Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer

Hegarty, Josephine; Beirne, Paul V; Walsh, Elaine; Comber, Harry; Fitzgerald, Tony; Kazer, Meredith Wallace

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006590.pub2

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 146 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Limited, high-quality randomised evidence was identified for the effect of radical treatment compared with observation in men with localised PC. A recently updated Cochrane review on prostatectomy compared with watchful waiting 146 identified only two randomised trials for inclusion: the VACURG trial, 147 which was judged to be of poor quality, and the SPCG-4 trial, 148 which was judged to be of good quality. The SPCG-4 trial, 148 carried out in Sweden, provides up to 15 years' follow-up on 695 men with localised PC randomised to either radical prostatectomy (n = 347) or watchful waiting (n = 348).…”

Section: Independent Economic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Mowatt

Scotland²,

Boachie³

et al. 2013

Health Technol Assess

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Declared competing interests of authors: ARP has received reporting fees from Nuada Medical Prostate Care for patients with prostate cancer who were scanned at their medical facilities. JR has received consultancy honoraria and payment for lectures, expert testimony and travel/accommodation/meetings expenses from GlaxoSmithKline, and consultancy honoraria, payment for lectures and travel/ accommodation/meetings expenses from Ipsen. TS has received payment for travel/accommodation/ meeting expenses from multiple sources and his institution has received payment from Siemens Healthcare for a research collaboration. Published May 2013 DOI: 10.3310/hta17200This report should be referenced as follows:Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, Cruickshank M, Ford JA, Fraser C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(20). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inEditorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: www.hta.ac.uk/ This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 09/146/01. The contractual start date was in August 2010. The draft report began editorial ...

show abstract

Section: Independent Economic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Mowatt

Scotland²,

Boachie³

et al. 2013

Health Technol Assess

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Definitive treatment options mainly involve surgery (radical prostatectomy) or radiation therapy (either brachytherapy or external beam radiation) with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Other options include: active surveillance for low‐risk disease, based on an intention to intervene curatively if a change in disease character is detected with further biopsies; watchful waiting with a view to using ADT subsequently when tumour progression is determined; and ADT alone, immediately after diagnosis [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with treatment received by men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Queensland, Australia

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• These results suggest that men's baseline health and tumour characteristics influence treatment choices. • Distance from tertiary treatment centres also influenced the treatment received and access to specialist urologists may play a role. • With most men indicating high levels of decisional control, the importance of having quality up-to-date information readily available to guide their decisions cannot be overstated.

show abstract

“…It is therefore critical that outcomes important to all stakeholders are measured and reported. However, many systematic reviews of effectiveness and clinical practice guidelines acknowledge the difficulties in synthesising the evidence base due to heterogeneity in outcome selection, definitions, measurement and reporting across different trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%