906 1030
research is warranted on how to optimally incorporate
preference assessment into clinical practice.
Author contributions:
Stacy Loeb had full access to all the data in the
study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design:
Loeb, Carter, Lepor, Braithwaite.
Acquisition of data:
Loeb, Zhou, Mühlberger, Carter, Lepor, Braithwaite.
Analysis and interpretation of data:
Loeb, Zhou, Siebert, Rochau, Jahn,
Mühlberger, Braithwaite.
Drafting of the manuscript:
Loeb, Zhou.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
Loeb,
Zhou, Siebert, Rochau, Jahn, Mühlberger, Carter, Lepor, Braithwaite.
Statistical analysis:
Zhou, Siebert, Rochau, Jahn, Mühlberger, Braithwaite.
Obtaining funding:
Loeb.
Administrative, technical, or material support:
Loeb, Braithwaite.
Supervision:
Siebert, Carter, Lepor, Braithwaite.
Other:
None.
Financial disclosures:
Stacy Loeb certi
fi
es that all con
fl
icts of interest,
including speci
fi
c
fi
nancial interests and relationships and af
fi
liations
relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript
(eg, employment/af
fi
liation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria,
stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents
fi
led,
received, or pending), are the following: Stacy Loeb received honoraria
for lectures from MDxHealth and Boehringer Ingelheim, travel reim-
bursement from Minomic and Boehringer Ingelheim, and consulting for
Lilly (unrelated to the current manuscript).
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:
This study was supported by
the Edward Blank and Sharon Cosloy-Blank Family Foundation, the
Gertrude and Louis Feil Family, the New York State Department of Health
(DOH01-C30697GG-3450000), the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer
Center at NYU Langone Medical Center (P30CA016087), and the National
Institutes of Health (Award Number K07CA178258) to Stacy Loeb. The
content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent
the of
fi
cial views of the NIH.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2017.07.018.
References
[1]
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012;366:981 – 90.
[2]
Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, et al. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:175 – 81.
[3]
Barry MJ. Screening for prostate cancer – the controversy that refuses to die. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1351 – 4.
[4]
Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate- speci fi c antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer inci- dence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:981 – 90.
[5]
Gulati R, Wever EM, Tsodikov A, et al. What if I don ’ t treat my PSA- detected prostate cancer? Answers from three natural history models. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:740 – 50.
[6]
Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA 2010;304:2373 – 80.
[7]
Liu D, Lehmann HP, Frick KD, Carter HB. Active surveillance versus surgery for low risk prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis. J Urol 2012;187:1241 – 6.
[8]
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367: 203 – 13.
[9]
Kim 2nd S, DallEra MA, Evans CP. Economic analysis of active surveil- lance for localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22:47–53.
[10]
Roth JA, Gulati R, Gore JL, Cooperberg MR, Etzioni R. Economic analysis of prostate-speci fi c antigen screening and selective treat- ment strategies. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:890 – 8.[11]
Ganz PA, Barry JM, BurkeW, et al. National Institutes of Health State- of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the man- agement of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:591 – 5.
[12]
Barry MJ. The prostate cancer treatment bazaar: comment on “ Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer ” . Arch Intern Med 2010;170:450 – 2.[13]
Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR – SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Making 2012;32:690 – 700.[14]
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer- term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:3379 – 85.[15]
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013;63: 597 – 603.[16]
Heijnsdijk EA, Wever EM, Auvinen A, et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostate-speci fi c antigen screening. N Engl J Med 2012;367: 595 – 605.[17] Lopez-Perez B, Barnes A, Frosch DL, Hanoch Y. Predicting prostate
cancer treatment choices: the role of numeracy, time discounting,
and risk attitudes. J Health Psychol 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1359105315615931[18]
Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR – SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making 2012;32:733 – 43.[19]
Rogowski W, Payne K, Schnell-Inderst P, et al. Concepts of ‘ person- alization ’ in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2015;33:49 – 59.
[20]
CooperbergMR, Carroll PR. Trends inmanagement for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA 2015;314:80 – 2.
[21]
Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1742 – 9.[22] Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C, Robinson D, Bratt O, Stattin P. Uptake
of active surveillance for very-low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden.
JAMA Oncol 2016
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3600.
[23]
Loeb S, Carter HB, Schwartz M, Fagerlin A, Braithwaite RS, Lepor H. Heterogeneity in active surveillance protocols worldwide. Rev Urol 2014;16:202 – 3.[24]
Loeb S, Curnyn C, Fagerlin A, et al. Qualitative study on decision- making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance. BJU Int 2017;120:32 – 9.[25]
Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate-speci fi c antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010;28: 2810 – 6.[26]
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1415 – 24.
[27]
Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2185 – 90.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 2 ( 2 0 17 ) 8 9 9
–
9 0 7
906