Comparative Effectiveness Study of Various Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer
Prostate cancer is the most common solid tumor and the second leading cause of cancer death
among American men. While surgery, radiation and observation have all been deemed
appropriate for newly diagnosed men, tremendous uncertainty remains regarding the optimal
treatment. AHRQ's 2008 evidence report on the comparative effectiveness of therapies for
localized prostate cancer concluded that "no one therapy can be considered the preferred
treatment for localized prostate cancer due to the limitations in the body of evidence as
well as the likely tradeoffs an individual patient must make between estimated treatment
effectiveness, necessity and adverse effects." The existing literature is limited by its
focus on older therapeutic modalities and failure to control for individual patient
characteristics and provider/hospital characteristics that may influence outcomes (quality
of care). To fill these evidence gaps, we propose to expand a network of state tumor
registries and a national observational disease registry to establish a new population-based
cohort of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. We will prospectively measure
key patient-reported outcomes, such as health-related quality of life and side-effects of
therapy at diagnosis and 6 and 12 months later. We will also collect detailed medical record
information, including clinical data, technical details of the interventions, complications,
short-term cancer recurrence rates, and quality-of-care indicators.
By using this approach, we will overcome limitations of the extant literature and achieve
the following specific aims:
1. To compare the effectiveness of contemporary surgical and radiation techniques for
localized prostate cancer in the cohort described above in terms of the 6- and 12-month
patient-reported outcomes, side-effects and complications of treatment.
2. To identify patient level characteristics that may influence comparative effectiveness.
3. To assess how the comparative effectiveness of the various therapies varies by quality
of care received.
Observational
Observational Model: Cohort, Time Perspective: Prospective
Disease-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life (EPIC)
Sexual, urinary, bowel and hormonal function and bother subscores will be assessed
12 months after enrollment
No
David F Penson, MD, MPH
Principal Investigator
Vanderbilt University
United States: Institutional Review Board
110299
NCT01326286
March 2011
September 2013
Name | Location |
---|---|
Cancer Institute of New Jersey | New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 |
University of California, San Francisco | San Francisco, California 94143 |
Emory University | Atlanta, Georgia 30322 |
University of Southern California | Los Angeles, California 90033 |
Lousiana State University Health Sciences Center- New Orleans | New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 |