Home > Discussion - Comparative Effectiveness...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Taylor B, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Feb. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 13.)

5Discussion

Conclusions

Published evidence indicates that no one therapy can be considered preferred for localized prostate cancer due to limitations in quality of the body of comparative effectiveness evidence (Appendix C, Tables C76 and C77). All treatment options result in adverse effects (primarily urinary, bowel, and sexual) though the severity and frequency may vary between treatments and according to the provider/hospital. Even if differences in therapeutic efficacy exist, differences in AEs, convenience, and costs are likely to be important factors in individual patient decision making. Despite this uncertainty, patient-reported satisfaction with any individual therapy received is high (Appendix C, Table C78). Satisfaction is associated with adverse treatment effects and perception that the tumor was eradicated. However, data from nonrandomized trials are inadequate to reliably assess comparative effectiveness and adverse effects. Additional RCTs are needed, especially in men with PSA-detected prostate cancer, that compare outcomes between, rather than within, major treatment options.

Limitations in the existing evidence include: 1) few randomized trials directly compared the relative effectiveness between, rather than within, major treatment categories; 2) many randomized trials are inadequately powered to provide long-term survival outcomes with the majority reporting biochemical progression or recurrence as the main outcomes; 3) some randomized trials were old, conducted prior to prostate cancer detection with PSA testing, and used technical treatment aspects that may not reflect current practice so their results may not be generalizable to modern practice settings; 4) wide variation existed in reporting and definitions of outcomes, tumor and patient characteristics; 5) there was little reporting of outcomes according to major patient and tumor characteristics; and 6) emerging technologies while increasingly utilized have not been evaluated in randomized trials or even in long-term prospective controlled studies.

No RCTs reported head-to-head comparisons of treatment outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity, and most did not provide baseline racial characteristics. Available data were largely from case series. Few studies reported head-to-head comparisons, and there was limited adjustment for confounding factors. Reports of modest treatment differences according to race/ethnicity in some nonrandomized reports have not been consistently reported in well-powered studies. One subgroup analysis of an RCT suggested that the comparative effectiveness of RP vs. WW on overall and disease specific survival may be limited to men less than age 65. However, this study had few men with PSA-detected prostate cancers, and there was little other high-quality evidence of a differential effect of treatments based on age. While differences exist in the incidence and morbidity of prostate cancer based on patient age, and there are differences in the treatments offered to men at different age ranges, few studies directly compared the treatment effects of different therapies across age groups.

Results from national administrative databases and surveys suggested that provider/hospital characteristics including procedure volume, physician specialty, and geographic region affect outcomes. Patient outcomes varied in different locations and were associated with provider and hospital volume independent of patient and disease characteristics. Screening practices can influence the characteristics of patients diagnosed and tumors detected. Screening practices and treatment choices varied by physician specialty and across regions of the United States. These did not correlate with clinician availability. Clinicians were more likely to recommend procedures they performed regardless of tumor grades and PSA levels.

Regional variation existed in physician availability and ratio of urologists and radiation oncologists per 100,000 adult citizens based on surveys conducted by the American Medical Association, screening practice, incidence, mortality, and treatment selection. The direction of regional variation was not always consistent. Several studies reported geographic variation at the county, state, or U.S. Census region level. Overall there were many different methods used to report geographic variation, so pooling of results was difficult; when results were pooled, the geographic regions used were quite large.

Surgeon RP volume was not associated with RP-related mortality and positive surgical margins. However, the relative risk of surgery-related complications adjusted for patient age, race, and comorbidity, and hospital type and location was lower in patients treated by higher volume surgeons. Urinary complications and incontinence were lower among surgeons that performed more than 10 RPs per year. The length of hospital stay was shorter in patients operated by surgeons who performed more RPs per year. Cost was not associated with surgeon volume.

Hospital volume and teaching status were associated with patient outcomes. Despite different definitions of “high” and “low” hospital volumes in individual studies, pooled analysis showed that surgery-related mortality and late urinary complications were lower and length of stay was shorter in hospitals that performed more RPs per year. Hospital readmission rates were lower in hospitals with greater volume. Teaching hospitals had a lower rate of surgery-related complications and higher scores of operative quality. Several studies found differences in treatment and outcome based on whether the patient was seen in an HMO or fee-for-service organization and whether the patient was a Medicare beneficiary. Variability in the use of ADT was more attributable to individual differences among urologists than tumor or patient characteristics.

Little data existed on the comparative effectiveness of treatments based on PSA levels, histologic score, and tumor volume to identify low, intermediate, and high risk tumors. The aforementioned RCT of RP vs. WW noted that the relative benefit of surgery did not vary according to baseline PSA level, tumor volume, or histologic grade. We focused on baseline PSA levels and Gleason histologic score. The natural history of PSA-detected tumors is not known because few men remain untreated for a long followup period. One report assessed 20-year outcomes in the United States from a cohort of 767 men with prostate cancer detected prior to PSA testing and treated with WW. Histologic grade was associated with overall and prostate cancer-specific survival. Men with low grade prostate cancers had a minimal risk of dying from prostate cancer (Gleason score 2–4, 7 percent died due to prostate cancer). Men with high grade prostate cancers had a high probability of dying from their disease within 10 years of diagnosis regardless of their age at diagnosis (Gleason score of 8–10, 53 percent died due to prostate cancer). Estimates from large ongoing screening trials suggest that PSA increases the time of detection by 5–15 years. Therefore, it is likely that men with PSA-detected tumors will have better 20 year disease-specific survival than this cohort.

Most RCTs did not exclude participants based on PSA levels or tumor histology and few provided comparative analysis according to these factors. Secondary analysis of one randomized trial concluded that disease-specific mortality at 10 years due to RP compared to WW differed according to age but not baseline PSA level or Gleason score. Men with Gleason scores 8–10 were more likely to have evidence of biochemical recurrence than men with Gleason scores 2–6, regardless of whether treatment was RP alone or combined with NHT. High dose EBRT was more effective in controlling biochemical failure than conventional dose therapy in both low risk disease (PSA <10 ng/ml; stage ≤T2a tumors; or Gleason ≤6) and higher risk disease. When the higher risk subjects were further divided into intermediate risk and high risk groups, the benefit of high dose therapy remained for the intermediate risk but not for the high risk patients.

Based on very limited nonrandomized trial data, disease-specific survival was similar for men treated with EBRT compared to RP in men with baseline PSA >10 ng/ml. Men with Gleason scores 8–10 were more likely to have biochemical reoccurrence than men with Gleason scores 2–6 regardless of type of treatment.

