The critical use of population-based medical databases for prostate cancer research

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 320-325

  Scales Jr , Charles D ^a   Dahm, Philipp ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Observational study; Population based registry; Prostate cancer; Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology initiative

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN;

ANDROGEN THERAPY; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER THERAPY; COMPREHENSION; DATA BASE; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; POPULATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; VALIDITY;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVATION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 41749094750     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282fb781b     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. National Cancer Institute. SEER: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Bethesda, Maryland, USA: National Institute of Health; 2005.
2. Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Stanford JL, et al. Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:1719-1724.
3. Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Peterson BL, et al. Clinical research and statistical methods in the urology literature. J Urol 2005; 174:1374-1379.
4. Borawski KM, Norris RD, Fesperman SF, et al. Levels of evidence in the urological literature. J Urol 2007; 178:1429-1433.
5. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ 2004; 329:883.
6. Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, et al. Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. Am J Epidemiol 2005; 161:280-288.
7. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:W163-W194. This article provides detailed explanations and examples for each of the STROBE criteria.
8. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:573-577. This article outlines the STROBE development process and delineates the STROBE guidelines.
9. Vandenbroucke JP. The making of STROBE. Epidemiology 2007; 18:797-799.
10. Wong YN, Mitra N, Hudes G, et al. Survival associated with treatment vs observation of localized prostate cancer in elderly men. JAMA 2006; 296: 2683-2693. This article compares treatment and observation outcomes for ages of at least 65 years with localized prostate cancer.
11. Litwin MS, Miller DC. Treating older men with prostate cancer: survival (or selection) of the fittest? JAMA 2006; 296:2733-2734. This article highlights specific issues of bias and confounding applicable to all observational studies.
12. Giri VN, Cassidy AE, Beebe-Dimmer J, et al. Association between Agent Orange and prostate cancer: a pilot case-control study. Urology 2004; 63:757-760.
13. Zafar MB, Terris MK. Prostate cancer detection in veterans with a history of Agent Orange exposure. J Urol 2001; 166:100-103.
14. Olsen J, Basso O. Re: Residual confounding. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 149:290.
15. Lu-Yao G, Moore DF, Oleynick JU, et al. Population based study of hormonal therapy and survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer. J Urol 2007; 177:535-539. This study examines the effect of hormone therapy on survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer.
16. 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; 177:1307-1312. This investigation is a single arm cohort identifying predictors of survival in men treated with primary hormone therapy.
17. Janoff DM, Peterson C, Mongoue-Tchokote S, et al. Clinical outcomes of androgen deprivation as the sole therapy for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005; 96:503-507.
18. Lee H, McGovern K, Finkelstein JS, et al. Changes in bone mineral density and body composition during initial and long-term gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment for prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 104: 1633-1637.
19. Shahinian VB, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, et al. Risk of fracture after androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:154-164.
20. Saigal CS, Gore JL, Krupski TL, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy increases cardiovascular morbidity in men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2007; 110: 1493-1500. This is one of the first studies characterizing cardiovascular morbidity of androgen deprivation for prostate cancer treatment.
21. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, et al. Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:1395-1400. This study offers intriguing insights into biopsy yield in the PSA era, and demonstrates an original linkage of Medicare and SEER data.