Page 481 - 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
e
Albertsen 209 Connecticut WW vs. RP Median 1618 (of Connecticut residents ≤75 yr, Median age: WW, 70 yr; RP, 65 B
2007 Tumor followup: whom 114 with clinically localized prostate yr
17296379 Registry 13 yr received no cancer, and initial PSA<50
(IQR=12.8, initial ng/ml, treated with WW, RT or Median PSA: WW, 6.6; RP, 9.1
Retrospective 13.9) therapy and RP.
cohort 802 were Gleason score: WW, GS2-4,
intended to 17%; GS5, 15%; GS6, 46%;
receive RP) GS7, 11%; GS8-10, 11%. RP,
GS2-4, 3%; GS5, 5%; GS6,
49%; GS7, 29%; GS8-10, 14%.

Stage: NR
Observational
studies –
treatment
costs
Snyder 159 SEER- WW vs. 5 yr 13,769 (with Localized prostate cancer Mean age: WW, 77 yr; RT 74 C
st
2010 Medicare RT only vs. cancer) + diagnosed in 2000, 1 or only yr; hormonal Tx, 79 yr; RT +
20734396 Hormonal 13,769 cancer in registry, survived ≥9 hormonal Tx, 74 yr; surgery, 71
only vs. (control mo, Age ≥66 yr, in Medicare yr
Retrospective RT+Hormonal group) (not managed care)
cohort vs. (Matched controls w/o cancer) PSA: NR
Surgery±other
Tumor grade: Well diff., 5%;
moderately diff., 69%; poorly
diff /undiff, 22%; unknown, 4%

Stage: NR (clinically localized
100%)

e This study compared three treatment strategies: observation (WW), RT and RP. Information on the comparison of WW versus RT was included in the previous
8
AHRQ report discussed in the section “Findings from previous systematic reviews” of the main text of the present report. Here, we extracted information on the
comparison of WW versus RP.

C-158