Remaining Issues and Future Research Needs

  • Based on the findings from this comparative effectiveness review, the following high priority gaps in knowledge in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of localized prostate cancer were identified, along with research suggestions to close those gaps:
  • The comparative effectiveness and adverse effects associated with the major treatment options for clinically localized prostate cancer is not well known. This is due to the paucity of high-quality information from large, long-term RCTs, especially in the PSA era. Because the magnitude of relative effectiveness appears fairly small and may be influenced by multiple patient, tumor, and provider confounding factors, data from nonrandomized studies are unable to accurately provide this information. The highest priority for closing this gap is designing, activating, and completing large-scale RCTs that evaluate the long-term relative effectiveness and AEs of the primary treatment modalities in men with PSA-detected prostate cancer. Key outcomes include overall survival, disease-specific survival, metastatic-free survival, standard definitions of biochemical free survival, AEs, quality of life, and costs. Previously initiated RCTs in the United States of brachytherapy vs. RP for men with low-risk prostate cancer, EBRT vs. RP, and cryotherapy were closed due to lack of recruitment. Consumer-based (patient, spouse, partner, family) support groups can play a key role by advocating for initiation of these RCTs, and encouraging patient/provider participation and adequate funding.
  • Emerging technologies are becoming popular and include laparoscopic and robotic-assisted prostatectomy, proton-beam and intensity modulated radiation therapy, cryotherapy, and high frequency ultrasound prostatectomy. Despite their increasing use, no randomized trials have been conducted. These technologies need to be studied in large RCTs to assess long-term tumor control, complications, costs, and survival. Studies evaluating learning curves and volume-outcome relationships for new technologies are needed.
  • Widespread use of PSA testing for early cancer detection has been associated with an increase in the incidence of prostate cancer. The vast majority of prostate cancers currently detected in the United States are found due to PSA testing, a situation vastly different from 10–15 years previously when prostate cancers were primarily detected based on digital rectal examination or tissue specimens obtained during transurethral resection of the prostate for treatment of benign prostatic obstruction. Furthermore, men are receiving multiple PSA tests, beginning at earlier ages, and continuing well into their 80s. Additionally, the criteria for an abnormal PSA test has become more inclusive (i.e., lower PSA levels, rate of PSA change, nomograms incorporating patient race, family history, digital rectal examination results, etc.) and the number of prostate specimens obtained during prostate biopsy (from six to 12 specimens and then “saturation techniques”) has increased. More men are being labeled as abnormal with increasing use of prostate biopsies and serendipitous detection of asymptomatic prostate cancer having prolonged latent phase even without treatment. Patient and tumor characteristics among men with prostate cancer diagnosed in the future are likely to be different than men diagnosed in the past and currently. For example, systematic histologic upgrading of tumor specimens (by approximately one grade) has occurred compared to previous pathologic assessment. Currently it is unusual for men with prostate cancers to receive a Gleason sum less than 6. This leads to individuals with a histologic sum based on current grading having an improved prognosis compared to historical controls, regardless of treatment provided.
  • Relatively few men with prostate cancer are treated with WW. However, because the long-term natural history of these tumors is likely to be very good and the risk of disease spread/death lower than currently exists, it is increasingly important to determine the natural history of prostate cancers detected with new PSA testing and biopsy strategies. This is particularly important in men with life expectancies less than about 15 years based on advanced age or comorbidities where results indicate that PSA testing is still routinely conducted in about one-third. Based on information from long-term studies evaluating the natural history of localized prostate cancer and the results from the few RCTs evaluating surgery with WW detected in the era prior to PSA testing, many more men are diagnosed with prostate cancer than will develop clinically related problems, including death, local, or metastatic spread due to the disease, even with no initial treatment. Results from ongoing randomized screening trials are needed to determine if detection and treatment reduce mortality. To reduce treatment-related morbidity and costs, while still providing opportunity for disease eradication in men who may need intervention, discovery and validation of biomarkers are needed that can reliably identify cancers requiring therapy and assist in determining the relative effectiveness of therapies.
  • Tumor risk categories incorporating histologic score, stage, and PSA levels are associated with prostate cancer outcomes. They are widely incorporated in treatment decisionmaking. Age, race, and comorbid conditions may influence treatment decisionmaking, effectiveness, and adverse effects. Studies rarely stratified outcomes for individual treatments according to these factors. Few RCTs have been conducted, and even fewer are of sufficient size to determine if outcomes vary overall or differentially according to these factors. Determining the relative effectiveness/adverse effects of treatments likely requires conducting RCTs of sufficient size and use of standardized reporting of outcomes according to these tumor and patient characteristics. However, the field of research needed is broad and large high-quality prospective cohort studies or cancer registries that identify patients at the time of diagnosis and proceed to collect comprehensive patient, tumor and treatment decision selection characteristics could help target future RCTs to the most promising research questions. Where large differences in outcomes might exist, high quality observational studies may be useful for estimating comparative effectiveness in high priority patient and tumor subgroups that have not been adequately addressed in randomized trials. However, clinicians, patients, policymakers and researchers need to be aware of the limitations of these lower quality studies in accurately estimating comparative effectiveness. Standardized/validated methods to determine cause-specific survival and biochemical, quality of life outcomes, and treatment-related AEs are needed for all future research designs. The American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncologists and the AUA have proposed standard methods for assessing PSA recurrence following therapy.
  • There is considerable interest in identifying strategies to prevent or delay the onset/progression of prostate cancer. To date, only the 5 alpha reductase inhibitor, finasteride, has been specifically evaluated in large-scale prevention RCTs. Concern regarding long-term adverse effects and costs of this agent, as well the possibility that it may result in a greater incidence of potentially serious high-grade malignancies, has limited its clinical use. Research is needed to determine if dietary or other pharmacologic interventions prevent prostate cancer. The ongoing Selenium and Vitamin E Chemoprevention Trial (SELECT) is currently addressing these two options alone or in combination vs. placebo. The 5 alpha reductase inhibitor, dutasteride is also being evaluated. Other potential preventive agents include 5 alpha reductase inhibitors, lycopenes in tomato-based foods and soy based products. RCTs are needed that will evaluate whether these agents prevent and/or slow the progression of existing prostate cancer.
  • Prostate cancer screening with widespread PSA testing is common even in the elderly or those with comorbid conditions. It is frequently requested by patients and recommended by physicians, despite the lack of evidence that such a strategy reduces overall or disease-specific mortality or morbidity. Widespread PSA testing has been associated with a marked increase in prostate cancer incidence and a shift in the type/stage of cancers detected. Long-term outcomes of PSA-detected cancers are not well known. Two screening trials in progress will help determine if prostate cancer screening reduces overall and disease-specific morbidity and mortality. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial in the United States 300 and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial 301 in Europe should provide results around 2009. The PLCO trial is an effectiveness trial of mass screening with PSA testing. Subsequent management of subjects with elevated PSA levels is left to usual care. The ERSPC trial is designed more as an efficacy study with management of elevated PSA levels specified by protocol. These studies should give complementary information. The Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study aimed to examine the accuracy of PSA testing compared with histologically confirmed prostate cancer among 8,505 males in 18 primary care centers. The positive predictive value of PSA >3 ng/ml was 0.23 (95 percent CI 0.18; 0.28) in males 50–59 years and 0.33 (95 percent CI 0.29; 0.38) in males 60–69 years. 302
  • A search ofwww.clinicaltrials.gov for randomized trials of localized prostate cancer identified 30 references to ongoing trials. However, few were directly comparing the primary treatment options and/or were adequately powered to assess survival. Due to the lack of RCTs, the comparative effectiveness and adverse effects of different treatment options for localized prostate cancer (especially those detected by PSA testing) is not known. Basing treatment decisions on comparative effectiveness results from nonrandomized data is problematic due to the poor methodologic quality of nonrandomized reports and the risk of biased outcomes. To provide patients with reliable information, RCTs need to be conducted to determine if outcomes vary according to patient, tumor, and/or provider characteristics. Two ongoing trials are evaluating primary treatment options in men with primarily PSA-detected clinically-localized prostate cancer. The U.S. based VA/NCI/AHRQ funded CSP#407: PIVOT is comparing RP vs. WW in 731 men and completed recruitment. 65 Results are due after 2010. The ProtecT study, based in the United Kingdom is comparing surgery (RP), radiotherapy (radical conformal), and active monitoring (monitoring with regular check ups). Studies in development include cryotherapy vs. EBRT and RP vs. expectant management in men with “low risk” prostate cancer with delayed intervention based on repeat PSA testing and prostate biopsy results.
  • Decisions regarding treatment for early stage prostate cancer are limited by little data comparing quality of care according to provider, facility, and other healthcare system factors. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that factors related to the structure and process of health care are associated with clinically relevant outcomes. However, little information is available for prostate cancer treatment. Structure of care includes the equipment, resources, and provider experience necessary to provide care. Process of care refers to technical and interpersonal elements of care that transpire between doctor and patient. Preliminary work suggests that the indicated variables can be reliably assessed, but their validity in predicting quality of prostate cancer care and outcomes remains to be established. Proposed quality of care indicators for early-stage prostate cancer have been developed using a RAND Global Quality Assessment Tool following the conceptual framework established by Donabedian. Future studies need to identify systemwide structure and process measures associated with improved quality of prostate cancer care, disseminate these results so that they are widely available for patients, health care providers, and policymakers; and implement programs to improve and enhance their application in routine clinical care.
  • Patients and family members are faced with a vast array of information related to detection and treatment of prostate cancer. It is increasingly difficult for them (and their physicians) to accurately assess this information and incorporate it into decisionmaking. Systematic reviews of educational materials have found that the majority of these are not evidence based and rather promote a particular treatment approach. In order to assist patients, family members, and health care providers match treatment selection with personal preference, a new generation of education materials and multidisciplinary health care teams are needed. These should describe all standard treatments and provide comprehensive and up-to-date information about the risks and benefits of each treatment. Key features include: 1) accuracy of information; 2) balanced presentation of treatment options; and 3) comprehensibility to the average reader/viewer. Examining different formats (e.g., print, vs. CD-ROMs vs. websites) length/depth of information, and presentation of risk/benefit communication (words, figures, tables, items of numeracy) is important. It is hoped that this comparative effectiveness review and the accompany patient and clinician guides will serve as a model for development of future decisionmaking guides. These reports aim to identify and evaluate quality and strength of evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and adverse effects of treatments according to key patient, tumor, and provider factors. The resulting patient/clinician guides are developed by individuals with communication/dissemination skills who are separate from authors of the evidence report.
  • Many factors are involved in patient decisionmaking and may differ according to patient and tumor characteristics. A greater understanding of factors related to patient decisionmaking is needed. Interventions to assist patients incorporate numerical risks for various outcomes and minimize undue influence from misconceptions and/or anecdotal evidence are needed.

