Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: The CEASAR study

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 445-460

  Barocas, Daniel A ^a   Chen, Vivien ^b   Cooperberg, Matthew ^c   Goodman, Michael ^d   Graff, John J ^e   Greenfield, Sheldon ^f   Hamilton, Ann ^g   Hoffman, Karen ^h   Kaplan, Sherrie ^f   Koyama, Tatsuki ^a   Morgans, Alicia ^a   Paddock, Lisa E ^e   Phillips, Sharon ^a   Resnick, Matthew J ^a,i   Stroup, Antoinette ^j   Wu, Xiao Cheng ^b   Penson, David F ^a,i  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ Veterans Administration Tennessee Valley Health Care System   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

active surveillance; comparative effectiveness research; observational study; prospective cohort study; prostate cancer; quality of life; radiation therapy; surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRACHYTHERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DIAPER; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; HUMAN; INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY; INTESTINE FUNCTION DISORDER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PERIODIC MEDICAL EXAMINATION; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE SURGERY; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROBOTICS; STUDY DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; URINARY FREQUENCY; URINE INCONTINENCE;

EID: 84886944575     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.34     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The National Academies Press, DC, USA (2009).
2. Sox HC. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med. Care 48(SUPPL.6), S7-S8 (2010).
3. Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research-IOM recommendations. N.Engl. J.Med. 361(4), 325-328 (2009).
4. Wang AT, Wang JK, Montori VM, Murad MH. Comparative effectiveness research in urology. World J.Urol. 29(3), 277-282 (2011).
5. Greenfield S, Kaplan SH. Building useful evidence: changing the clinical research paradigm to account for comparative effectiveness research. J.Comp. Eff. Res. 1(3), 263-270 (2012).
6. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(3), 203-205 (2009).
7. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J.Clin. 63(1), 11-30 (2013).
8. Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W etal. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J.Natl Cancer Inst. 101(18), 1280-1283 (2009).
9. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20?year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293(17), 2095-2101 (2005).
10. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G etal. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J.Urol. 177(6), 2106-2131 (2007).
11. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B etal. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J.Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 8(2), 162-200 (2010).
12. Penson D, McLerran D, Feng Z etal. 5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J.Urol. 173(5), 1701-1705 (2005).
13. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J etal. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N. Engl. J.Med. 347(11), 790-796 (2002).
14. Ramsey SD, Zeliadt SB, Fedorenko CR etal. Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions. World J.Urol. 29(1), 3-9 (2011).
15. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, Stoffs TL, Dahm P. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur. Urol. 57(6), 930-937 (2010).
16. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HRH. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int. 96(1), 39-42 (2005).
17. Lips I, Dehnad H, Kruger AB etal. Health-related quality of life in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer after 76Gy intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs. 70Gy conformal radiotherapy in a prospective and longitudinal study. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 69(3), 656-661 (2007).
18. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C etal. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol. Assess. 16(41), 1-313 (2012).
19. Yang W, Zilov A, Soewondo P, Bech OM, Sekkal F, Home PD. Observational studies: going beyond the boundaries of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 88(SUPPL.1), S3-S9 (2010).
20. Lohr KN. Comparative effectiveness research methods: symposium overview and summary. Med. Care 48(SUPPL.6), S3-S6 (2010).
21. Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W etal. Observational studies in systemic reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the effective health care program. J.Clin. Epidemiol. 64(11), 1178-1186 (2011).
22. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, Gaziano JM, Aslan M, Huang GD. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am. J.Med. 123(12), E16-E23 (2010).
23. Lavallée LT, Fergusson D, Breau RH. The role of randomized controlled trials in evidence-based urology. World J.Urol. 29(3), 257-263 (2011).
24. Al-Refaie WB, Vickers SM, Zhong W, Parsons H, Rothenberger D, Habermann EB. Cancer trials versus the real world in the United States. Ann. Surg. 254(3), 438-443 (2011).
25. Schroeder TV. Evidence-based medicine in rapidly changing technologies. Scand. J.Surg. 97(2), 100-104 (2008).
26. Barocas DA, Mitchell R, Chang SS, Cookson MS. Impact of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of radical prostatectomy. Urol. Oncol. 28(3), 243-250 (2010).
27. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB etal. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N.Engl. J.Med. 346(15), 1138-1144 (2002).
28. PR06Collaborators. Early closure of a randomized controlled trial of three treatment approaches to early localised prostate cancer: the MRC PR06 trial. BJU Int. 94(9), 1400-1401 (2004).
29. Wallace K, Fleshner N, Jewett M, Basiuk J, Crook J. Impact of a multi-disciplinary patient education session on accrual to a difficult clinical trial: the Toronto experience with the surgical prostatectomy versus interstitial radiation intervention trial. J.Clin. Oncol. 24(25), 4158-4162 (2006).
30. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ etal. TheProstate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ cooperative studies program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Contemp. Clin. Trials 30(1), 81-87 (2009).
31. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM etal. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J.Med. 367(3), 203-213 (2012).
32. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M etal. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N. Engl. J.Med. 364(18), 1708-1717 (2011).
33. Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D etal. Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol. Assess. 7(14), 1-88 (2003).
34. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M etal. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 325(7367), 766-770 (2002).
35. Lobo FS, Wagner S, Gross CR, Schommer JC. Addressing the issue of channeling bias in observational studies with propensity scores analysis. Res. Social Adm. Pharm. 2(1), 143-151 (2006).
36. Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Stanford JL etal. Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J.Natl Cancer Inst. 91(20), 1719-1724 (1999).
37. Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP etal. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J.Urol. 179(5), 1811-1817; discussion 1817 (2008).
38. Kupelian PA, Potters L, Khuntia D etal. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy <72Gy, external beam radiotherapy > or =72Gy, permanent seed implantation, or combined seeds/external beam radiotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 58(1), 25-33 (2004).
39. Alemozaffar M, Regan MM, Cooperberg MR etal. Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer. JAMA 306(11), 1205-1214 (2011).
40. Zhou P, Chen MH, McLeod D, Carroll PR, Moul JW, D'Amico AV. Predictors of prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy. J.Clin. Oncol. 23(28), 6992-6998 (2005).
41. Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Taylor B etal. Comparative effectiveness of therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer. In: Comparative Effectiveness Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD (2008).
42. Barocas DA, Penson DF. Racial variation in the pattern and quality of care for prostate cancer in the USA: mind the gap. BJU Int. 106(3), 322-328 (2010).
43. Porten SP, Cooperberg MR, Konety BR, Carroll PR. The example of CaPSURE: lessons learned from a national disease registry. World J.Urol. 29(3), 265-271 (2011).
44. Stier DM, Greenfield S, Lubeck DP etal. Quantifying comorbidity in a disease-specific cohort: adaptation of the total illness burden index to prostate cancer. Urology 54(3), 424-429 (1999).
45. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med. Care 30(6), 473-483 (1992).
46. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. TheMOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF?36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med. Care 31(3), 247-263 (1993).
47. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JF, SherbourneCD. The MOS 36?item short-form health survey (SF?36): III. Tests ofdata quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med.Care 32(1), 40-66 (1994).
48. Szymanski KM, Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sanda MG. Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology 76(5), 1245-1250 (2010).
49. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Ware JE. Characteristics of physicians with participatory decision-making styles. Ann. Intern. Med. 124(5), 497-504 (1996).
50. Haley SM, McHorney CA, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF?36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J.Clin. Epidemiol. 47(6), 671-684 (1994).
51. Roth AJ, Rosenfeld B, Kornblith AB etal. The memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer. Cancer 97(11), 2910-2918 (2003).
52. Spencer BA, Steinberg M, Malin J, Adams J, Litwin MS. Quality-of-care indicators for early-stage prostate cancer. J.Clin. Oncol. 21(10), 1928-1936 (2003).
53. Penson DF. Assessing the quality of prostate cancer care. Curr. Opin. Urol. 18(3), 297-302 (2008).
54. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J.Biomed. Inform. 42(2), 377-381 (2009).
55. Li J, Djenaba JA, Soman A, Rim SH, Master VA. Recent trends in prostate cancer incidence by age, cancer stage, and grade, the United States, 2001-2007. Prostate Cancer 2012, 691380 (2012).
56. Ayanian JZ, Chrischilles EA, Fletcher RH etal. Understanding cancer treatment and outcomes: the cancer care outcomes research and surveillance consortium. J.Clin. Oncol. 22(15), 2992-2996 (2004).
57. Brawley OW. Trends in prostate cancer in the United States. J.Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2012(45), 152-156 (2012).
58. Horn SD, Gassaway J. Practice based evidence: incorporating clinical heterogeneity and patient-reported outcomes for comparative effectiveness research. Med. Care 48(SUPPL.6), S17-S22 (2010).
59. Kaplan SH, Billimek J, Sorkin DH, Ngo-Metzger Q, Greenfield S. Who can respond to treatment? Identifying patient characteristics related to heterogeneity of treatment effects. Med. Care 48(SUPPL.6), S9-S16 (2010).
60. Miller DC, Spencer BA, Shah RB etal. Thequality of surgical pathology care for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in theU.S. Cancer 109(12), 2445-2453 (2007).
61. Spencer BA, Miller DC, Litwin MS etal. Variations in quality of care for men with early-stage prostate cancer. J.Clin. Oncol. 26(22), 3735-3742 (2008).
62. Kaplan SH, Gandek B, Greenfield S, RogersW, Ware JE. Patient and visit characteristics related to physicians' participatory decision-making style. Results from the medical outcomes study. Med. Care 33(12), 1176-1187 (1995).
63. Kaplan SH, Dukes KA, Sullivan LM, Tripp TJ, Greenfield S. Is passivity a risk factor for poor health outcomes? J. Gen. Int. Med. 11(SUPPL.1), 76 (1996).