Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression

Schröder, 2009, Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study, N Engl J Med, 360, 1320, 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084 Albertsen, 2015, Observational studies and the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer, Curr Opin Urol, 25, 232, 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000157 Sanda, 2008, Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors, N Engl J Med, 358, 1250, 10.1056/NEJMoa074311 EAU. EAU guidelines. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam, 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5. Eastham, 2022, Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part II: principles of active surveillance, principles of surgery, and follow-up, J Urol, 208, 19, 10.1097/JU.0000000000002758 Willemse, 2022, 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, Eur Urol, 81, 337, 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007 Morlacco, 2017, Adverse disease features in Gleason score 3 + 4 “favorable intermediate-risk” prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance, Eur Urol, 72, 442, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.043 Bloom, 2021, Risk of adverse pathology at prostatectomy in the era of MRI and targeted biopsies; rethinking active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer patients, Urol Oncol, 39, 729.e1, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.02.018 Enikeev, 2020, Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of current protocols and outcomes, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 18, e739, 10.1016/j.clgc.2020.05.008 Nayan, 2022, Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, World J Urol, 40, 79, 10.1007/s00345-021-03893-1 Klotz, 2020, Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer, BJU Int, 125, 346, 10.1111/bju.14935 Page, 2021, The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372, n71, 10.1136/bmj.n71 Sterne, 2016, ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions, BMJ, 355, i4919, 10.1136/bmj.i4919 Assel, 2019, Guidelines for reporting of statistics for clinical research in urology, Eur Urol, 75, 358, 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.014 Berg, 2016, Active holistic surveillance: the nutritional aspect of delayed intervention in prostate cancer, J Nutr Metab, 2016, 2917065, 10.1155/2016/2917065 Bul, 2012, Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer, BJU Int, 110, 1672, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11434.x Butler, 2019, Use and early mortality outcomes of active surveillance in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, Cancer, 125, 3164, 10.1002/cncr.32202 Carlsson, 2020, Risk of metastasis in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer managed with active surveillance at a tertiary cancer center, J Urol, 203, 1117, 10.1097/JU.0000000000000742 Cooley, 2021, Factors associated with time to conversion from active surveillance to treatment for prostate cancer in a multi-institutional cohort, J Urol, 206, 1147, 10.1097/JU.0000000000001937 Cooperberg, 2011, Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, J Clin Oncol, 29, 228, 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252 Courtney, 2022, Metastasis and mortality in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance, J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 20, 151, 10.6004/jnccn.2021.7065 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 Herden, 2017, Risk stratification: a tool to predict the course of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer?, BJU Int, 120, 212, 10.1111/bju.13715 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 Loeb, 2015, Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer, Eur Urol, 67, 233, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010 Masic, 2018, Effects of initial Gleason grade on outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer, Eur Urol Oncol, 1, 386, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.018 Meunier, 2017, Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer in African Caribbean men: results of a prospective study, J Urol, 197, 1229, 10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.047 Mukherjee, 2021, Active surveillance—is it feasible for intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer?, Eur Urol Open Sci, 24, 17, 10.1016/j.euros.2020.12.005 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 Nyame, 2017, Intermediate-term outcomes for men with very low/low and intermediate/high risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance, J Urol, 198, 591, 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.123 Rakauskas, 2021, Active surveillance in males with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer: a modern prospective cohort study, Investig Clin Urol, 62, 416, 10.4111/icu.20200601 Richard, 2020, The long-term outcomes of Gleason grade groups 2 and 3 prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: results from a large, population-based cohort, Can Urol Assoc J, 14, 174, 10.5489/cuaj.6328 Savdie, 2017, Identifying intermediate-risk candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer, Urol Oncol, 35, 605.e1, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.06.048 Sayyid, 2021, Active surveillance in favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients: predictors of deferred intervention and treatment choice, Can Urol Assoc J, 16, E7, 10.5489/cuaj.7272 Shelton, 2019, Three-year active surveillance outcomes in a contemporary community urology cohort in the United States, Urology, 130, 72, 10.1016/j.urology.2019.04.017 Stattin, 2010, Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study, J Natl Cancer Inst, 102, 950, 10.1093/jnci/djq154 Thomsen, 2019, Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: nationwide observational study, J Urol, 201, 520, 10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.045 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 Whalen, 2018, Oncologic outcomes of definitive treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer after a period of active surveillance, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 16, e425, 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.007 Yamamoto, 2016, Metastatic prostate cancer in men initially treated with active surveillance, J Urol, 195, 1409, 10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.075 D'Amico, 1998, Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer, JAMA, 280, 969, 10.1001/jama.280.11.969 Neal, 2020, Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received, Eur Urol, 77, 320, 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.030 Wilt, 2020, Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: extended follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), Eur Urol, 77, 713, 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.009 Laukhtina, 2021, Oncologic impact of delaying radical prostatectomy in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review, World J Urol, 39, 4085, 10.1007/s00345-021-03703-8 Cole, 2016, Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence, J Urol, 196, 405, 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.120 Loeb, 2015, Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification, Eur Urol, 67, 619, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010 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 Shore ND, Renzulli J, Fleshner NE, et al. Active surveillance plus enzalutamide monotherapy vs active surveillance alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer: the ENACT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1641. Usón Junior, 2017, Impact of pathology review for decision therapy in localized prostate cancer, Clin Med Insights Pathol, 10