Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

Tosoian, 2015, Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer, J Clin Oncol, 33, 3379, 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764 Klotz, 2012, Active surveillance: the Canadian experience, Curr Opin Urol, 22, 222, 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328352598c Bul, 2013, Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study, Eur Urol, 63, 597, 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005 Tosoian, 2011, Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience, J Clin Oncol, 29, 2185, 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112 Lam, 2019, EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (DETECTIVE study), Eur Urol, 76, 790, 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020 Willemse, 2018, Systematic review of deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer to explore heterogeneity of definitions, thresholds and criteria and clinical effectiveness, Prospero Page, 2021, The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372 Dalziel, 2005, Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?, Health Technol Assess, 9, iii, 10.3310/hta9020 Viswanathan, 2012, Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions van den Bergh, 2016, Role of hormonal treatment in prostate cancer patients with nonmetastatic disease recurrence after local curative treatment: a systematic review, Eur Urol, 69, 802, 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.023 Klotz, 2015, Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer, J Clin Oncol, 33, 272, 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192 Klotz, 2020, Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer, BJU Int, 125, 346, 10.1111/bju.14935 Truong, 2013, Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer, Cancer, 119, 3992, 10.1002/cncr.28303 Soeterik, 2018, Active surveillance for prostate cancer in a real-life cohort: comparing outcomes for PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible patients, Eur Urol Oncol, 1, 231, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.03.015 da Silva, 2017, An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients, Can Urol Assoc J, 11, 238, 10.5489/cuaj.4093 Porten, 2011, Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance, J Clin Oncol, 29, 2795, 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0134 Inoue, 2018, Comparative analysis of biopsy upgrading in four prostate cancer active surveillance cohorts, Ann Intern Med, 168, 1, 10.7326/M17-0548 King, 2013, Impact of immediate TRUS rebiopsy in a patient cohort considering active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer, Urol Oncol, 31, 739, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.06.011 Al Otaibi, 2008, Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance, Cancer, 113, 286, 10.1002/cncr.23575 Bjurlin, 2014, Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications, Urol Clin North Am, 41, 299, 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.011 Osses, 2020, Prostate cancer upgrading with serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging and repeat biopsy in men on active surveillance: are confirmatory biopsies still necessary, BJU Int, 126, 124, 10.1111/bju.15065 Rajwa, 2021, Reliability of serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur Urol, 80, 549, 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001 Tosoian, 2018, Tumor volume on biopsy of low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance, J Urol, 199, 954, 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.029 Leong, 2020, Impact of tumor regional involvement on active surveillance outcomes: validation of the cumulative cancer location metric in a US population, Eur Urol Focus, 6, 235, 10.1016/j.euf.2019.05.001 Marenghi, 2017, Eleven-year management of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: what have we learned?, Tumori, 103, 464, 10.5301/tj.5000649 Sampurno, 2017, Population-based study of grade progression in patients who harboured Gleason 3 + 3, World J Urol, 35, 1689, 10.1007/s00345-017-2047-z Sebo, 2000, The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy, J Urol, 163, 174, 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67998-0 Venkitaraman, 2007, Predictors of histological disease progression in untreated, localized prostate cancer, J Urol, 178, 833, 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.038 Ng, 2009, Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time, BJU Int, 103, 872, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08116.x Kinsella, 2018, Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices, Transl Androl Urol, 7, 83, 10.21037/tau.2017.12.24 Bruinsma, 2016, Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines, Nat Rev Urol, 13, 151, 10.1038/nrurol.2015.313 Komisarenko, 2018, Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes, Transl Androl Urol, 7, 243, 10.21037/tau.2018.03.02 Ahlberg, 2019, PCASTt/SPCG-17—A randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design, BMJ Open, 9, e027860, 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027860 Hamdy, 2020, Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT, Health Technol Assess, 24, 1, 10.3310/hta24370