MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7111024436 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf320.068

(068) Collective Optilume BPH 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: Combined Experience From the Pivotal Pinnacle and Everest Prospective Clinical Studies

2025· article· en· W7111024436 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinnacleClinical trialProstateUrinary systemRandomized controlled trialLower urinary tract symptomsProspective cohort studyUrinary catheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The Optilume BPH Catheter System (Urotronic, Inc./Laborie Medical Technologies, Plymouth, MN, USA) is an FDA-approved, minimally invasive, drug-coated dilation system designed for addressing BPH-related LUTS. The TransUrethral Radial Balloon Open (TURBO) prostate procedure has been studied in 2 clinical investigations (EVEREST and PINNACLE). EVEREST is a prospective, non- randomized multi-center study (n=80) followed by PINNACLE, a prospective, multicenter randomized study (n=100). Combined clinical data from these two studies through 2-year follow-up is presented here. Objective To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and durability of the Optilume BPH Catheter System (TURBO procedure) for the treatment of BPH-related lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), using combined 2-year follow-up data from the EVEREST and PINNACLE clinical trials. Methods A total of 179 men with symptomatic BPH were treated with Optilume BPH in the 2 studies in Latin America, Canada, and the United States. The combined study cohort includes men with a mean age of 65 years and prostate volume of 41cc. Follow-up was completed at 3, 6, 12 months and annually thereafter. All studies were designed to follow subjects through 5-years. However, while long term data continues to be collected, we herein present the 2-year data, as it constitutes a complete dataset for both studies at the time of this abstract. Results IPSS improved in subjects treated with Optilume BPH from 22.9 at baseline to 9.7 at 2- years (Figure). Peak urinary flow rate in subjects treated with Optilume BPH went from 9.8mL/s at baseline to 18.1 mL/s at 2-years. Post-void residual volume improved from 75cc at baseline to 56cc at 2-years. Sexual function was not impacted based on the IIEF Overall Satisfaction score from 6.3 at baseline to 6.8 at 2-years. There were no reported transfusions, retrograde ejaculation, stress incontinence or stricture formation in the series. Surgical BPH retreatment was observed in 1.7% (n=3) of the patient population. Conclusions Subjects with BPH treated with Optilume BPH TURBO prostate procedure exhibited significant and sustained improvement in symptomatic and functional outcomes with a good safety profile. There was no impact to erectile function. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Urotronic, Inc. (a subsidiary of Laborie Medical Technologies Corp.) is the sponsor for the studies included Clarification: Industry initiated, executed and funded study Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Procept Biorobotics, Boston Scientific, Laborie Medical Technologies, Olympus, Zenflow, Medtronic, Astellas, Sumitomo Pharma America, Emano Flow, Promaxo, Ibex Medical Analytics, BioProtect Ltd, Oxford BioDynamics, Soundable Health, Clinical Laserthermia Systems Americas, Marius Pharmaceuticals, Sonablate Corp, PathNet, DeepSpin GmbH, GoPath Diagnostics, Cortechs.AI, Proverum

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine→Same topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research→French-language works237,207→