Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleClinical StudiesR

Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer

ROBERTA MAZZUCCHELLI, IOANNIS NESSERIS, LIANG CHENG, ANTONIO LOPEZ-BELTRAN, RODOLFO MONTIRONI and MARINA SCARPELLI
Anticancer Research September 2010, 30 (9) 3683-3692;
ROBERTA MAZZUCCHELLI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
IOANNIS NESSERIS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LIANG CHENG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANTONIO LOPEZ-BELTRAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RODOLFO MONTIRONI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: r.montironi@univpm.it
MARINA SCARPELLI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Surgery, and radiation therapy remain the standard treatments for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. Nonetheless, these aggressive treatments are associated with decreased quality of life with altered sexual and urinary functions. Using modern risk stratification, several centers have gained significant experience in identifying patients with a low risk of prostate cancer progression and have adopted an active surveillance program with delayed, selective, or curative therapy. Interestingly, only limited numbers of patients under active surveillance require additional treatment. Recent data suggest that delayed treatment does not appear to alter the clinical outcome among those highly selected patients. A better understanding of the molecular determinants of prostate cancer behavior would not only enable healthcare professionals to identify which cases need aggressive treatment but, perhaps more importantly, would also indicate potential targets for the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

  • Prostate cancer
  • active surveillance
  • watchful waiting
  • review

The annual incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) has more than doubled since the introduction of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. This rise is consistent with the possibility that most PSA-screen-detected cases are overdetected, that is, even without treatment, they would not have become symptomatic. The rate of overdetection of PCa is suggested to be as high as 56% (1, 2). However, PCa is by no means a uniformly indolent condition, being responsible for 3% of all male deaths in the USA and Europe.

The challenge of managing early PCa is to distinguish patients with clinically relevant cancer from those whose disease is destined merely to be an incidental histological event (3). At present, it is not possible to accurately predict PCa behavior in an individual, so a standard approach is to offer curative treatment to all patients with localized disease, while acknowledging that this treatment may be unnecessary in most cases. This approach is far from ideal, not least because of the signi-ficant risks of urinary incontinence and impotence associated with such treatment. This policy of radical treatment for all will become harder to sustain as PSA testing has become more widespread, with associated overdetection.

Using modern risk stratification, certain centers have gained significant experience in better identifying patients with a low risk of PCa progression and have started to use active surveillance (AS) with delayed, selective, or curative therapy (4). Interestingly, only limited numbers of patients under AS require additional treatment. With short follow-up, it appears that delayed treatment in these highly selected cases does not alter outcome.

Active Surveillance

The aim of AS of early prostate cancer is to individualize therapy by selecting for curative therapy only those patients with significant cancers. Patients with favorable tumor characteristics in terms of T stage, Gleason score and serum PSA testing are closely monitored using serum PSA kinetics and repeat prostate biopsies. The choice between radical treatment and continued observation is based on evidence of disease progression, with progression defined in terms of the PSA doubling time (PSADT) and ‘upgrading’ at repeat biopsy. The aim is to identify cases for treatment long before any symptoms or overt clinical signs of tumor progression are evident (5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Active surveillance vs. watchful waiting.

The use of PSADT to guide management is based on the knowledge that preoperative serum PSA concentrations correlate significantly with the volume of PCa in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (6), together with the finding that temporal PSA trends in untreated patients conform to an exponential model, suggesting that PSADT is constant over time for a given patient (7). It seems intuitive that PSADT will approximate to the rate of tumor growth. In support of this, PSADT is well established as an important predictor of the risk of metastatic disease (8) and survival (9) in patients with PSA failure after radical treatment.

AS should be distinguished from ‘watchful waiting’ (WW). WW involves relatively lax observation with late, palliative treatment for those who develop symptoms of progressive disease, whereas AS involves close monitoring, with early, radical treatment in those with signs of progression (5, 10) (Table I).

