Overtreatment of prostate cancer has become evident as studies comparing radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting have shown that radical treatment benefits only a proportion of patients. Active surveillance was introduced as a management option for prostate cancer at low-risk of progression with the aim to closely observe for disease progression or change of tumour characteristics and offer active treatment if and when necessary. Active surveillance has been reserved for patients with Gleason 6 localised disease and low PSA; however, selection criteria may be widened as intermediate-term outcomes demonstrate excellent safety, efficacy and patient acceptance.
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE).CG175 Prostate cancer: NICE guideline. 2014.
3.
ZlottaAREgawaSPushkarD. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: Cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst2013; 105: 1050–1058.
4.
ChooRKlotzLDanjouxC. Feasibility study: Watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol2002; 167: 1664–1669.
HeidenreichABellmuntJBollaM. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol2011; 59: 61–71.
7.
ThompsonIThrasherJBAusG. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol2007; 177: 2106–2131.
8.
Dall’EraMAAlbertsenPCBangmaC. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol2012; 62: 976–983.
9.
NamRKCheungPHerschornS. Incidence of complications other than urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol2014; 15: 223–231.
EpsteinJIWalshPCCarmichaelM. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA1994; 271: 368–374.
12.
BoorjianSAKarnesRJRangelLJ. Mayo Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol2008; 179: 1354–1360; discussion 1360–1361.
13.
van den BerghRCRoemelingSRoobolMJ. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: The PRIAS study. Eur Urol2007; 52: 1560–1563.
14.
Dall’EraMAKonetyBRCowanJE. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer2008; 112: 2664–2670.
15.
BulMZhuXValdagniR. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: The PRIAS study. Eur Urol2013; 63: 597–603.
16.
SolowayMSSolowayCTEldefrawyA. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol2010; 58: 831–835.
17.
KlotzLZhangLLamA. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 126–131.
18.
TosoianJJTrockBJLandisP. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: An update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 2185–2190.
19.
AdamyAYeeDSMatsushitaK. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol2011; 185: 477–482.
20.
SelvaduraiEDSingheraMThomasK. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol2013; 64: 981–987.
21.
SuardiNCapitanioUChunFKH. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: An analysis of pathologic features. Cancer2008; 113: 2068–2072.
22.
PloussardGSalomonLXylinasE. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance – does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria?J Urol2010; 183: 539–544.
23.
SuardiNGallinaACapitanioU. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer2012; 118: 973–980.
24.
BrattOCarlssonSHolmbergE. The Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS): A randomized study comparing two different follow-up schedules for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer. Scand J Urol2013; 47: 347–355.
25.
OdomBDMirMCHughesS. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in African American men: A multi-institutional experience. Urology2014; 83: 364–368.
26.
van den BerghRCRoemelingSRoobolMJ. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision-making during active surveillance for early prostate cancer – a review. Eur Urol2008; 54: 505–516.
27.
IremashviliVManoharanMLokeshwarSD. Comprehensive analysis of post-diagnostic prostate-specific antigen kinetics as predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients. BJU Int2013; 111: 396–403.
28.
FinelliATrottierGLawrentschukN. Impact of 5α-reductase inhibitors on men followed by active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol2011; 59: 509–514.
29.
RossAEFengZPierorazioPM. Effect of treatment with 5-α reductase inhibitors on progression in monitored men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int2012; 110: 651–657.
30.
FleshnerNELuciaMSEgerdieB. Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: The REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet2012; 379: 1103–1111.
31.
RossAELoebSLandisP. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 2810–2816.
32.
HongSKSternbergIAKeren PazGE. Definitive pathology at radical prostatectomy is commonly favorable in men following initial active surveillance. Eur Urol2014; 66: 214–219.
33.
BulMvan den BerghRCNZhuX. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int2012; 110: 1672–1677.
34.
GodtmanRAHolmbergEKhatamiA. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol2013; 63: 101–107.
35.
KlotzL. Active surveillance: The Canadian experience with an ‘inclusive approach’. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2012; 2012: 234–241.
36.
Bill-AxelsonAHolmbergLRuutuM. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med2011; 364: 1708–1717.
37.
Bill-AxelsonAHolmbergLGarmoH. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med2014; 370: 932–942.
van den BerghRCEssink-BotMLRoobolMJ. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer?J Urol2010; 183: 1786–1791.
40.
VasarainenHLokmanURuutuM. Prostate cancer active surveillance and health-related quality of life: Results of the Finnish arm of the prospective trial. BJU Int2012; 109: 1614–1619.
41.
AndersonJBurneySBrookerJE. Anxiety in the management of localised prostate cancer by active surveillance. BJU Int2014; 114 (Suppl 1): 55–61.
42.
BellarditaLValdagniRvan den BerghR. How does active surveillance for prostate cancer affect quality of life? A systematic review. Eur Urol2015; 67: 637–645.
43.
HayesJHOllendorfDAPearsonSD. Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med2013; 158: 853–860.
44.
EldefrawyAKatkooriDAbramowitzM. Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: A cost comparison. Urol Oncol2013; 31: 576–580.
45.
PerlrothDJBhattacharyaJGoldmanDP. An economic analysis of conservative management versus active treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2012; 2012: 250–257.
46.
KeeganKADall’EraMADurbin-JohnsonB. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: An economic analysis. Cancer2012; 118: 3512–3518.
47.
Dall’EraMA. The economics of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol2013; 23: 278–282.
StattinPHolmbergEJohanssonJE. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst2010; 102: 950–958.
50.
van den BerghRCAhmedHUBangmaCH. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol2014; 65: 1023–1031.
51.
CooperbergMRCowanJEHiltonJF. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 228–234.
52.
AfaqAKohDMPadhaniA. Clinical utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. BJU Int2011; 108: 1716–1722.
53.
van AsNJNormanARThomasK. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol2008; 54: 1297–1305.
54.
PloussardGDurandXXylinasE. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol2011; 59: 422–429.
55.
TosoianJJLoebSKettermannA. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol2010; 183: 534–538.
56.
LinDWNewcombLFBrownEC. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: Results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin Cancer Res2013; 19: 2442–2450.
57.
KlotzL. Active surveillance: Patient selection. Curr Opin Urol2013; 23: 239–244.
58.
BangmaCHBulMvan der KwastTH. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2013; 85: 295–302.
