PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Active surveillance is a management strategy for early-stage prostate cancer designed to balance early detection of aggressive disease and overtreatment of indolent disease. We evaluate recently reported outcomes and discuss the potentially most important endpoints for such an approach. RECENT FINDINGS: The past 2 years have seen the publication of two trials of watchful waiting versus immediate treatment and updates of multiple active surveillance cohorts for men with early-stage prostate cancer. The watchful waiting trials demonstrated a small potential mortality benefit to immediate treatment when applied to all risk levels (6% absolute difference at 15 years), emphasizing the importance of a risk-adapted strategy. In reported active surveillance cohorts, prostate cancer death and metastasis remain rare events. Intermediate outcomes such as progression to treatment and upgrading/upstaging on final disease appear consistent among cohorts, but must be interpreted with caution when compared with historical controls of immediate treatment because of potential selection bias. SUMMARY: The safety of active surveillance has been reinforced by recent reports. Accumulation of additional data on men with intermediate risk cancer and development and validation of new biomarkers of risk will allow refined and, likely, expanded use of this approach.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Active surveillance is a management strategy for early-stage prostate cancer designed to balance early detection of aggressive disease and overtreatment of indolent disease. We evaluate recently reported outcomes and discuss the potentially most important endpoints for such an approach. RECENT FINDINGS: The past 2 years have seen the publication of two trials of watchful waiting versus immediate treatment and updates of multiple active surveillance cohorts for men with early-stage prostate cancer. The watchful waiting trials demonstrated a small potential mortality benefit to immediate treatment when applied to all risk levels (6% absolute difference at 15 years), emphasizing the importance of a risk-adapted strategy. In reported active surveillance cohorts, prostate cancer death and metastasis remain rare events. Intermediate outcomes such as progression to treatment and upgrading/upstaging on final disease appear consistent among cohorts, but must be interpreted with caution when compared with historical controls of immediate treatment because of potential selection bias. SUMMARY: The safety of active surveillance has been reinforced by recent reports. Accumulation of additional data on men with intermediate risk cancer and development and validation of new biomarkers of risk will allow refined and, likely, expanded use of this approach.
Authors: Ashley E Ross; Stacy Loeb; Patricia Landis; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein; Anna Kettermann; Zhaoyong Feng; H Ballentine Carter; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Joan F Hilton; Adam C Reese; Harras B Zaid; Sima P Porten; Katsuto Shinohara; Maxwell V Meng; Kirsten L Greene; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Joseph C Presti Journal: Urology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Janet E Cowan; Jeffrey Simko; Katsuto Shinohara; Benjamin Davies; Badrinath R Konety; Maxwell V Meng; Nannette Perez; Kirsten Greene; Peter R Carroll Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: Urology Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Hanna Vasarainen; Henk G van der Poel; Jenneke J Vis-Maters; John B Rietbergen; Tom Pickles; Erik B Cornel; Riccardo Valdagni; Joris J Jaspars; John van der Hoeven; Frederic Staerman; Eric H G M Oomens; Antti Rannikko; Stijn Roemeling; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol; Fritz H Schröder; Chris H Bangma Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Matthew R Cooperberg; June M Chan; Benjamin J Davies; Peter C Albertsen; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher A Warlick; Lars Holmberg; Donald E Bailey; Meredith E Wallace; Philip W Kantoff; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Narhari Timilshina; Antonio Finelli; George Tomlinson; Anna Gagliardi; Beate Sander; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Dario Bruzzese; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Sisto Perdonà; Riccardo Autorino; Francesco Cantiello; Roberto La Rocca; Gian Maria Busetto; Amelia Cimmino; Carlo Buonerba; Michele Battaglia; Rocco Damiano; Ottavio De Cobelli; Vincenzo Mirone; Daniela Terracciano Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Ravi Kacker; Mariam Hult; Ignacio F San Francisco; William P Conners; Pablo A Rojas; William C Dewolf; Abraham Morgentaler Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Ravi B Parikh; Kyle W Robinson; Sumedha Chhatre; Elina Medvedeva; John P Cashy; Shika Veera; Joshua M Bauml; Tito Fojo; Amol S Navathe; S Bruce Malkowicz; Ronac Mamtani; Ravishankar Jayadevappa Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-09-01
Authors: Sacheth Chandramouli; Patrick Leo; George Lee; Robin Elliott; Christine Davis; Guangjing Zhu; Pingfu Fu; Jonathan I Epstein; Robert Veltri; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Neal Shore; Steven A Kaplan; Ronald Tutrone; Richard Levin; James Bailen; Alan Hay; Susan Kalota; Mohamed Bidair; Sheldon Freedman; Kenneth Goldberg; Frederick Snoy; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 4.226