4.4 Article

The COMPARE Registry: Design and Baseline Patterns of Care for Men With Biochemical Failure After Definitive Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 75, Issue 3, Pages 623-629

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.059

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To define current standards of care for patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after initial definitive local treatment of prostate cancer using Comprehensive, Observational, Multicenter, Prostate Adenocarcinoma Registry (COMPARE). This article describes the design of the COMPARE Registry, together with patient characteristics and prostate cancer management at enrolment. METHODS The COMPARE Registry is a prospective, multicenter, observational study that collected data on patient characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of men presenting to their physician for the management of an increasing PSA level after definitive (surgical or radiotherapeutic) treatment of localized prostate cancer. Data collected by the physician and reported by the patient at the baseline (enrolment) visit are described. RESULTS Between February 2004 and March 2007, 1120 men were enrolled at 150 sites throughout the United States. The men had a median age of 73 years ( range, 46-95 years), were predominantly white (77%), and had a median PSA level of 7.9 ng/mL (range, 0-710.8 ng/mL) at diagnosis. Observation (74%) was the most common initial management choice at registry enrolment, and androgen-deprivation therapy (22%) was the most common initial treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS Data from the COMPARE Registry should provide a valuable source of prospectively collected information on the contemporary management of prostate cancer and patient outcomes after PSA failure. UROLOGY 75: 623-629, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available