Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.

Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Leach GE, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;273(2):129–35.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436–45.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

•• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2319–29. This study remains the strongest evidence for treating clinically significant prostate cancer.

Wilt TJ, Vo TN, Langsetmo L, Dahm P, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: Extended follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol. 2020;77(6):713–24.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379–85.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):126–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Boyer HD, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort. J Urol. 2016;195(2):313–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, 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(6):954–60.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(3):807–11.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

•• Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, Part I: Introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. Journal of Urology. 2022 Jul;208(1):10–8. The AUA Guidelines are provided by the largest urology professional organization in North America.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer - Uroweb [Internet]. Uroweb - European Association of Urology. [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer.

Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC, Pisansky TM, Finelli A, Feifer A, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. JCO. 2018;36(32):3251–8.

Article  Google Scholar 

National comprehensive cancer network prostate cancer guidelines [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.

Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM, Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors determining change to radical treatment in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):993–1005.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Keegan KA, Dall’Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment. Cancer. 2012;118(14):3512–8.

Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Alarid-Escudero F, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM, Kuntz KM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance strategies for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):910–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: A systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;1(104):11–21.

Article  Google Scholar 

van den Bergh RCN, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(17):3868–78.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Naha U, Freedland SJ, Abern MR, Moreira DM. The association of cancer-specific anxiety with disease aggressiveness in men on active surveillance of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(2):335–40.

Kearns JT, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, et al. Role of surveillance biopsy with no cancer as a prognostic marker for reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. European Urology. 2018;73(5):706–12.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Bloom JB, Hale GR, Gold SA, Rayn KN, Smith C, Mehralivand S, et al. Predicting Gleason group progression for men on prostate cancer active surveillance: Role of a negative confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol. 2019;201(1):84–90.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Singh S, Sandhu P, Beckmann K, Santaolalla A, Dewan K, Clovis S, et al. Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment. BJU Int. 2021;128(1):72–8.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Liss MA, Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, Garcia MP, Filson CP, Boyer H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of high grade cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. J Urol. 2020;204(4):701–6.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, et al. Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): Results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):300–9.

Luiting HB, Remmers S, Boevé ER, Valdagni R, Chiu PK, Semjonow A, et al. A multivariable approach using magnetic resonance imaging to avoid a protocol-based prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer—Data from the international multicenter prospective PRIAS study. European Urology Oncology [Internet]. 2022 Apr 15 [cited 2022 Jul 22]; Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588931122000578.

Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, Mori K, Laukhtina E, Huebner NA, et al. Reliability of serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):549–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hettiarachchi D, Geraghty R, Rice P, Sachdeva A, Nambiar A, Johnson M, et al. Can the use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance of prostate cancer avoid the need for prostate biopsies?—A systematic diagnostic test accuracy review. European Urology Oncology. 2021;4(3):426–36.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34(18):2182–90.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Kettermann A, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. JCO. 2010;28(17):2810–6.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, Cowan JE, Perez N, Cooperberg MR, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1656–60.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, 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(6):954–60.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cooperberg MR, Brooks JD, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Kearns JT, Carroll PR, et al. Refined analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics to predict prostate cancer active surveillance outcomes. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):211–7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ediz C, Akan S, Temel MC, Yilmaz O. The importance of PSA-density in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020 Jun 24;92(2).

Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ, et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1131–6.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Heidegger I, Klocker H, Pichler R, Pircher A, Prokop W, Steiner E, et al. ProPSA and the Prostate Health Index as predictive markers for aggressiveness in low-risk prostate cancer–Results from an international multicenter study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(3):271–5.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Schwen ZR, Mamawala M, Tosoian JJ, Druskin SC, Ross AE, Sokoll LJ, et al. Prostate Health Index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict prostate cancer grade reclassification in active surveillance. BJU Int. 2020;126(3):373–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–70.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown MD, Sjoberg DD, Dong Y, Brooks JD, et al. Evaluating the four kallikrein panel of the 4Kscore for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer in men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):448–54.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, Moutereau S, Radulescu C, Forgue A, et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2011;59(3):422–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tosoian JJ, Patel HD, Mamawala M, Landis P, Wolf S, Elliott DJ, et al. Longitudinal assessment of urinary PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer grade reclassification in favorable risk men during active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(3):339–42.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, Faino AV, Bianchi-Frias D, Cooperberg MR, Brown MD, et al. Performance of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG urinary biomarkers in prediction of biopsy outcome in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(3):438–45.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central