References

(Note that there is a separate set of references at the end of Appendix C whose reference numbers are different from those in the text of the report)

1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E. et al. Cancer Statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:106–30. [PubMed: 16514137]
2.
Gronberg H. Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet. 2003;361(9360):859–64. [PubMed: 12642065]
3.
Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF. et al. Why do men choose one treatment over another? A review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2006;106(9):1865–74. [PubMed: 16568450]
4.
Young HH. The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate: being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. Bull John Hopkins Hosp. 1905;16:315–21. [PubMed: 12187190]
5.
Thompson IM, Ernst JJ, Gangai MP. et al. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: results of routine urological screening. J Urology. 1984;132:690–2. [PubMed: 6471214]
6.
Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C. et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: Results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2006;98:529–34. [PubMed: 16622122]
7.
Walter LC, Beretenthal D, Lindquist K. et al. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA. 2006;296:2335–42. [PubMed: 17105796]
8.
Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, et al. Lead times and over detection due to prostate specific antigen screening: Estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(868–878). [PubMed: 12813170]
9.
McNaughton-Collins M, Fowler FJJ, Caubet J. et al. Psychological effects of a suspicious prostate cancer screening test followed by a benign biopsy result. Am J Med. 2004;117(10):719–25. [PubMed: 15541320]
10.
Ransohoff D. Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback. Am J Med. 2002;113:663–7. [PubMed: 12505117]
11.
Fowler FJJ, Barry MJ, Walker-Corkery B. et al. The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients' psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006;21(7):715–21. [PMC free article: PMC1924716] [PubMed: 16808772]
12.
Humphrey PA. Gleason grading and prognostic factors in carcinoma of the prostate. Modern Pathology. 2004;17:292–306. [PubMed: 14976540]
13.
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM. et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58(6):843–8. [PubMed: 11744442]
14.
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH. et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;97(17):1248–53. [PubMed: 16145045]
15.
Epstein JI. Gleason score 2–4 aderocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:477–8. [PubMed: 10757394]
16.
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV. et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1128–37. [PubMed: 11948273]
17.
Wennberg JE, Roos N, Sola L. et al. Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes. Mortality and reoperation following prostatectomy. JAMA. 1987 Feb 20;257(7):933–6. [PubMed: 3543419]
18.
Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL. et al. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Feb 1;21(3):401–5. [PubMed: 12560426]
19.
Yuan Z, Cooper GS, Einstadter D. et al. The association between hospital type and mortality and length of stay: a study of 16.9 million hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. Med Care. 2000 Feb;38(2):231–45. [PubMed: 10659696]
20.
Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Sep 17;137(6):511–20. [PubMed: 12230353]
21.
Nuttall M, van der Meulen J, Phillips N. et al. A systematic review and critique of the literature relating hospital or surgeon volume to health outcomes for 3 urological cancer procedures. J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2145–52. [PubMed: 15538220]
22.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Fraser I. Volume thresholds and hospital characteristics in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003 Mar–Apr;22(2):167–77. [PubMed: 12674419]
23.
Brown ML, Riley GF, Schussler N, et al. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002 Aug; 40(8 Suppl):IV-104–17. [PubMed: 12187175]
24.
Lu-Yao GL, McLerran D, Wasson J. et al. An assessment of radical prostatectomy. Time trends, geographic variation, and outcomes. The Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA. 1993 May 26;269(20):2633–6. [PubMed: 8487445]
25.
Fowler FJ Jr, Bin L, Collins MM. et al. Prostate cancer screening and beliefs about treatment efficacy: a national survey of primary care physicians and urologists. Am J Med. 1998 Jun;104(6):526–32. [PubMed: 9674714]
26.
Fowler FJ Jr, McNaughton-Collins M, Albertsen PC. et al. Comparison of Recommendations by Urologists and Radiation Oncologists for Treatment of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA. 2000 June 28;283(24):3217–22. [PubMed: 10866869]
27.
Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF. et al. Treatment decision-making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2003;21(2):93–100. [PubMed: 12856636]
28.
Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Steiner JF. Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: The influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote. Cancer. 2006;107(3):620–30. [PubMed: 16802287]
29.
Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update: American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., © 2007 (http://auanet​.org/guidelines); 2007.
30.
West S, King V, Carey T, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence: prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. 02-E016.
31.
Hamer S, Collinson G. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria (Achieving evidence-based practice: a handbook for practitioners). New York: J.A. Muir Gray Edinburgh; Bailliére Tindall; 1999.
32.
Dawson B, Trapp RG. Basic & Clinical Biostatistics (LANGE Basic Science): McGraw-Hill/Appleton & Lange; 2004.
33.
Westby M, Clarke M, Hopewell S, et al. Masking reviewers at the study inclusion stage in a systematic review of health care interventions. Vol 2: The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2004.
34.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177–88. [PubMed: 3802833]
35.
Littell RC, Milliken G, A., Stroup WW, et al. SAS System for Mixed Models: SAS Publishing; 1996.
36.
Knapp G, Biggerstaff BJ, Hartung J. Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis. Biom J. 2006 Apr;48(2):271–85. [PubMed: 16708778]
37.
Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003 Sep 15;22(17):2693–710. [PubMed: 12939780]
38.
Sterne JAC, Bradburn MJ, Egger M. Meta-analysis in Stata. In: Egger M, Altman DG, Smith GD, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta Analysis in Context. London: BMJ; 2001; 347–69.
39.
Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J. et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced prostate cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2329–35. [PubMed: 17105795]
40.
Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M. et al. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 9;341(24):1781–8. [PubMed: 10588962]
41.
Fransson P, Damber JE, Tomic R. et al. Quality of life and symptoms in a randomized trial of radiotherapy versus deferred treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2001 Dec 15;92(12):3111–9. [PubMed: 11753990]
42.
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS. et al. The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1393–401. [PubMed: 15017184]
43.
Wallner K, Merrick G, True L. et al. 20 Gy versus 44 Gy supplemental beam radiation with Pd-103 prostate brachytherapy: Preliminary biochemical outcomes from a prospective randomized multi-center trial. Radiother Oncol. 2005 Jun;75(3):307–10. [PubMed: 16086912]
44.
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M. et al. Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Screening Group Study No. 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005 May 12;12(19):1977–84. [PubMed: 15888698]
45.
Iversen P, Madsen PO, Corle DK. Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate. Twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Scan J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1995;172:65–72. [PubMed: 8578259]
46.
Paulson DF, Lin GH, Hinshaw W. et al. Radical surgery versus radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1982;128:502–4. [PubMed: 6811766]
47.
Homma Y, Azaka H, Okada K. et al. Prostate cancer study group radical prostatectomy and adjuvant endocrine therapy for prostate cancer with or without preoperative androgen deprivation: Five-year results. Int J Urol. 2004;11(5):295–303. [PubMed: 15147545]
48.
Klotz LH, Goldenberg SL, Jewett MA. et al. Canadian Uro-Oncology Group: Long-term followup of a randomized version of 0 versus 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003 Sep;170(3):791–4. [PubMed: 12913699]
49.
Schulman CC, Debruyne FM, Forster G. et al. 4-Year follow-up results of a European prospective randomized study on neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in T2–3N0M0 prostate cancer: European Study Group on Neoadjuvant Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2000 Dec;38(6):706–13. [PubMed: 11111188]
50.
Soloway MS, Pareek K, Sharifi R. et al. Lupron Depot Neoadjuvant Prostate Cancer Study Group. Neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy in cT2bNxMo prostate cancer: 5-year results. J Urol. 2002 Jan;167(1):112–6. [PubMed: 11743286]
51.
Gleave ME, Goldenberg SL, Chin JL. et al. Canadian Uro-Oncology Group. Randomized comparative study of 3 versus 8-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy: biochemical and pathological effects. J Urol. 2001 Aug;166(2):500–6. discussion 6–7. [PubMed: 11458055]
52.
Lukka H, Hayter C, Julian JA. et al. Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Sep 1;23(25):6132–8. [PubMed: 16135479]
53.
Sathya JR, Davis IR, Julian JA. et al. Randomized trial comparing inidium implant plus external-beam radiation therapy with external-beam radiation therapy alone in node-negative locally advanced cancer of the prostate. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Feb 20;23(6):1192–9. [PubMed: 15718316]
