Page 499 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
P. 499

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
 a
 Berge 231    SEER-  WW vs. RP    Cystoscopy;   5 yr   WW: 3612   HR=1.00 (0.88, 1.13) for   Age, grade, comorbidity
 2007   Medicare   bladder   RP: 3940   cystoscopy; P=0.071 for the   index
 17178188   irrigation/      null hypothesis that the
    cystostomy;            coefficients of all treatments
 Retrospective   TURP/bladder-  entered in the model are 0
 cohort   neck incision;
 urethra dilation          HR=1.71 (1.33-2.20) for
 [procedures               bladder irrigation/
 considered                cystostomy; P<0.001 for the
 indicative of             null hypothesis that the
 treatment-                coefficients of all treatments
 related                   entered in the model are 0
 morbidity]
                           HR=2.63 (2.08, 3.33) for
                           TURP/bladder-neck incision;
                           P =0.008 for the null
                           hypothesis that the
                           coefficients of all treatments
                           entered in the model are 0

                           HR=0.71 (0.61, 0.84) for
                           urethra dilation; P =0.309 for
                           the null hypothesis that the
                           coefficients of all treatments
                           entered in the model are 0
 Quality of life
 Johansson 214    Ancillary   WW vs. RP   77 questions   Mean   RP: 189 (166   Last 6 mo; 2-3 yr post   NR (RCT)
 2009   investigation   on quality of life  followup:   responders)   randomization
 18783877   from SPCG-4   (developed   4.1 yr   WW: 187   Anxiety (moderate or high):
    trial   based on   (range: 1-  (160   RR=0.5 (0.2, 1.0)
 RCT   interviews,   8)   responders)   Depressed mood (moderate
 tested for face   [Some of the   or high): RR=0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
 validity on 30   responders   Sense of well-being (low or



 a  In multivariable analysis this study used RP as the baseline treatment, thus adjusted estimates were reported for the comparison of RP with each other treatment
 (i.e., WW, RT, ADT). For the comparison of WW with other active treatments (i.e., WW vs. RT and ADT vs. RT) only unadjusted estimates were reported in the
 paper and were not extracted here. For more details please see the Methods section.




 C-167
   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504