Marieke van Son

37 RADICAL VS. FOCAL TREATMENT FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER Supplementary Table 1 – Three-way balance assessment before and after applying propensity score matching weights Unweighted Weighted EBRT LRP FT SMD EBRT LRP FT SMD Age (mean ± SD) 70.4 ± 6.7 62 ± 5.7 65.7 ± 7.4 0.857 66.2 ± 6.6 65.3 ± 4.2 66.6 ± 6.2 0.161 PSA (mean ± SD) 10.3 ± 3.9 8.9 ± 3.9 7.9 ± 3.8 0.418 9.3 ± 3.7 9 ± 3.6 9.5 ± 4.1 0.098 ISUP grade 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 15.2% 54.1% 30.7% 36.7% 50.2% 13.1% 28.5% 60.6% 10.9% 0.448 23.1% 57.8% 19.1% 21.4% 60% 18.6% 25.5% 58.7% 15.8% 0.083 MCCL (mean ± SD) 6.7 ± 3.9 6.5 ± 3.9 6.5 ± 4 0.033 6.7 ± 4.1 6.4 ± 3.8 6.3 ± 3.3 0.054 T-stage T1 (%) T2 (%) 13.2% 86.8% 10.8% 89.2% 13.8% 86.2% 0.061 11.8% 88.2% 13.8% 86.2% 13.3% 86.7% 0.038 Year (mean) 2015 2012 2011 0.620 2012 2012 2014 0.098 N or ESS (weighted) 440 390 530 165.8 171.1 164.4 Legend: LRP=laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, EBRT=external beam radiotherapy, FT=focal therapy, SMD=standardized mean difference, SD=standard deviation, PSA=prostate specific antigen, ISUP= International Society of Urological Pathology, MCCL=maximum cancer core length, N =number of patients, ESS=effective sample size. Supplementary Table 2 – Three-way estimated average treatment effect on treatment failure and overall mortality Propensity score weighted HR (95% CI) SE p-value Treatment failure LRP versus EBRT 2.41 (1.44-4.05) 0.26 0.0005 FT versus EBRT 2.24 (1.4-3.64) 0.25 0.0002 FT versus LRP 0.93 (0.65-1.33) 0.18 0.69 Overall mortality LRP versus EBRT 0.54 (0.23-1.29) 0.44 0.17 FT versus EBRT 0.29 (0.11-0.76) 0.48 0.008 FT versus LRP 0.54 (0.19-1.52) 0.53 0.24 Legend: HR=hazard ratio, 95% CI=95% confidence interval, SE=standard error, LRP=laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, EBRT=external beam radiotherapy, FT=focal therapy. 2