54.
Yeoh EE, Fraser RJ, McGowan RE. et al. Evidence for efficacy without increased toxicity of hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma: early results of a Phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Mar 15;55(4):943–55. [PubMed: 12605972]
55.
Yeoh EE, Holloway RH, Fraser RJ. et al. Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma: Updated results of a phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 15;66(4):1072–83. [PubMed: 16965866]
56.
Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slate JD. et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs. high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294:1233–9. [PubMed: 16160131]
57.
Crook J, Ludgate C, Malone S. et al. Report of a multicenter Canadian phase III randomized trial of 3 months vs. 8 months neoadjuvant androgen deprivation before standard-dose radiotherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Sep 1;60(1):15–23. [PubMed: 15337535]
58.
D'Amico A, Manola J, Loffredo M. et al. 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(7):821–7. [PubMed: 15315996]
59.
Wallner K, Merrick G, Tru L. et al. 125I versus 103Pd for low-risk prostate cancer preliminary PSA outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Dec 1;57(5):1297–303. [PubMed: 14630265]
60.
Arlen PM, Gulley JL, Todd N. et al. Antiandrogen, vaccine and combination therapy in patients with nonmetastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005 Aug;174(2):539–46. [PubMed: 16006888]
61.
Denham JW, Steigler A, Lamb DS. et al. Short-term androgen deprivation and radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005 Nov;6(11):841–50. [PubMed: 16257791]
62.
Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PC. et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 1;24(13):1990–6. [PubMed: 16648499]
63.
Wirth MP, See WA, McLeod DG. et al. Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists' Group. Bicalutamide 150 mg in addition to standard care in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the second analysis of the early prostate cancer program at median followup of 5.4 years. J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1865–70. [PubMed: 15540740]
64.
Herstein A, Wallner K, Merrick G. et al. I-125 versus Pd-103 for low-risk prostate cancer: Long-term morbidity outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial. Cancer J. 2005 Sep–Oct;11(5):385–9. [PubMed: 16259869]
65.
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Oncology (Williston Park) 1997 Aug;11(8):1133–9. discussion 9–40, 43. [PubMed: 9268976]
66.
Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkshall G. et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: Results of the M.D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2002;53(5):1097–105. [PubMed: 12128107]
67.
Narayana V, Troyer S, Evans V. et al. Randomized trial of high- and low-source strength (125)I prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jan;61(1):44–51. [PubMed: 15629592]
68.
Seidenfeld J, Samson DJ, Aronson N, et al. Relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of androgen suppression in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 4. Rockville, MD: Prepared by Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0015, AHCPR Publication No. 99-E0012; May 1999.
69.
Prostate Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Maximum androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2000 Apr;355(9214):1491–8. [PubMed: 10801170]
70.
Graff JN, Mori M, Li H. et al. Predictors of overall and cancer-free survival of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with primary androgen suppression therapy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol. 2007 Apr;177(4):1307–12. [PubMed: 17382720]
71.
Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL. et al. Determinants of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Use for Prostate Cancer: Role of the Urologist. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 June 21;98(12):839–45. [PMC free article: PMC1853355] [PubMed: 16788157]
72.
Keating NL, O'Malley AJ, Smith MR. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24(27):4448–56. [PubMed: 16983113]
73.
Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R. et al. Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol. 2006 Jul;50(1):98–104. [PubMed: 16563608]
74.
Bubolz T, Wasson JH, Lu-Yao G. et al. Treatments for prostate cancer in older men: 1984-1997. Urology. 2001;58(6):977–82. [PubMed: 11744472]
75.
Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM. et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: The prostate cancer outcomes study. JNCI. 2004;96(18):1358–67. [PubMed: 15367568]
76.
Potosky AL, Knopf K, Clegg LX. et al. Quality-of-life outcomes after primary androgen deprivation therapy: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(17):3750–7. [PubMed: 11533098]
77.
Shahinian VB, Fuo YF, Freeman JL. et al. “Androgen deprivation syndrome” in men receiving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:465–71. [PMC free article: PMC2222554] [PubMed: 16505268]
78.
Shahinian VB, Kuo Y-F, Freeman JL. et al. Risk of fracture after androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:154–64. [PubMed: 15647578]
79.
Wilt TJ, Cowper DC, Gammack JK. et al. An evaluation of radical prostatectomy at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers: time trends and geographic variation in utilization and outcomes. Med Care. 1999 Oct;37(10):1046–56. [PubMed: 10524371]
80.
Aus G, Pileblad E, Hugosson J. Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: 5-year follow-up of a prospective study. Eur Urol. 2002 Aug;42(2):133–8. [PubMed: 12160583]
81.
Bahn DK, Lee F, Badalamet R. et al. Targeted cryoablation of the prostate: 7-year outcomes in the primary treatment of prostate cancer. Urology. 2002 Aug;60(2 Suppl):3–11. [PubMed: 12206842]
82.
Cohen JK, Miller RJ, Rooker GM. et al. Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: two-year prostate-specific antigen and biopsy results. Urology. 1996 Mar;47(3):395–401. [PubMed: 8633408]
83.
Coogan CL, McKiel CF. Percutaneous cryoablation of the prostate: preliminary results after 95 procedures. J Urol. 1995 Nov;154(5):1813–7. [PubMed: 7563354]
84.
Cox RL, Crawford ED. Complications of cryosurgical ablation of the prostate to treat localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology. 1995 Jun;45(6):932–5. [PubMed: 7771025]
85.
Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, Ernst DS. et al. Prospective trial of cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: five-year results. Urology. 2002 Oct;60(4):645–9. [PubMed: 12385926]
86.
Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, Ernst DS. et al. Role of transrectal ultrasound guided salvage cryosurgery for recurrent prostate carcinoma after radiotherapy. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2005;8(3):235–42. [PubMed: 15983627]
87.
Ellis DS. Cryosurgery as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: a community hospital experience. Urology. 2002 Aug;60(2 Suppl 1):3–39. [PubMed: 12206846]
88.
Katz AE, Rewcastle JC. The current and potential role of cryoablation as a primary therapy for localized prostate cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2003 May;5(3):231–8. [PubMed: 12667421]
89.
Koppie TM, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD. et al. The efficacy of cryosurgical ablation of prostate cancer: the University of California, San Francisco experience. J Urol. 1999 Aug;162(2):427–32. [PubMed: 10411051]
90.
Lee F, Bahn DK, Badalament RA. et al. Cryosurgery for prostate cancer: improved glandular ablation by use of 6 to 8 cryoprobes. Urology. 1999 Jul;54(1):135–40. [PubMed: 10414740]
91.
Lee F, Bahn DK, McHugh TA. et al. US-guided percutaneous cryoablation of prostate cancer. Radiology. 1994 Sep;192(3):769–76. [PubMed: 8058945]
92.
Leibovici D, Zisman A, Siegel YI. et al. Cryosurgical ablation for prostate cancer: preliminary results of a new advanced technique. Isr Med Assoc J. 2001 Jul;3(7):484–7. [PubMed: 11791412]
93.
Long JP, Fallick ML, LaRock DR. et al. Preliminary outcomes following cryosurgical ablation of the prostate in patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. J Urol. 1998 Feb;159(2):477–84. [PubMed: 9649266]
94.
Robinson JW, Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC. et al. Quality of life and sexuality of men with prostate cancer 3 years after cryosurgery. Urology. 2002 Aug;60(2 Suppl 1):12–8. [PubMed: 12206843]
95.
Robinson JW, Saliken JC, Donnelly BJ. et al. Quality-of-life outcomes for men treated with cryosurgery for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 1999 Aug;86(9):1793–801. [PubMed: 10547553]
96.
Shinohara K, Connolly JA, Presti JCJ. et al. Cryosurgical treatment of localized prostate cancer (stages T1 to T4: preliminary results. J Urol. 1996 Jul;156(1):115–20. [PubMed: 8648771]
97.
Vestal JC. Critical review of the efficacy and safety of cryotherapy of the prostate. Curr Oncol Rep. 2005 May;6(3):190–3. [PubMed: 15869723]
98.
Wake RW, Hollabaugh RSJ, Bond KH. Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate for localized adenocarcinoma: a preliminary experience. J Urol. 1996 May;155(5):1663–6. [PubMed: 8627849]
99.
Wieder J, Schmidt JD, Casola G. et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal cryoablation in the treatment of prostate carcinoma: preliminary results. J Urol. 1995;154(2 Pt 1):435–41. [PubMed: 7541861]
100.
Sosa RE, Martin T, Lynn K. Cryosurgery Users' Group: Cryosurgical treatment of prostate cancer: a multicenter review of complications. J Urol. 1996;155:A361.
101.
Shinohara K, Rhee B, Presti JCJ. et al. Cryosurgical ablation of prostate cancer: patterns of cancer recurrence. J Urol. 1997 Dec;158(6):2206–9. discussion 9–10. [PubMed: 9366345]
102.
