Page 493 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Appendix Table C4.2. Comparison between watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy (continued)
Author, Year Study name Comparison Outcome Followup Sample size Results Factors included in the
[Pubmed ID] /Database definition/ (yr) per group model
measurement
Study design instrument
Wong 208 SEER- RP vs. Overall survival 12 yr RP: 13,292 HR=0.50 (0.47, 0.53) PS: age at diagnosis,
2006 Medicare observation = interval from SEER site, year of
17164454 the date of Observation: diagnosis, tumor size,
diagnosis to the 12,608 tumor grade, marital
Retrospective Medicare dare status, residence in an
cohort of death. urban setting, race,
Patients were income, educational
censored at achievement, and 44
Dec. 20, 2002. categorical variables
encoding comorbidities.
The authors reported a
statistically significant
interaction between
tumor size and grade.

For treatment subgroups
(RP and radiation Tx)
separate PS were built
and used as covariates
in the Cox regression
models.
Rice 232 CPDR WW vs. RP NR Mean: WW without Multivariable Cox Age at diagnosis, PSA
2011 database WW, 5.3 secondary proportional hazards model at diagnosis,
21872499 yr; yr; RP. treatment: predicting overall mortality: race/ethnicity, number of
7.2 yr 214 comorbidities, T stage,
Retrospective WW with WW without secondary Tx and treatment groups
cohort secondary vs. RP (reference): (RP, EBRT, WW with
treatment: HR=1.938 (1.185, 9.168), secondary Tx; WW
110 P=0.008 without secondary Tx).
RP: 194
WW with secondary Tx vs.
RP (reference): HR=0.807
(0.462, 1.407), P=0.45

C-164