Page 516 - 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
Bacon 228 Health WW vs. RP SF-36 Changes NR Changes (SE) in SF-36 Linear regression
2001 Professionals summary from 1996 scores (RP as the baseline) models adjusted for age
11586228 Followup measures and to 1998 Physical sum, -1.8 (2.8) category, SF-36 scale
Study scales Mental sum, 2.8 (3.3) score before diagnosis
Prospective Physical function, -3.7 (5.0) and Gleason score.
cohort Role physical, -1.8 (12.1)
Bodily pain, 1.3 (7.5)
General health, -6.6 (5.7)
Vitality, 5.6 (6.5)
Social function, -0.1 (6.1)
Role emotional, -1.4 (10.2)
Mental health, 2.1 (4.3)

None of the changes were
statistically significant (P
values: NR). The physical
and mental health
component scores were
standardized to the US
general population (mean
score=50; SD=10)
CaP = carcinoma of the prostate; Dec = December; EM = expectant management; HR = hazard ratio; IPTW = inverse probability of treatment weights; IQR = interquartile range;
IV = instrumental variable; mo = months; NR = not reported; NT = no treatment; POCS = Patterns of Care Study; PS = propensity score; PSA = prostate-specific antigen; QoL =
quality of life; RP = radical prostatectomy; RR = relative risk; RT = radiation therapy; SD = standard deviation; SE = standard error; SMRW = standardized mortality ratio
weights; TURP = transurethral resection of the prostate; VAS = visual analogue scale; WW = watchful waiting; yr = year

C-176