Page 536 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Appendix Table C4.3. Comparison between watchful waiting and radiation therapy (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
Observation Prostate Immediate Observation: Estimates are means (SE) Treatment group interaction
vs. RT cancer- post- 87 based on linear mixed model for with time, age, time of
specific QoL treatment RT: 75 Observation vs. RT: treatment.
items. All period Urinary function, 81.9 (2.5);
scales were regression 79.8 (2.8) P values for comparisons
scored 0 to estimates Bowel function, 82.5 (1.9); 69.2 between treatment groups
100; optimal (2.2) NR.
health or Sexual function, 37.0 (2.4); 34.4
functioning = (2.7)
100. Urinary bother, 66.4 (3.3); 57.3
(3.7)
Bowel bother, 81.8 (2.8); 77.9
(1.4)
Sexual bother, 45.2 (4.3); 46.1
(5.0)
CaP interference: family
function, 81.1 (2.3); 82.4 (2.6)
CaP interference, 83.0 (2.0);
78.4 (2.3)
Observation Prostate 1 yr post- Observation: Estimates are means (SE) Treatment group interaction
vs. RT cancer- treatment 87 based on linear mixed model for with time, age, time of
specific QoL regression RT: 75 Observation vs. RT: treatment.
items. All estimates Urinary function, 79.0 (2.4);
scales were 80.7 (2.4) P values for comparisons
scored 0 to Bowel function, 78.9 (1.9); 83.0 between treatment groups
100; optimal (1.8) NR.
health or Sexual function, 31.0 (2.4); 34.1
functioning = (2.3)
100. Urinary bother, 70.4 (3.2); 75.5
(3.2)
Bowel bother, 76.1 (2.7); 76.6
(2.7)
Sexual bother, 42.6 (4.2); 42.1
(4.2)
CaP interference: family
function, 77.8 (2.2); 84.3 (2.2)
CaP interference, 83.6 (2.0);
86.2 (1.9)

C-186