Page 436 - 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
Yan 177 Clinical Survey of 1989- 1809 of 2345 Screen- Not Multinomial 1. Non-Black more likely (than
2000 men 1998 provided detected, explicitly logistic Black) to choose RP than WW
10699903 diagnosed followup clinically provided regression [OR=4.3 (1.7, 10.9)] or
with prostate questionnaire localized (WW vs. RP (nonsignificantly) RT than WW
cancer information prostate cancer vs. RT) [OR=2.6 (0.86, 7.7)]
(through the 2. Clinical stage T2 more likely
Washington (than T1) to choose RP than WW
U. PSA [OR=3.0 (1.8, 4.8)] or RT than WW
Prostate [OR=2.8 (1.6, 4.7)]
Cancer 3. No urinary dysfunction more
Screening likely (than yes) to choose RP than
Program) who WW [OR=1.8 (1.13, 2.8)] but NS
chose 1 of 3 RT vs. WW [OR=1.08 (0.66-1.8)]
tx (RP, RT or 4. No sexual dysfunction NS RP
WW) vs. WW [OR=0.83 (0.5, 1.3)] but
less likely to choose RT than WW
[OR=0.52 (0.30, 0.84)]
5. PSA level, for every 1 ng/mL
increase (at dx) RP more likely
than WW [OR=1.12 (1.04, 1.20)]
and RT than WW [OR=1.15 (1.07,
1.23)]
6. Age, for every 5-yr increase RP
less likely than WW [OR=0.21
(0.17, 0.27)] and RT less likely
than WW [OR=0.49 (0.39, 0.63)]

NS: marital status, education,
income, indication for biopsy, and
a Charlson-like comorbidity score.

C-136