Cytron S, Paz A, Kravchick S. et al. Active rectal wall protection using direct transperineal cryo-needles for histologically proven prostate adenocarcinomas. Eur Urol. 2003 Sep;44(3):315–20. [PubMed: 12932929]
103.
Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D. et al. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy - critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol. 2006 Apr;49(4):612–24. [PubMed: 16442210]
104.
Tooher R, Swindle P, Woo H. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Urol. 2006 Jun;175(6):2011–7. [PubMed: 16697787]
105.
Touijer K, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a critical analysis of surgical quality. Eur Urol. 2006 Apr;49(4):625–32. [PubMed: 16488072]
106.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol. 2000 Feb;163(2):418–22. [PubMed: 10647644]
107.
Salomon L, Levrel O, de la Taille A. et al. Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol. 2002 Aug;42(2):104–10. discussion 10–1. [PubMed: 12160579]
108.
Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M. et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol. 2003 May;169(5):1689–93. [PubMed: 12686809]
109.
Bhayani SB, Pavlovich CP, Hsu TS. et al. Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):612–6. [PubMed: 12639657]
110.
Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G. et al. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur Urol. 2003 Oct;44(4):401–6. [PubMed: 14499672]
111.
Brown JA, Garlitz C, Gomella LG. et al. Perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2004 Mar–Apr;22(2):102–6. [PubMed: 15082005]
112.
Remzi M, Klingler HC, Tinzl MV. et al. Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy verus open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2005 Jul;48(1):83–9. discussion 9. [PubMed: 15967256]
113.
Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M. et al. Radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol. 2003 May;20(6):360–6. [PubMed: 12682770]
114.
Fornara P, Zacharias M. [Minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: reality or dream?] Aktuelle Urol. 2004 Sep;35(5):395–405. [PubMed: 15368129]
115.
Keller H, Janetschek G, Abukora F, et al. Technique of radical prostatectomy - a head to head comparison of retropubic, peineal and laparoscopic access - data on perioperative morbidity. Eur Urol 2005; Suppl 4(3):247, abstract No. 980.
116.
Keller H, Schmeller N, Janetschek G. Urinary continence after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: prospective comparative study. Eur Urol 2005; Suppl 4(3):103 (abstract No. 403).
117.
Anastasiadis AG, Salomon L, Katz R. et al. Radical retropubic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of functional outcome. Urology. 2003 Aug;62(2):292–7. [PubMed: 12893338]
118.
Jacobsen NE, Moore KN, Estey E. et al. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of postoperative urinary incontinence rates. J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):615–9. [PubMed: 17222646]
119.
Wyler SF, Ruszat R, Straumann U. et al. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term quality of life after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—does the learning curve of LRP have a negative impact on patients' quality of life? Eur Urol. 2007 Apr;51(4):1004–12. discussion 12–4. [PubMed: 17098352]
120.
Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T. et al. Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):617–22. [PubMed: 12639658]
121.
Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H. et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge. J Urol. 2004 Feb;171(2 Pt 1):714–6. [PubMed: 14713793]
122.
Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A. et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol. 2004 Jul;46(1):50–4. discussion 4–6. [PubMed: 15183547]
123.
Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B. et al. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an assessment of 156 cases. Urology. 2005 Feb;65(2):320–4. [PubMed: 15708046]
124.
Erdogru T, Teber D, Frede T. et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol. 2004 Sep;46(3):312–9. discussion 20. [PubMed: 15306100]
125.
Blana A, Straub M, Wild PJ. et al. Approach to endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): the impact of previous laparoscopic experience on the learning curve. BMC Urol. 2007;7:11. [PMC free article: PMC1933542] [PubMed: 17617927]
126.
Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R. et al. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of 1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies-experience at the Charite Hospital Berlin, Campus Mitte. Eur Urol. 2006 Dec;50(6):1278–82. discussion 83–4. [PubMed: 16846677]
127.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A. et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):945–9. [PubMed: 12187196]
128.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B. et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002 Nov;60(5):864–8. [PubMed: 12429317]
129.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003 Aug;92(3):205–10. [PubMed: 12887468]
130.
Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L. et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. Urology. 2004 May;63(5):819–22. [PubMed: 15134953]
131.
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA. et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology. 2004 Dec;64(6):1224–8. [PubMed: 15596205]
132.
Menon M, Hemal AK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy: experience in more than 1000 cases. J Endourol. 2004 Sep;18(7):611–9. discussion 9. [PubMed: 15597646]
133.
Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A. et al. Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol. 2005 Dec;19(10):1212–5. [PubMed: 16359218]
134.
Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG. et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):541–6. discussion 6. [PubMed: 16406991]
135.
Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD. et al. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2006 Feb;67(2):360–3. [PubMed: 16461085]
136.
Tseng TY, Kuebler HR, Cancel QV. et al. Prospective health-related quality-of-life assessment in an initial cohort of patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2006 Nov;68(5):1061–6. [PubMed: 17113898]
137.
Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G. et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol. 2007 Aug;178(2):478–82. [PubMed: 17561160]
138.
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D. Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2005 Jul–Aug;19(6):715–8. [PubMed: 16053361]
139.
Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Billatos ES. et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: first 100 patients with one year of follow-up. Urology. 2006 Dec;68(6):1275–9. [PubMed: 17169649]
140.
El-Hakim A, Tweari A. Robotic prostatectomy—a review. Med Gen Med. 2004 Oct 25;6(4):20.
141.
Wagner AA, Varkarakis IM, Link RE. et al. Comparison of surgical performance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy of two robotic camera holders, EndoAssist and AESOP: a pilot study. Urology. 2006 Jul;68(1):70–4. [PubMed: 16844449]
142.
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group. Intensity modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 15;51(4):880–914. [PubMed: 11704310]
143.
Lee CT, Dong L, Ahamad AW. et al. Comparison of treatment volumes and techniques in prostate cancer radiation therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec;28(6):618–25. [PubMed: 16317275]
144.
Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM. et al. Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Feb 1;64(2):518–26. [PMC free article: PMC1892754] [PubMed: 16242256]
145.
Kupelian PA, Reddy CA, Carlson TP. et al. Preliminary observations on biochemical relapse-free survival rates after short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy/fraction) for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 15;53(4):904–12. [PubMed: 12095556]
146.
Kupelian PA, Thakkar VV, Khuntia D. et al. Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: long-term outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Dec 1;63(5):1463–8. [PubMed: 16169683]
147.
Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M. et al. Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006 Oct;176(4 Pt 1):1415–9. [PubMed: 16952647]
148.
De Meerleer GO, Fonteyne VH, Vakaet L. et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: late morbidity and results on biochemical control. Radiother Oncol. 2007 Feb;82(2):160–6. [PubMed: 17222931]
149.
D'Amico AV, Manola J, McMahon E. et al. A prospective evaluation of rectal bleeding after dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy using an intrarectal balloon for prostate gland localization and immobilization. Urology. 2006 Apr;67(4):780–4. [PubMed: 16584760]
150.
Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M. et al. High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1111–6. [PubMed: 12128109]
151.
Archer PL, Hodgson DJ, Murphy DG. et al. High intensity focused ultrasound for treating prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007 Jan 99;99(1):28–32. [PubMed: 17034499]
152.
Aus G. Current status of HIFU and cryotherapy in prostate cancer—a review. Eur Urol. 2006 Nov;50(5):927–34. [PubMed: 16971038]
153.
Gardner TA, Koch MO. Prostate cancer therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2005 Dec;4(3):187–92. [PubMed: 16425987]
154.
Rewcastle JC. High intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: a review of the scientific foundation, technology and clinical outcomes. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2006;5(6):619–25. [PubMed: 17121439]
155.
Philip J, McCabe JE, Roy SD. et al. Site of local anaesthesia in transrectal ultrasonography-guided 12 core prostate biopsy: does it make a difference? BJU Int. 2006 Feb;97(2):263–5. [PubMed: 16430625]
156.
Sabbagh R, McCormack M, Peloquin F. et al. A prospective randomized trial of 1-day versus 3-day antibiotic rophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Can J Urol. 2004 Apr;11(2):2216–9. [PubMed: 15182413]
