Prostate Zonal Volumetry as a Predictor of Clinical Outcomes for Prostate Artery Embolization.

PURPOSE: To determine prostate baseline zonal volumetry and correlate these findings with clinical outcomes for patients who underwent prostate artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study that included patients treated by PAE from 2010 to 2014. Baseline and 6-month follow-up evaluations included prostate MRI with whole prostate (WP) and central gland (CG) volume measurements-as well as prostate zonal volumetry index (ZVi) calculation, defined as the CG/WP volumes relation-the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and the Quality of life (QoL) index. Baseline WP, CG, and ZVi were statistical compared to IPSS and QoL values at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 93 consecutive patients were included, with mean age of 63.4 years (range, 51-86). Clinical failure, defined as IPSS > 7 or QoL > 2, was seen in four cases (4.3%). Mean reductions in prostate volumes after PAE were of 30.6% and 31.2% for WP and CG, respectively (p < 0.0001). Clinical parameters had mean decrease from 21 to 3.3 points for IPSS, and from 4.7 to 1.2 points for QoL (p < 0.0001). Baseline WP, CG, and ZVi correlated to the degree of clinical improvement (p < 0.05 for all). The baseline ZVi cut-off calculated for better clinical outcomes was > 0.45, with 85% sensitivity and 75% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline CG and WP volumes as well as ZVi presented strong correlation with clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PAE, and its assessment should be considered in pre-treatment evaluation whenever possible. Both patients and medical team should be aware of the possibility of less favorable outcomes when ZVi < 0.45.

Cytokeratin-based CTC counting unrelated to clinical follow up.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been reported to be a relevant prognostic biomarker in metastatic patients. However, their clinical use and impact is still under debate. We have thus comparatively and kinetically assessed two CTC detection methods according to the patient's clinical follow up. METHODS: CTC counting and characterization were repeatedly performed during follow up in a patient with metastatic undifferentiated non-small cell lung cancer by using cytokeratin (CK)-dependent immunomagnetic separation (Miltenyi) and CK-independent, size-based isolation [isolation by size of tumor cells (ISET)] (Rarecells). RESULTS: Comparison between the two methods showed a parallel increase of CTC detected by ISET and worsening of the clinical status, while CK-dependent CTC numbers were decreasing, misleadingly suggesting a response to treatment. ISET results were in agreement with the clinical follow up showing Circulating tumor microemboli (CTM) and CTC expressing a mesenchymal marker with absence of epithelial markers. CONCLUSIONS: This case report study shows the interest of a comparative and kinetic analysis of different methods for CTCs detection combined with their evaluation according to the clinical follow up. Our results should open up an area for future research and validation in larger clinical cohorts.