Active Surveillance: Very Much “Preferred” for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

No AccessJournal of UrologyJU Forum1 Feb 2022Active Surveillance: Very Much “Preferred” for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Matthew R. Cooperberg, Daniel W. Lin, Todd M. Morgan, Brian F. Chapin, Ronald C. Chen, and Scott E. Eggener Matthew R. CooperbergMatthew R. Cooperberg *Correspondence: Department of Urology, University of California, 550 16th St., San Francisco, California 94143 telephone: 415-353-7171; E-mail Address: [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4339-6685 Departments of Urology and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California More articles by this author , Daniel W. LinDaniel W. Lin Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author , Todd M. MorganTodd M. Morgan Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan More articles by this author , Brian F. ChapinBrian F. Chapin Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas More articles by this author , Ronald C. ChenRonald C. Chen Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas More articles by this author , and Scott E. EggenerScott E. Eggener Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002341AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail References 1. : Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: Risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018; 199: 683. Link, Google Scholar 2. : EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 243. Google Scholar 3. : The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 draft recommendation statement on screening for prostate cancer: an invitation to review and comment. JAMA 2017; 317: 1949. Google Scholar 4. : Incidence of extraprostatic extension at radical prostatectomy with pure Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) cancer: implications for whether Gleason score 6 prostate cancer should be renamed “not cancer” and for selection criteria for active surveillance. J Urol 2018; 199: 1482. Link, Google Scholar 5. : Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy?Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: e509. Google Scholar 6. : Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 2016; 195: 313. Link, Google Scholar 7. : Effects of initial Gleason grade on outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2018; 1: 386. Google Scholar 8. : Active surveillance of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: long-term outcomes from a large prospective cohort. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 675. Google Scholar 9. : Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 272. Google Scholar 10. : Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990−2013. JAMA 2015; 314: 80. Google Scholar 11. : Practice- vs physician-level variation in use of active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: implications for collaborative quality improvement. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 978. Google Scholar 12. : Uptake of active surveillance for very-low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1393. Google Scholar 13. : Exploring variation in the use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 683. Google Scholar 14. : Regional variation in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e2031349. Google Scholar 15. : Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 932. Google Scholar 16. : 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: 713. Google Scholar © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue 2February 2022Page: 262-264 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Matthew R. Cooperberg Departments of Urology and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California *Correspondence: Department of Urology, University of California, 550 16th St., San Francisco, California 94143 telephone: 415-353-7171; E-mail Address: [email protected] More articles by this author Daniel W. Lin Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington More articles by this author Todd M. Morgan Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan More articles by this author Brian F. Chapin Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas More articles by this author Ronald C. Chen Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas More articles by this author Scott E. Eggener Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...