157.
Saad F, Sabbagh R, McCormack M. et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing lidocaine and lubricating gel on pain level in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy. Can J Urol. 2002 Aug;9(4):1592–4. [PubMed: 12243656]
158.
Uchida T, Baba S, Irie A. et al. Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a multicenter study. Hinyokiki Kiyo. 2005 Oct;51(10):651–8. [PubMed: 16285617]
159.
Thuroff S, Chaussy C, Vallancien G. et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound and localized prostate cancer: efficacy results from the European multicentric study. J Endourol. 2003 Oct;17(8):673–7. [PubMed: 14622488]
160.
Gelet A, Chapelon JY, Bouvier R. et al. Transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: factors influencing the outcome. Eur Urol. 2001 Aug;40(2):124–9. [PubMed: 11528187]
161.
Chaussy C, Thuroff S. The status of high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer and the impact of a combined resection. Curr Urol Rep. 2003 Jun;4(3):248–52. [PubMed: 12756090]
162.
Uchida T, Ohkusa H, Nagata Y. et al. Treatment of localized prostate cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound. BJU Int. 2006 Jan;97(1):56–61. [PubMed: 16336329]
163.
Blana A, Walter B, Rogenhofer S. et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 5-year experience. Urology. 2004 Feb;63(2):297–300. [PubMed: 14972475]
164.
Uchida T, Illing RO, Cathcart PJ. et al. The effect of neoadjuvant androgen suppression on prostate cancer-related outcomes after high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy. BJU Int. 2006 Oct;98(4):770–2. [PubMed: 16879448]
165.
Blana A, Rogenhofer S, Ganzer R. et al. Morbidity associated with repeated transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2006 Nov;24(5):585–90. [PubMed: 16850340]
166.
Gelet A, Chapelon JY, Bouvier R. et al. Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound: minimally invasive therapy of localized prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2000 Aug;14(6):519–28. [PubMed: 10954310]
167.
Poissonnier L, Chapelon JY, Rouviere O. et al. Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol. 2007 Feb;51(2):381–7. [PubMed: 16857310]
168.
Brada M, Pijls-Johannesma M, De Ruysscher D. Proton therapy in clinical practice: current clinical evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Mar 10;25(8):965–70. [PubMed: 17350945]
169.
Shipley WU, Verhey LJ, Munzenrider JE. et al. Advanced prostate cancer: the results of a randomized comparative trial of high dose irradiation boosting with conformal protons compared with conventional dose irradiation using photons alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Apr 30;32(1):3–12. [PubMed: 7721636]
170.
Yonemoto LT, Slater JD, Rossi CJ Jr. et al. Combined proton and photon conformal radiation therapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate: preliminary results of a phase I/II study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Jan 1;37(1):21–9. [PubMed: 9054873]
171.
Nihei K, Ogino T, Ishikura S. et al. Phase II feasibility study of high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer using proton boost therapy: first clinical trial of proton beam therapy for prostate cancer in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec;35(12):745–52. [PubMed: 16314345]
172.
Slater JD, Rossi CJ Jr, Yonemoto LT. et al. Conformal proton therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Urology. 1999 May;53(5):978–84. [PubMed: 10223493]
173.
Slater JD, Rossi CJ Jr, Yonemoto LT. et al. Proton therapy for prostate cancer: the initial Loma Linda University experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jun 1;59(2):348–52. [PubMed: 15145147]
174.
Rossi CJ Jr, Slater JD, Yonemoto LT. et al. Influence of patient age on biochemical freedom from disease in patients undergoing conformal proton radiotherapy of organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 2004 Oct;64(4):729–32. [PubMed: 15491710]
175.
Hoffman RM, Hunt WC, Gilliland FD. et al. Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Cancer. 2003;97(7):1653–62. [PubMed: 12655522]
176.
Hamilton AS, Stanford JL, Gilliland FD. et al. Outcomes after external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(9):2517–26. [PubMed: 11331331]
177.
Penson DF, McLerran D, Feng Z. et al. 5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1701–5. [PubMed: 15821561]
178.
Lee WR, Hall MC, McQuellon RP. et al. A prospective quality-of-life study in men with clinically localized prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;51(3):614–23. [PubMed: 11597800]
179.
Schapira MM, Lawrence WF, Katz DA. et al. Effect of treatment on quality of life among men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Care. 2001 Mar;39(3):243–53. [PubMed: 11242319]
180.
Soderdahl DW, Davis JW, Schellhammer PF. et al. Prospective longitudinal comparative study of health-related quality of life in patients undergoing invasive treatments for localized prostate cancer. Journal of Endourology. 2005;19(3):318–26. [PubMed: 15865521]
181.
Galbraith ME, Ramirez JM, Pedro LW. Quality of life, health outcomes, and identity for patients with prostate cancer in five different treatment groups. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2001 Apr;28(3):551–60. [PubMed: 11338762]
182.
Fulmer BR, Bissonette EA, Petroni GR. et al. Prospective assessment of voiding and sexual function after treatment for localized prostate carcinoma: Comparison of radical prostatectomy to hormonobrachytherapy with and without external beam radiotherapy. Cancer. 2001 Jun 1;90(11):2046–55. [PubMed: 11391584]
183.
Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J. et al. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(11):790–6. [PubMed: 12226149]
184.
Graversen PH, Nielsen KT, Gasser TC. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary treatment in stages I and II prostatic cancer. A fifteen-year follow-up. Urology. 1990;36(6):493–8. [PubMed: 2247914]
185.
Klotz LH, Goldenberg SL, Jewett M. et al. CUOG randomized trial of neoadjuvant androgen ablation before radical prostatectomy: 36-month post-treatment PSA results. Canadian Urologic Oncology Group. Urology. 1999;53(4):757–63. [PubMed: 10197852]
186.
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N.Engl.J Med. 2005;352(19):1977–84. [PubMed: 15888698]
187.
Hoffman RM, Barry MJ, Stanford JL. et al. Health outcomes in older men with localized prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. American Journal of Medicine. 2006;119(5):418–25. [PubMed: 16651054]
188.
Abraham N, Wan F, Montagnet C. et al. Decrease in racial disparities in the staging evaluation for prostate cancer after publication of staging guidelines. J Urol. 2007 Jul;178(1):82–7. discussion 7. [PubMed: 17499294]
189.
Denberg TD, Beaty BL, Kim FJ. et al. Marriage and ethnicity predict treatment in localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2005 May 1;103(9):1819–25. [PubMed: 15795905]
190.
Johnson TK, Gilliland FD, Hoffman RM. et al. Racial/ethnic differences in functional outcomes in the 5 years after diagnosis of localized prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2004;22:4193–201. [PubMed: 15483030]
191.
Cohen JH, Schoenbach VJ, Kaufman JS. et al. Racial differences in clinical progression among Medicare recipients after treatment for localized prostate cancer (United States) Cancer Causes & Control. 2006 Aug;17(6):803–11. [PubMed: 16783608]
192.
Amling CL, Riffenburgh RH, LS et al. Pathologic variables and recurrence rates as related to obesity and race in men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(3):439–45. [PubMed: 14691120]
193.
Carter CA, Donahue T, Sun L. et al. Temporarily deferred therapy (watchful waiting) for men younger than 70 years and with low-risk localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(21):4001–8. [PubMed: 14581423]
194.
Connell PP, Ignacio L, Haraf D. et al. Equivalent racial outcome after conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a single departmental experience. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(1):54–61. [PubMed: 11134195]
195.
Hart KB, Wood D, P, Tekyi-Mensah S. et al. The impact of race on biochemical disease-free survival in early-stage prostate cancer patients treated with surgery or radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45(5):1235–8. [PubMed: 10613318]
196.
Kupelian PA, Buchsbaum JC, Elshaikh MA. et al. Improvement in relapse-free survival throughout the PSA era in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy: year of treatment an independent predictor of outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(3):629–34. [PubMed: 14529766]
197.
Powell IJ, Banerjee M, Novallo M. et al. Prostate cancer biochemical recurrence stage for stage is more frequent among African-American than white men with locally advanced but not organ-confined disease. Urology. 2000;55(2):246–51. [PubMed: 10688088]
198.
Siegel T, Moul JW, Spevak MA. et al. The development of erectile dysfunction in men treated for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;165(2):430–5. [PubMed: 11176390]
199.
Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS. et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000;283(3):354–60. [PubMed: 10647798]
200.
Berge V, Thompson T, Blackman D. Use of additional treatment for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, androgen deprivation, or watchful waiting. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(3):198–203. [PubMed: 17469027]
201.
Catalona WJ, Basler JW. Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubloic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1993;150(3):905–7. [PubMed: 8345607]
202.
Catalona WJ, Smith DS. 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1837–42. [PubMed: 7523731]
203.
D'Amico A, Moul J, Carroll PR. et al. Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(11):2163–72. [PubMed: 12775742]
204.
