Context

Disease-specific registries that enroll a considerable number of patients play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa) research.

Objective

To evaluate available registries, describe their strengths and limitations, and discuss the potential future role of PCa registries in outcomes research.

Evidence acquisition

We performed a literature review of the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy included the terms prostate cancer, outcomes, statistical approaches, population-based cohorts, registries of outcomes, and epidemiological studies, alone or in combination. We limited our search to studies published between January 2005 and January 2015.

Evidence synthesis

Several population-based and prospective disease-specific registries are currently available for prostate cancer. Studies performed using these data sources provide important information on incidence and mortality, disease characteristics at presentation, risk factors, trends in utilization of health care services, disparities in access to treatment, quality of care, long-term oncologic and health-related quality of life outcomes, and costs associated with management of the disease. Although data from these registries have some limitations, statistical methods are available that can address certain biases and increase the internal and external validity of such analyses. In the future, improvements in data quality, collection of tissue samples, and the availability of data feedback to health care providers will increase the relevance of studies built on population-based and disease-specific registries.

Conclusions

The strengths and limitations of PCa registries should be carefully considered when planning studies using these databases. Although randomized controlled trials still provide the highest level of evidence, large registries play an important and growing role in advancing PCa research and care.

Patient summary

Several population-based and prospective disease-specific registries for prostate cancer are currently available. Analyses of data from these registries yield information that is clinically relevant for the management of patients with prostate cancer.

Background

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remains controversial, and no improvement in cancer control outcomes has been demonstrated over open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Objective

To examine population-based, comparative effectiveness of RARP versus ORP pertaining surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a retrospective observational study of 5556 RARP and 7878 ORP cases from 2004 to 2009 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked data.

Intervention

RARP versus ORP.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Propensity-based analyses were performed to minimize treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression models were computed for comparison of RP surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy (radiation therapy [RT] or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) by surgical approach.

Results and limitations

In the propensity-adjusted analysis, RARP was associated with fewer positive surgical margins (13.6% vs 18.3%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.75), largely because of fewer RARP positive margins for intermediate-risk (15.0% vs 21.0%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75) and high-risk (15.1% vs 20.6%; OR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.77) disease. In addition, RARP was associated with less use of additional cancer therapy within 6 mo (4.5% vs 6.2%; OR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81), 12 mo (OR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86), and 24 mo (OR: 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78) of surgery. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of prostate-specific antigen levels to determine biochemical recurrence.

Conclusions

RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status relative to ORP for intermediate- and high-risk disease and less use of postprostatectomy ADT and RT. This has important implications for quality of life, health care delivery, and costs.

Patient summary

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus open RP is associated with fewer positive margins and better early cancer control because of less use of additional androgen deprivation and radiation therapy within 2 yr of surgery.