Radiation dose of prostatic artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: A protocol for systematic review

Background: Increasing evidence supports the efficacy and safety of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, PAE relies on ionizing radiation, which has not been studied systematically so far. Therefore, the potential associated risks remain largely unknown and are subject to intense debate. We performed a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical benefits of different radiation doses in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing PAE. Methods: A comprehensive search of several databases from 1966 to October 2022 was conducted. The databases include Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by the “Risk of Bias Assessment Tool” of the Cochrane Handbook for randomized controlled trials. All data were analyzed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package (Biostat, Engelwood, NJ). Results: The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal once completed. Conclusion: This review will provide reliable evidence for extensive application of PAE for benign prostatic hyperplasia and determine the most rational radiation dose for these patients.

[1]  J. Cornu.  Prostatic Artery Embolisation for Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Related to Benign Prostatic Obstruction: Curative Option or Watchful Waiting? , 2021, European urology.

[2]  D. Engeler,et al.  Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-yr Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Single-centre Trial. , 2021, European urology.

[3]  S. Shinn,et al.  Changes in Prevalence and Treatment Pattern of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Korea , 2021, International neurourology journal.

[4]  C. Gratzke,et al.  Current Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. , 2020, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[5]  F. Cheng,et al.  The clinical application of combination suprapubic prostatectomy with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) , 2020, Urologia.

[6]  K. Chien,et al.  Comparative efficacy and safety of new surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysis , 2019, BMJ.

[7]  M. Terris,et al.  Epidemiology and treatment modalities for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. , 2019, Translational andrology and urology.

[8]  A. Te.  Recent advances in prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia , 2019, F1000Research.

[9]  T. Kessler,et al.  Comparison of prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia: randomised, open label, non-inferiority trial , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[10]  J. Cózar-Olmo,et al.  Hiperplasia prostática benigna y síntomas del tracto urinario inferior. Revisión de las evidencias actuales , 2016 .

[11]  Fei Sun,et al.  Prostatic Artery Embolization (PAE) for Symptomatic Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): Part 2, Insights into the Technical Rationale , 2016, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[12]  G. Andriole,et al.  Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. , 2016, Annual review of medicine.

[13]  K. Loughlin,et al.  Benign prostatic hyperplasia: epidemiology, economics and evaluation. , 2015, The Canadian journal of urology.

[14]  D. Mobley,et al.  Benign prostatic hyperplasia and urinary symptoms: Evaluation and treatment , 2015, Postgraduate medicine.

[15]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[17]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.