Freedman GM, Hanlon AL, Lee WR. et al. Young patients with prostate cancer have an outcome justifying their treatment with external beam radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;35(2):243–50. [PubMed: 8635929]
205.
Halvorsen OJ, Haukaas S, Hoisaeter PA. et al. Maximum Ki-67 staining in prostate cancer provides independent prognostic information after radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res. 2001;21(6A):4071–6. [PubMed: 11911294]
206.
Horwitz EM, Hanlon AL, Pinover WH. et al. The treatment of nonpalpable PSA-detected adenocarcinoma of the prostate with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41(3):519–23. [PubMed: 9635697]
207.
Hung AY, Levy L, Kuban DA. Stage T1c prostate cancer: a heterogeneous category with widely varying prognosis. Cancer. 2002;8(6):440–4. [PubMed: 12500852]
208.
Johansson JE. Expectant management of early stage prostatic cancer: Swedish experience. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1753–6. [PubMed: 7933233]
209.
Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S. et al. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277(6):467–71. [PubMed: 9020270]
210.
Jonler M, Messing EM, Rhodes PB. et al. Sequelae of radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1994;74(3):352–8. [PubMed: 7953267]
211.
Kaplan ID, Bagshaw MA, Cox CA. et al. External beam radiotherapy for incidental adenocarcinoma of the prostate discovered at transurethral resection. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;24(3):415–21. [PubMed: 1399725]
212.
Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A. et al. Patient reported sexual function following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2002;168(5):2078–82. [PubMed: 12394713]
213.
Keyser D, Kupelian PA, Zippe CD. et al. Stage T1–2 prostate cancer with pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level < or = 10 ng/ml; radiation therapy or surgery? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38(4):723–9. [PubMed: 9240638]
214.
Kupelian PA, Katcher J, Levin H. et al. Correlation of clinical and pathologic factors with rising prostate-specific antigen profiles after radical prostatectomy alone for clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 1996;48(2):249–60. [PubMed: 8753737]
215.
Kupelian PA, Katcher J, Levin H, et al. Stage T1–2 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of factors affecting biochemical and clinical failures after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997 249–260; Urology(48):2. [PubMed: 9169811]
216.
Licht MR, Klein EA, Tuason L. et al. Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control. Urology. 1994;44(6):883–7. [PubMed: 7527169]
217.
Norberg M, Holmberg L, Wheeler T. et al. Five year follow-up after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer—a study of the impact of different tumor variables on progression. Scan J Urol Nephrol. 1994;28(4):391–9. [PubMed: 7533926]
218.
Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS. et al. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol. 1991;145(5):998–1002. [PubMed: 2016818]
219.
Roach M, Lu J, Pilepich MV. et al. Four prognostic groups predict long-term survival from prostate cancer following radiotherapy alone on Radiation Oncology Group clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47(3):609–15. [PubMed: 10837943]
220.
Shipley WU, Thames HD, Sandler HM. et al. Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional pooled analysis. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1598–604. [PubMed: 10235152]
221.
Terk MD, Stock RG, Stone NN. Identification of patients at increased risk for prolonged urinary retention following radioactive seed implantation of the prostate. J Urol. 1998;160(4):1379–82. [PubMed: 9751358]
222.
Zietman AL, Chung CS, Coen JJ. et al. 10-year outcome for men with localized prostate cancer treated with external radiation therapy: results of a cohort study. J Urol. 2004;171(1):210–4. [PubMed: 14665878]
223.
Tward JD, Lee CM, Pappas LM. et al. Survival of men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or no definitive treatment: impact of age at diagnosis. Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;107(10):2392–400. [PubMed: 17041884]
224.
Wong YN, Mitra N, Hudes G. et al. Survival associated with treatment vs observation of localized prostate cancer in elderly men. JAMA. 2006 Dec 13;296(22):2683–93. [PubMed: 17164454]
225.
Zeliadt SB, Potosky AL, Penson DF. et al. Survival benefit associated with adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy combined with radiotherapy for high- and low-risk patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Oct 1;66(2):395–402. [PubMed: 16904843]
226.
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:2095–101. [PubMed: 15870412]
227.
Litwin MS, Miller DC. Treating older men with prostate cancer: survival (or selection) of the fittest? JAMA. 2006;296(22):2733–4. [PubMed: 17164461]
228.
Aschengrau A, Seage GR. Essentials of epidemiology in public health. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2003.
229.
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3.
230.
Jemal A, Kulldorff M, Devesa SS. et al. A geographic analysis of prostate cancer mortality in the United States, 1970–89. International Journal of Cancer. 2002;101(2):168–74. [PubMed: 12209994]
231.
Mettlin CJ, Murphy GP, Rosenthal DS. et al. The National Cancer Data Base report on prostate carcinoma after the peak in incidence rates in the U.S. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Cancer. 1998 Oct 15;83(8):1679–84. [PubMed: 9781963]
232.
Escobedo LG, Rivas SD, Holmes MD. Prostate cancer mortality in Connecticut, Iowa and New Mexico African American men. Cancer Detection and Prevention. 2004;28(5):375–80. [PubMed: 15542264]
233.
Lai S, Lai H, Krongrad A. et al. Overall and disease-specific survival after radical prostatectomy: geographic uniformity. Urology. 2001;57(3):504–9. [PubMed: 11248629]
234.
Krupski TL, Kwan L, Litwin MS. Sociodemographic factors associated with postprostatectomy radiotherapy. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2005;8(2):184–8. [PubMed: 15809671]
235.
Shaw PA, Etzioni R, Zeliadt SB. et al. An Ecologic Study of Prostate-specific Antigen Screening and Prostate Cancer Mortality in Nine Geographic Areas of the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Dec 1;160(11):1059–69. [PubMed: 15561985]
236.
Bianco FJ Jr, Riedel ER, Begg CB. et al. Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters. J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):2099–103. [PMC free article: PMC1855289] [PubMed: 15879851]
237.
Ellison LM, Heaney JA, Birkmeyer JD. The effect of hospital volume on mortality and resource use after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000 Mar;163(3):867–9. [PubMed: 10687994]
238.
Ellison LM, Trock BJ, Poe NR. et al. The effect of hospital volume on cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):2094–8. [PubMed: 15879850]
239.
Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB. et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1138–44. [PubMed: 11948274]
240.
Cooperberg MR, Grossfeld GD, Lubeck DP. et al. National practice patterns and time trends in androgen ablation for localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Jul 2;95(13):981–9. [PMC free article: PMC2994265] [PubMed: 12837834]
241.
Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV. et al. The Changing Face of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Trends in Clinical Presentation and Primary Management. J Clin Oncol. 2004 June 1;22(11):2141–9. [PMC free article: PMC2997214] [PubMed: 15169800]
242.
Yao SL, Lu-Yao G. Population-Based Study of Relationships Between Hospital Volume of Prostatectomies, Patient Outcomes, and Length of Hospital Stay. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Nov 17;91(22):1950–6. [PubMed: 10564679]
243.
Brandeis J, Pashos CL, Henning JM. et al. A nationwide charge comparison of the principal treatments for early stage prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2000 Oct 15;89(8):1792–9. [PubMed: 11042575]
244.
Litwin MS, Pasta DJ, Stoddard ML. et al. Epidemiological trends and financial outcomes in radical prostatectomy among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991 to 1993. J Urol. 1998 Aug;160(2):445–8. [PubMed: 9679895]
245.
Lu-Yao G, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL. et al. Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. BMJ. 2002 Oct 5;325(7367):740. [PMC free article: PMC128373] [PubMed: 12364300]
246.
Saigal CS, Pashos CL, Henning JM. et al. Variations in use of imaging in a national sample of men with early-stage prostate cancer. Urology. 2002;59(3):400–4. [PubMed: 11880080]
247.
Hernandez DJ, Epstein JI, Trock BJ. et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy. How often do experienced surgeons have positive surgical margins when there is extraprostatic extension in the region of the neurovascular bundle? J Urol. 2005 Feb;173(2):446–9. [PubMed: 15643199]
248.
Dash A, Dunn RL, Resh J. et al. Patient, surgeon, and treatment characteristics associated with homologous blood transfusion requirement during radical retropubic prostatectomy: multivariate nomogram to assist patient counseling. Urology. 2004;64(1):117–22. [PubMed: 15245947]
249.
Gheiler EL, Lovisolo JA, Tiguert R. et al. Results of a clinical care pathway for radical prostatectomy patients in an open hospital - multiphysician system. Eur Urol. 1999;35(3):210–6. [PubMed: 10072622]
250.
Litwiller SE, Djavan B, Klopukh BV. et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized carcinoma of the prostate in a large metropolitan hospital: changing trends over a 10-year period (1984-1994). Dallas Outcomes Research Group for Urological Disorders. Urology. 1995 May;45(5):813–22. [PubMed: 7747373]
251.
Leibman BD, Dillioglugil O, Abbas F. et al. Impact of a clinical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1998 Jul;52(1):94–9. [PubMed: 9671877]
252.
Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E. et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003 Dec;170(6 Pt 1):2292–5. [PubMed: 14634399]
