Page 503 - 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
Schapira 226 4 RP vs. EM Disease- 1 yr RP: 37 Change in disease-specific Patient age, comorbidity,
2001 academically specific QoL: EM: 25 QoL from pretreatment: TNM, PSA, race, marital
11242319 affiliated UCLA Prostate Urinary function: RP = - status, working status,
Wisconsin cancer Index 27.8 vs. EM = +4.8 and years of education.
Prospective hospitals, (P=0.004)
cohort including 2 General QoL: Sexual function: RP = -
VA Medical SF-36 scores 38.4 vs. EM =-8.9 (P=0.01)
Centers Smaller (more negative)
values indicate bigger
reductions in QoL
No significant difference
between RP and EM groups
in change in urinary bother,
sexual bother, bowel
function, or bowel bother
index.

Change in general QoL from
pre-treatment –
No significant difference
between RP and EM groups
in any domain.
Litwin 229 CaPSURE WW vs. RP SF-36 scores 1.5 yr RP: 282 Mental domain: 85 ± 1.0 vs. Comorbidity count, PSA
2002 at 24 months WW: 66 81 ± 2.4 at diagnosis, Gleason
12115317 Role of limitations due to score on biopsy, age at
emotional problems domain: the end of treatment
Retrospective 94 ± 2.0 vs. 86 ± 4.7
cohort Vitality domain: 73 ± 1.4 vs.
66 ± 3.1
Social function domain: 100
± 1.4 vs. 89 ± 2.2 (P < 0.05)

C-169