Marieke van Son

31 RADICAL VS. FOCAL TREATMENT FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER Table 1 Continued Median (IQR) or number (%) Missing (%) Focal therapy (n=530) Neoadjuvant ADT 57 (10.8%) Type Focal HIFU 419 (79.1%) Focal cryotherapy 81 (15.3%) Focal HDR-brachytherapy 30 (5.7%) Treatment failure 113 (21.3%) Salvage treatment 71 (13.4%) Metastases 13 (2.4%) Systemic treatment 6 (1.1%) Watchful waiting 32 (6%) Death 10 (1.9%) Follow-up time (months) 62 (42 – 83) Legend: IQR: interquartile range, BED: biologically effective dose, EQD 2 : equivalent dose to 2 Gy fractionation scheme, ADT: androgen deprivation therapy, EBRT: external beam radiotherapy, LRP: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, HIFU: high intensity focused ultrasound, HDR-brachytherapy: high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Two-way analysis Baseline patient and tumour characteristics are displayed in the “unweighted” column in Table 2. Missing data was <2% for all variables except MCCL, which was missing in 5% (focal) and 25% (radical). Most pronounced baseline differences between groups were PSA and ISUP grade, with radical patients presenting with higher PSA than focal patients (mean 10 versus 8) and harbouring higher-grade disease (22% ISUP 3 versus 11%). After PSW, balance was achieved for all covariates (SMD <0.1). The remaining effective sample size (ESS), indicating the size of a hypothetical unweighted cohort that would yield similar precision (the larger the better), was ±380 patients per group. 2