253.
Gaylis FD, Friedel WE, Armas OA. Radical retropubic prostatectomy outcomes at a community hospital. J Urol. 1998 Jan;159(1):167–71. [PubMed: 9400463]
254.
Karakiewicz PI, Bazinet M, Aprikian AG. et al. Thirty-day mortality rates and cumulative survival after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1998;52(6):1041–6. [PubMed: 9836552]
255.
Kafadar K. Geographic trends in prostate cancer mortality: An application of spatial smoothers and the need for adjustment. Annals of Epidemiology. 1997;7(1):35–45. [PubMed: 9034405]
256.
Lu-Yao GL, Greenberg ER. Changes in prostate cancer incidence and treatment in USA. Lancet. 1994 Jan 29;343(8892):251–4. [PubMed: 7905093]
257.
Luft HS. The relation between surgical volume and mortality: an exploration of causal factors and alternative models. Med Care. 1980 Sep;18(9):940–59. [PubMed: 7432019]
258.
Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979 Dec 20;301(25):1364–9. [PubMed: 503167]
259.
Luft HS, Hunt SS, Maerki SC. The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? Health Serv Res. 1987 Jun;22(2):157–82. [PMC free article: PMC1065430] [PubMed: 3112042]
260.
Kim HL, Benson DA, Stern SD. et al. Practice trends in the management of prostate disease by family practice physicians and general internists: an internet-based survey. Urology. 2002;59(2):266–71. [PubMed: 11834400]
261.
McKnight JT, Tietze PH, Adcock BB. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a comparison of urologists and primary care physicians. South Med J. 1996 Sep;89(9):885–8. [PubMed: 8790311]
262.
McNaughton-Collins M, Barry MJ, Zietman A. et al. United States radiation oncologists and urologists opinions about screening and treatment of prostate cancer vary by region. Urology. 2002;60(4):628–33. [PubMed: 12385923]
263.
Shay BF, Schmidt JD, Thomas R. et al. Urology practice patterns after residency training in radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;60(5):766–9. [PubMed: 12429292]
264.
Hanna CL, Mason MD, Donovan JL. et al. Clinical oncologists favour radical radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: a questionnaire survey. BJU International. 2002;90(6):558–60. [PubMed: 12230617]
265.
Gee WF, Holtgrewe HL, Albertsen PC. et al. Practice trends in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 1995 Jul;154(1):207–8. [PubMed: 7539862]
266.
Plawker MW, Fleisher JM, Vapnek EM. et al. Current trends in prostate cancer diagnosis and staging among United States urologists. J Urol. 1997 Nov;158(5):1853–8. [PubMed: 9334616]
267.
Kramolowsky EV, Wood NL, Rollins KL. et al. Impact of physician awareness on hospital charges for radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1995 Jul;154(1):139–42. [PubMed: 7776408]
268.
Kramolowsky EV, Wood NL, Rollins KL. et al. The role of the physician in effecting change in hospital charge for radical prostatectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1995 May;180(5):513–8. [PubMed: 7749525]
269.
Maliski SL, Kwan L, Orecklin JR. et al. Predictors of fatigue after treatment for prostate cancer. Urology. 2005 Jan;65(1):101–8. [PubMed: 15667873]
270.
Greenland S, Longnecker MP. Methods for Trend Estimation from Summarized Dose-Response Data, with Applications to Meta-Analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1992 June 1;135(11):1301–9. [PubMed: 1626547]
271.
Potosky AL, Merrill RM, Riley GF. et al. Prostate cancer treatment and ten-year survival among group/staff HMO and fee-for-service Medicare patients. Health Serv Res. 1999 Jun;34(2):525–46. [PMC free article: PMC1089022] [PubMed: 10357289]
272.
Maliski SL, Kwan L, Krupski T. et al. Confidence in the ability to communicate with physicians among low-income patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 2004;64(2):329–34. [PubMed: 15302489]
273.
Diamond JJ, Steinfeld AD, Hanks GE. The relationship between facility structure and outcome in cancer of the prostate and uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Sep;21(4):1085–7. [PubMed: 1917606]
274.
Greenwald HP, Henke CJ. HMO membership, treatment, and mortality risk among prostatic cancer patients. Am J Public Health. 1992 Aug;82(8):1099–104. [PMC free article: PMC1695757] [PubMed: 1636829]
275.
Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D. et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003 Nov;170(5):1738–41. [PubMed: 14532766]
276.
Baumert H, Fromont G, Adorno Rosa J. et al. Impact of learning curve in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on margin status: prospective study of first 100 procedures performed by one surgeon. J Endourol. 2004 Mar;18(2):173–6. [PubMed: 15072626]
277.
Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG. et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does the approach matter? J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 1):2218–23. [PubMed: 15538235]
278.
Frede T, Erdogru T, Zukosky D. et al. Comparison of training modalities for performing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience with 1,000 patients. J Urol. 2005 Aug;174(2):673–8. discussion 8. [PubMed: 16006945]
279.
Ghavamian R, Schenk G, Hoenig DM. et al. Overcoming the steep learning curve of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. J Endourol. 2004 Aug;18(6):567–71. [PubMed: 15333224]
280.
Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Creteil experience. Eur Urol. 2001 Jul;40(1):38–45. [PubMed: 11528175]
281.
El-Feel A, Davis JW, Deger S. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—an analysis of factors affecting operating time. Urology. 2003 Aug;62(2):314–8. [PubMed: 12893342]
282.
El-Feel A, Davis JW, Deger S. et al. Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons. Eur Urol. 2003 Jun;43(6):622–6. [PubMed: 12767362]
283.
Keyes M, Schellenberg D, Moravan V. et al. Decline in urinary retention incidence in 805 patients after prostate brachytherapy: the effect of learning curve? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 1;64(3):825–34. [PubMed: 16458775]
284.
Pasko T. Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S. 2001-2002 ed. Chicago, IL: Dept. of Physician Practice and Communications Information, Division of Data Survey and Data Resources, American Medical Association; 2001.
285.
Pasko T, Seidman B. Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S. 2002-2003 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; Survey & Data Resources. AMA Press; 2002.
286.
Pasko T, Smart DR. Physician characteristics and distribution in the US. 2003-2004 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; Survey & Data Resources, AMA Press; 2003.
287.
Pasko T, Smart DR. Physician characteristics and distribution in the US. 2004 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; Survey & Data Resources. AMA Press; 2004.
288.
Pasko T, Smart DR. Physician characteristics and distribution in the US. 2005 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; Survey & Data Resources. AMA Press; 2005.
289.
U.S. Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration—U.S. Census Bureau. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. Available at:http://www​.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv​.pdf.
290.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data and Technical Information. Available at:http://www​.cdc.gov/brfss​/technical_infodata/.
291.
Jemal A, Ward E, Wu X. et al. Geographic Patterns of Prostate Cancer Mortality and Variations in Access to Medical Care in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 March 1;14(3):590–5. [PubMed: 15767335]
292.
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2002 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report Version. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute. Available at: Available at:www​.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/uscs/.
293.
Mushinski M. Average charges for a radical prostatectomy and a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP): geographic variations, 1994. Oncology (Williston Park) 1996 Aug; 10(8):1162–4, 9, 73–6 passim. [PubMed: 8869958]
294.
Feuer EJ, Merrill RM, Hankey BF. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—part II: Cause of death misclassification and the recent rise and fall in prostate cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Jun 16;91(12):1025–32. [PubMed: 10379965]
295.
Freeman VL, Durazo-Arvizu R, Arozullah AM. et al. Determinants of mortality following a diagnosis of prostate cancer in Veterans Affairs and private sector health care systems. Am J Public Health. 2003 Oct;93(10):1706–12. [PMC free article: PMC1448038] [PubMed: 14534226]
296.
Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Wallen M. et al. The use of quality indicators for assessing radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Med Qual. 2000 Sep–Oct;15(5):212–20. [PubMed: 11022368]
297.
Weizer AZ, Ye Z, Hollingsworth JM. et al. Adoption of new technology and healthcare quality: surgical margins after robotic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007 Jul;70(1):96–100. [PubMed: 17656216]
298.
Thompson KE, Hernandez J, Canby-Hagino ED. et al. Prognostic features in men who died of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;174:553–6. [PubMed: 16006890]
299.
Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F. et al. Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002 Sep 12;347(11):781–9. [PubMed: 12226148]
300.
Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED. et al. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 16;97(6):433–8. [PubMed: 15770007]
301.
Schroder FH, Denis LJ, Roobol M. et al. The story of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2003 Dec;92(Suppl 2):1–13. [PubMed: 14983946]
302.
Donovan JL, Hamdy F, Neal DE. et al. ProtecT Study Group. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(14):1–88. [PubMed: 12709289]
Cover of Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 13.
Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Taylor B, et al.

Download

AHRQ (US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...