Thanks for posting that, Tom.

I had two thoughts after reading it:

1.  I wonder if they broke down the radical prostatectomy (RP) group
into retropubic (RRP) and laparoscopic (LRP).  One of the arguments in
favor of LRP is that the recovery time is shorter, which might be a
factor to think about in the societal cost component of the study.

2.  I also wonder if a missing ingredients in the quality of life
(QOL) evaluations is something like a performance gap measure.  This
is central feature of a couple of the test instruments used in
educational institution research.  Students are typically asked not
only how they rate a particular aspect of their college or university,
but also how important that aspect is to them.  If they have low
expectations about something -- say dorm food quality -- then it
matters less to the college if they rate that lower.  On the other
hand, if it's important to them and they rate it low, then the college
ought to address it.
Do QOL studies about prostate cancer include questions that address
this sort of thing?  I know I filled out a couple of surveys at Johns
Hopkins, but I don't recall questions that I'd recognize as addressing
performance gap -- though I admit I was still overwhelmed by the PCa
diagnosis at the time.   I would think that the performance gap
profile might be considerably different for men in the RP group than
for those in the seeds group.

--charlie