Page 430 - 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
- ≥30 vs. <20, OR=1.2 (CI 1.1,
1.3)
Snyder 159 Clinical, SEER- 2000 13,769 Clinically No Logistic Using WW as the reference
2010 social Medicare localized treatment regression treatment:
20734396 prostate within 9 mo predicts compared to RP:
cancer, ≥66 y, of dx treatment vs. 1. Age, per year, RR=0.73 (0.72,
survived ≥9 WW 0.75); P<0.001
mo, on 2. Race,
Medicare (not - black vs. white, RR=0.34 (CI
managed care) 0.27, 0.44); P<0.001
- other vs. White, RR=1.52 (CI
1.13, 2.04)
3. Urban vs. rural, RR=1.54 (CI
1.20, 1.96)
4. SES highest vs. lowest quintile,
RR=1.77 (CI 1.43, 2.19)
5. Grade poor vs. well
differentiated, RR=13.38 (CI 9.26,
19.35)
6. Comorbidity,
- 1 vs. 0, RR=0.84 (CI 0.71, 0.99)
- ≥2 vs. 0, RR=0.67 (CI 0.54,
0.83)

Compared to RT:
1. Age,
2. Black vs. white, RR=0.39 (CI
0.31-0.50)
3. Urban vs. rural, RR=1.48 (CI
1.18-1.85)
4. SES highest vs. lowest quintile,
RR=1.52 (CI 1.26-1.84)
5. Grade poor vs. well
differentiated, RR=2.34 (CI 1.78-
3.08)
6. Comorbidity 2+ vs. 0, RR=0.80
(CI 0.67-0.96)
7. Comorbidity,
- 1 vs. 0, RR=1.11 (CI 0.96, 1.28)

C-133