Page 475 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Appendix Table C4.1. Descriptive characteristics of the randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies considered
relevant to KQ4 (continued)
Author, Year Study name Comparison Study Sample Inclusion criteria Population description: Quality
[Pubmed ID] /Database duration size (total) Age Comments
PSA (ng/mL)
Study design Tumor grade
Stage
b
Thong 224 Eindhoven “AS” (long- Mean 8 yr 142 All eligible patients diagnosed Mean age at survey: “AS,” 75.8 B
2009 Cancer term with prostate cancer between yr; RT, 75.9 yr
19747357 Registry survivors) vs. 1994 and 1998 from ECR. Of 128 AS
(ECR) EBRT(long- Excluding persons who had died PSA: NR survivors,
Retrospective term before Nov. 1, 2004. For the 71 returned
matched survivors) purpose of this study, a sample Grade: “AS,” TNM Grade 1, survey
cohort of patients who would be 80.3%; TNM Grade 2, 19.7%. (55%)
suitable for management with RT, TNM Grade 1, 80.3%; TNM
AS according to the following Grade 2, 19.7%.
criteria were selected: stage ≤2
and a tumor grade of ≤2 as Stage: “AS,” stage 1, 67.6%;
determined with a biopsy at stage 2, 32.4%. RT, stage 1,
diagnosis. These patients 69%; stage 2, 31%.
thereafter received either no
active treatment or at most, a
TURP after diagnosis were
matched with patients who had
received EBRT as a primary
treatment at diagnosis on (a)
cancer stage, (b) tumor grade,
(c) age at diagnosis (within 2 yr).

b Although the authors referred to this group as “active surveillance” the study did not report following a predefined monitoring protocol; furthermore, patients in
this group “received either no active treatment or at most, a TURP after diagnosis.” For these reasons we did not consider this a comparative study of AS.

C-155