Page 421 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Appendix Table C3.2. KQ3 multivariable analyses (continued)
Author Factors Data source Duration Analyzed Population WW/AS Methods Results as described in paper
yr sample characteristics definitions
PMI
Dall’Era 160 Clinical, CaPSURE 1995- 5939 Patients with Not Binary Among patients with low risk:
2009 social 2007 prostate cancer explicitly logistic 1. social support, in permanent
19230923 Patients provided regression relationship vs. not, OR=1.82 (CI
undergoing active 1.13, 2.94)
cryotherapy treatment vs. 2. insurance status, Medicare (with
were excluded. WW/AS or without supplement) vs. private
or VA, OR=0.49 (CI 0.34, 0.71)

Overall cohort:
Insurance status, Medicare vs. no
Medicare, OR=0.53 (CI 0.35, 0.79)

Multivariable models included: age
at dx, race/ethnicity, education,
relationship/marital status and
insurance coverage. Results were
only reported for
relationship/marital status and
insurance status; no estimates or
p-values were reported for the
other variables.
Moses 169 Clinical CaPSURE 1995- 4284 Men with Not Multinomial AS vs. RP
2010 July biopsy-proven explicitly logistic - White vs. African American:
20100957 2008 prostate provided regression OR=0.52 (CI 0.22, 1.25);
cancer, who with all P=0.15
reported a variables - Other vs. African American:
health-related significantly OR=0.69 (CI 0.16, 2.97);
quality of life associated P=0.62
questionnaire with receipt - Other vs. White: OR=1.32 (CI
within 12 mo of treatment 0.34, 4.64); P=0.15
before selecting (AS vs. RP
primary vs. RT, ADT Estimates were adjusted for risk
treatment by vs. (D’Amico level), age, health
2007 cryotherapy perception, number of
vs. TUMT) in comorbidities, education level, and
a univariate type of insurance. Estimates or p-
test values were not reported for these
variables.

C-128