Editorial
Can randomized treatment trials in early stage prostate cancer be completed?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0936-6555(98)80052-6Get rights and content

References (13)

  • MiddletonRG et al.

    Prostate cancer clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer

    J Urol

    (1995)
  • IversenP et al.

    Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate: twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study

    Scand J Urol Nephrol

    (1995)
  • PaulsenDF et al.

    Radical surgery versus radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate

    J Urol

    (1982)
  • NorlenBJ

    Swedish randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting

    Can J Oncol

    (1994)
  • WiltTJ et al.

    The Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial

    Oncology

    (1997)
  • TannockIF

    The recruitment of patients into clinical trials

    Br J Cancer

    (1995)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (14)

  • Surgery Versus Radiotherapy for Clinically-localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    2016, European Urology
    Citation Excerpt :

    These were largely underpowered and have not been used to guide treatment decision making. Other trials have closed prematurely due to poor accrual [21] because of patients’ unwillingness to leave their treatment to chance [22]. We performed a number of prespecified subgroup analyses to explore potential areas of bias, but analyses stratified by prostate cancer risk category, radiotherapy modality, duration of follow-up, era of study accrual, and geographic region did not differ from the overall analysis.

  • Estimating preferences for treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer

    2015, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Propensity score methods are being widely recommended in observational studies (41-43) to account for treatment selection bias and, thus, to identify the true treatment effects. It is worth pointing out that carrying out randomized clinical trials to compare different treatments presents considerable difficulties in these patients (44, 45). Second, some issues related to the questions of assessing preferences, such as the term “bothers” and the large decrements presented to patients (both for the risk of death in SG and for monthly income in WTP) could have affected the results.

  • Quality of life impact of treatments for localized prostate cancer: Cohort study with a 5 year follow-up

    2013, Radiotherapy and Oncology
    Citation Excerpt :

    In our study, the propensity score results were consistent with those from the multivariable models (data not shown), and should be viewed as confirmatory in that they provide similar effect estimates. It is worth remarking that randomized clinical trials to compare different treatments present considerable difficulties in these patients [6,46], and only the previous mentioned Italian trial [9] has been published after PSA era. However, some design aspects of this clinical trial comparing radical prostatectomy with brachytherapy (favorable low risk patients, and bilateral nerve-sparing performed by a single surgeon on all patients in the surgery group) limited the generalizability of its good results in terms of extremely low urinary incontinence and sexual adverse effects at five years of follow-up.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text