SynthesisCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Effectiveness and Safety of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeProstatic 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
methodsA 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).
resultsEleven 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.
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.