It seems to me that the problem with this analysis is that Watchful Waiting and Active Surveillance; Favorable Intermediate and Unfavorable Intermediate groups are being conflated within the presentation. They are not are clearly defined within the studies. Conclusions are being drawn by the presenter when the studies themselves do not define groups clearing (WW, AS, FI, UI), and, therefore outcome. Specially, the CAPRA, at least within the presentation, if there was a differentiation between FI and UI. Also, this study was 2011. Wouldn’t MRI have evaluated more by 2023 that the patients could have been reclassified had they had a T3 imager. Maybe even the biopsy methods have improved. This presentation just seems to this therefore that thinking.
