Page 478 - 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
Bacon 228 Health WW vs. Up to 3 146 The study was based on the Mean age at post-treatment C
2001 Professionals EBRT vs. BT years (patients Health Professionals Followup survey: WW, 75 yr; RP, 68 yr
11586228 Followup vs. RP vs. with Study (a cohort study of male Only
Study hormonal longitudinal dentists, veterinarians, PSA: NR controlled
Prospective therapy vs. data pharmacists, optometrists, for age
cohort other included in osteopaths, podiatrists) aged Grade: WW, GS2-4, 16%; GS5-
d
treatments multivariable 40-75 yr. Patients with localized 6, 42%; GS7-10, 19%;
analyses; of prostate cancer based on unknown, 23%. RP, GS2-4,
these 452 independent review of medical 7%; GS5-6, 57%; GS7-10,
received RP records and pathology reports. 29%; unknown, 7%.
or WW) Longitudinal comparisons were
reported only for the subgroup Stage: WW, T1, 0; T2, 74%;
of patients participating on an “unspecified,” 6%; unknown,
earlier substudy (after 1995) 19%. RP, T1, 0; T2, 95%;
who also provided information in “unspecified,” 0%; unknown,
1998. 5%.

[Data were extracted for the
overall study population;
separate data were not
reported for the 146 patients
with available longitudinal data]

d We only extracted information on the comparison of WW with RP because RP was used as the baseline treatment in multivariable analyses in this study (i.e.
direct comparisons were only possible between RP and other treatments).

C-157