PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To give insight into recent literature (during the past 12-18 months) reporting on oncologic outcomes of men on active surveillance. RECENT FINDINGS: From recent published trials comparing radical prostatectomy vs. watchful waiting, we learn that radical treatment only benefits a small proportion of men and that a substantial part of men is overtreated. Therefore, active surveillance should aim at postponing treatment for most, but still generate the same disease-specific mortality as radical prostatectomy by treating only those who benefit. In this review some recent published data on prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance as well as intermediate outcomes are described. SUMMARY: Prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance is very low; however, longer follow-up is warranted. When deferred radical treatment and immediate radical treatment are compared, results seem to be quite similar, suggesting that postponing treatment does not affect the outcomes of men under active surveillance. Furthermore, in the majority of men active treatment could be avoided completely, without compromising oncologic outcome.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To give insight into recent literature (during the past 12-18 months) reporting on oncologic outcomes of men on active surveillance. RECENT FINDINGS: From recent published trials comparing radical prostatectomy vs. watchful waiting, we learn that radical treatment only benefits a small proportion of men and that a substantial part of men is overtreated. Therefore, active surveillance should aim at postponing treatment for most, but still generate the same disease-specific mortality as radical prostatectomy by treating only those who benefit. In this review some recent published data on prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance as well as intermediate outcomes are described. SUMMARY:Prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance is very low; however, longer follow-up is warranted. When deferred radical treatment and immediate radical treatment are compared, results seem to be quite similar, suggesting that postponing treatment does not affect the outcomes of men under active surveillance. Furthermore, in the majority of men active treatment could be avoided completely, without compromising oncologic outcome.
Authors: Patricia A Parker; John W Davis; David M Latini; George Baum; Xuemei Wang; John F Ward; Deborah Kuban; Steven J Frank; Andrew K Lee; Christopher J Logothetis; Jeri Kim Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lionne D F Venderbos; Monique J Roobol; Chris H Bangma; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Leonard P Bokhorst; Daan Nieboer; Rebecka Godtman; Jonas Hugosson; Theodorus van der Kwast; Ewout W Steyerberg Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.226