Active Surveillance—Is It Feasible for Intermediate-risk Localised Prostate Cancer?

Soloway, 2008, Active surveillance: A reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer—the Miami experience, BJU Int, 101, 165, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07190.x Loeb, 2013, Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer, J Urol, 190, 1742, 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.054 Cooperberg, 2015, Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013, JAMA, 314, 80, 10.1001/jama.2015.6036 Briganti, 2018, Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position in 2018, Eur Urol, 74, 357, 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008 Bokhorst, 2016, A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment, Eur Urol, 70, 954, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007 Tseng, 2010, Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer, J Urol, 183, 1779, 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.001 Welty, 2014, Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer, Curr Opin Urol, 24, 288, 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000039 Klotz, 2013, Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, Curr Opin Endocrinal Diabetes Obes, 20, 204, 10.1097/MED.0b013e328360332a Godtman, 2016, Long-term results of active surveillance in the Göteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial, Eur Urol, 70, 760, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.048 Musunuru, 2016, Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience, J Urol, 196, 1651, 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.102 Park, 2020, Patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 are not appropriate candidates for active surveillance, Urol Int, 104, 199, 10.1159/000503888 Cooperberg, 2011, Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, J Clin Oncol, 29, 228, 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252 Thostrup, 2018, Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: update of a prospective single-center cohort, Scand J Urol, 52, 14, 10.1080/21681805.2017.1380697 Wong, 2016, Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort, BJU Int, 117, 82, 10.1111/bju.13460 Lee, 2017, Favorable Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer shows comparable outcomes with Gleason 3 + 3 prostate cancer: implications for the expansion of selection criteria for active surveillance, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 15, e1117, 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.07.020 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 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