate “We cannot go beyond the superb sham RCT study that (HoLEP)/thulium laser enucleation of the prostate. The SIR came out of Lisbon.” This was a 2020 study published in consensus panel ultimately recommended a non-industryEuropean Urology, the official journal of the European funded registry to obtain real-world data. Association of Urology (EAU), from João Pisco, Tiago Currently, the AUA guidelines state that “PAE for the Bilhim (Hôpital Saint-Louis, Lisbon, Portugal) et al, Continued on page 2

COLDFIRE 2: IRE is safe, effective in patients unsuitable for thermal ablation or surgery Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is an effective and relatively safe treatment for colorectal liver metastases 5cm or smaller that are deemed unsuitable for partial hepatectomy, thermal ablation, or further systemic therapy, results of the COLDFIRE-2 study, published in Radiology, report. The two-centre, prospective, single-arm, phase II clinical trial was conducted by Martijn Meijerink, Alette Ruarus (both Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and colleagues. IRE IS A NON-THERMAL ABLATIVE technique that uses high-voltage electrical pulses, and, according to the study authors, has shown promise for eradicating tumours near critical structures, including blood vessels and bile ducts. This is exactly why it presents an attractive treatment option to many interventionalists: those patients treated in COLDFIRE-2 were all inappropriate candidates for partial hepatectomy or thermal ablation due to the proximity of their tumours to critical structures. Indeed, up to 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases are not eligible for surgery because of comorbidities or owing to the number, location, or distribution of the metastases. Meijerink, Ruarus et al explain that, although most current guidelines consider thermal ablation (radiofrequency and microwave; RFA and MWA) to be the standard of care for small, unresectable colorectal liver metastases, its contraindication for tumours close to large hepatic vessels presents an unmet clinical need that can be catered for by IRE. The COLDFIRE-1 study (Colorectal liver metastases disease: efficacy of irreversible electroporation, a single-arm, phase 1 clinical trial) first demonstrated IRE’s ability to eradicate colorectal liver metastases in humans. The COLDFIRE-2 triallists write: “The reported efficacy of hepatic IRE varies widely (45.5–100%) because of the heterogeneity of patient and tumour characteristics, and most Continued on page 4


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.