Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: update of a prospective single-center cohort

References

• Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:630–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:19–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–1424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:272–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. 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. 2016;70:954–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, et al. Long-term results of active surveillance in the Goteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2016;70:760–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64:981–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. JCO. 2015;33:3379–3385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer-a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:830–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Roder MA, Hvarness H, et al. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J. 2013;60:A4575,
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Berg KD, Røder MA, et al. Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: an analysis of patient contacts and utilization of healthcare resources. Scand J Urol. 2014;1805:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Christensen IJ, Brasso K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen doubling time as a progression criterion in an active surveillance programme for patients with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;113:E98–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Berg KD, Iversen P, et al. Poor association between the progression criteria in active surveillance and subsequent histopathological findings following radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2015;49:354–359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Berg KD, et al. Association between PSA kinetics and cancer-specific mortality in patients with localised prostate cancer: analysis of the placebo arm of the SPCG-6 study. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:460–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rider JR, Sandin F, Andren O, et al. Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:88–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen FB, Folkvaljon Y, Brasso K, et al. Prognostic implications of 2005 Gleason grade modification. Population-based study of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:664–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69:1135–1141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg KD, Thomsen FB, Nerstrom C, et al. The impact of the 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus guidelines on Gleason grading: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2016;117:883–889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bul M, van den Bergh RCN, Zhu X, et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110:1672–1677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:228–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, et al. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2013;63:101–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers A, Bennette C, Steineck G, et al. Individualized estimation of the benefit of radical prostatectomy from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;62:204–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roder MA, Berg KD, Gruschy L, et al. First Danish single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy: biochemical outcome in 1200 consecutive patients. Prostate Cancer. 2011;2011:236357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong LM, Tang V, Peters J. Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort. BJU Int. 2016;117(Suppl):82–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auffenberg GB, Linsell S, Dhir A, et al. Comparison of pathological outcomes for men with low risk prostate cancer from diverse practice settings: similar results from immediate prostatectomy or initial surveillance with delayed prostatectomy. J Urol. 2017;196:1415–1421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Bergh RCN, Albertsen PC, Bangma CH, et al. Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013;64:204–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy: nationwide population-based study. Scand J Urol. 2016;50:246–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L, et al. Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience. J Urol. 2017;196:1651–1658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar