Cone Beam CT with Automatic vessel Detection Software versus Conventional 2D Fluoroscopy with Overlay for Prostate Artery Embolization: A Comparison of Prostatic Artery Catheterization Time and Radiation Exposure

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the effect of cone-beam computed tomography (CT) with automatic vessel detection software on prostate artery catheterization and fluoroscopy time in prostate artery embolization (PAE).

Methods Fifty patients undergoing PAE for BPH were enrolled in this prospective study. Twenty-five PAEs were performed using automatic vessel detection software with syngo embolization guidance (study) and were compared with 25 PAEs performed using conventional two-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy with overlay (control). PAE was performed using 300–500 μm trisacryl gelatin spherical particles. The primary outcome parameters were prostatic artery catheterization time and fluoroscopy time.

Results Bilateral PAE was achieved in 24/25 cases in both groups. The median right and left prostatic artery catheterization times were similar between the two groups, (p = 0.473 and p = 0.659, respectively). The median fluoroscopy time (28.0 and 42.0 minutes, p = 0.046) and total procedure time (70.0 and 118.0 minutes, p < 0.001) were shorter in the study group. The median total dose area product (DAP) was not significantly different. However, the median CBCT DAP (11406 vs. 6248, p < 0.001) was higher in the study group, while median fluoroscopy DAP (7371 vs. 8426, p < .049) was higher in the control group. Median digital subtraction angiography (DSA), CBCT, and fluoroscopy DAP accounted for 27%, 45%, and 29% of the total DAP in the study group and 32%, 29%, and 39% in the control group (p < 0.001), respectively. All complications were Clavien–Dindo Grade 1.

Conclusion Although CBCT with automatic vessel detection software had no significant effect on time-to-prostatic artery catheterization and total radiation exposure, it reduced the fluoroscopy time and procedure time.

Keywords

prostate artery embolization - automatic vessel detection software - cone-beam computed tomography

• References

• 1 Bilhim T, Pisco JM, Rio Tinto H. et al. Prostatic arterial supply: anatomic and imaging findings relevant for selective arterial embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23 (11) 1403-1415
• 2 Moya C, Cuesta J, Friera A, Gil-Vernet Sedó JM, Valderrama-Canales FJ. Cadaveric and radiologic study of the anatomical variations of the prostatic arteries: a review of the literature and a new classification proposal with application to prostatectomy. Clin Anat 2017; 30 (01) 71-80
• 3 de Assis AM, Moreira AM, de Paula Rodrigues VC. et al. Pelvic arterial anatomy relevant to prostatic artery embolisation and proposal for angiographic classification. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38 (04) 855-861
• 4 Bagla S, Rholl KS, Sterling KM. et al. Utility of cone-beam CT imaging in prostatic artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24 (11) 1603-1607
• 5 Wang MQ, Duan F, Yuan K, Zhang GD, Yan J, Wang Y. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: cone-beam CT in conjunction with DSA for identifying prostatic arterial anatomy. Radiology 2017; 282 (01) 271-280
• 6 Chiaradia M, Radaelli A, Campeggi A, Bouanane M, De La Taille A, Kobeiter H. Automatic three-dimensional detection of prostatic arteries using cone-beam CT during prostatic arterial embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015; 26 (03) 413-417
• 7 Schott P, Katoh M, Fischer N, Freyhardt P. Radiation dose in prostatic artery embolization using cone-beam CT and 3D Roadmap software. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 30 (09) 1452-1458
• 8 Lin P-JP, Schueler BA, Balter S. et al. Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: a report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190. Med Phys 2015; 42 (12) 6815-6829
• 9 Bhatia S, Sinha V, Bordegaray M, Kably I, Harward S, Narayanan G. Role of coil embolization during prostatic artery embolization: incidence, indications, and safety profile^☆ . J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017; 28 (05) 656-664.e3
• 10 Floridi C, Radaelli A, Abi-Jaoudeh N. et al. C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in interventional oncology: technical aspects and clinical applications. Radiol Med (Torino) 2014; 119 (07) 521-532
• 11 Lechuga L, Weidlich GA. Cone beam CT vs. fan beam CT: a comparison of image quality and dose delivered between two differing CT imaging modalities. Cureus 2016; 8 (09) e778
• 12 Maclean D, Maher B, Harris M. et al. Planning prostate artery embolisation: is it essential to perform a pre-procedural CTA?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018; 41 (04) 628-632
• 13 Desai H, Yu H, Ohana E, Gunnell ET, Kim J, Isaacson A. Comparative analysis of cone-beam CT angiogram and conventional CT angiogram for prostatic artery identification prior to embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (02) 229-232
• 14 Schnapauff D, Maxeiner A, Wieners G. et al. Semi-automatic prostatic artery detection using cone-beam CT during prostatic arterial embolization. Acta Radiol 2020; 61(8): 1116-1124