Selection Criteria for Cancer with Low Risk of Progression

A critical factor for successful AS is the best possible selection of patients with PCa with low risk of progression, i.e. insignificant PCa in the RP specimen. Multiple selection or entry criteria based on preference or on experience and not always obtained on hard data have been published (11, 15-23) (Table II). The most common clinical data used to define low-risk prostate cancer include a Gleason score ≤6 (no pattern 4 or 5 disease), PSA level ≤10 ng/ml, and clinical stage T1 to T2a disease. Other characteristics to consider include PSA density (PSAD) <0.15, positive cores at biopsy <33%, the extent of cancer in any core <50%) and PSA kinetics (stable) before diagnosis (17).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Entry criteria for active surveillance (authors in alphabetic order).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Prostate cancer aggressiveness risk strata and related care optionsα.

Prospective studies comparing entry criteria for AS protocols with subsequent disease progression and treatment patterns are needed to clarify the best candidates for AS. It is worth mentioning here the Epstein criteria applied in a small series of consecutive studies.

In the original work by Epstein et al. conducted on 157 consecutive patients with T1c PCa and published in 1994, criteria such as clinical stage T1c, PSA density <0.15 ng/ml, no Gleason pattern 4 or 5, fewer than three positive cores and <50% cancer per core accurately predicted 73% of cases with insignificant PCa (tumor volume <0.2 cc, pathologic Gleason score <7 and organ-confined disease in the RP specimen) in 73% of cases (11). In a successive study on 163 patients, published by the same group in 1998, 30.7% were found to be insignificant (in this study insignificant prostate cancers were organ confined with tumor volumes less than 0.5 cc and Gleason score less than 7). The model to predict preoperatively insignificant tumor included less than 3 cores involved, none of the cores with greater than 50% tumor involvement and Gleason score less than 7. With this model, to the positive predictive value for insignificant cancer was 94.4% (12). An update study on 237 patients was published in 2004 by the same group. According to the Epstein criteria, organ-confined prostate carcinoma was detected in 91.6% of all patients, whereas the remaining 8.4% of patients were found to have non-organ-confined disease (13). In 2008 Jeldres et al. published a European validation study of the Epstein criteria based on a cohort of 366 patients (14). In this series, 24% of patients had unfavorable findings at RP, which consisted of either pathologic Gleason 7-10, disease- or non–organ-confined pathologic stage, or a combination of these characteristics.

It should be emphasized that insignificant prostate cancer is a term that describes the pathologic criteria of the surgical specimen, and no data on the Epstein criteria concerning the natural history of PCa exist. In contrast to insignificant PCa, the term ‘indolent’ PCa has been introduced to describe prospectively detected PCa with tools such as nomograms (24, 25). Indolent PCa occurs, by definition, early in the natural history. When treated actively, there is an excellent chance of a positive outcome (24).

Risk Assessment of Prostate Cancer with Predictive Models

While the amount of localized PCa has been increasing, the amount of locally advanced cancer has been decreasing during the last decade (26). Due to this stage migration and PCa screening, a considerable lead-time bias occurs because cancers are diagnosed well before they may become clinically evident. In this context, screening may detect many more cases of that may never become clinically evident. Draisma et al. detected a lead-time bias based on the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer of 9.9 years up to 13.3 years (27). This was also confirmed by other studies (2, 28). In the ideal case, only potentially curable patients with clinically significant PCa and a significant risk to succumb to PCa would undergo treatment. Predictive models based on a well-performed, extended pattern biopsy at the time of initial diagnosis and assessment should be used to integrate clinical variables and help estimate risk to guide timing and choice of treatment (Table III).

Predictive models. The use of predictive models has been progressively gaining popularity to help clinicians when counseling patients to predict indolent and insignificant cancers (29). Variables such as pretreatment PSA level, biopsy Gleason sum and clinical stage are among the criteria most frequently included in these models. Commonly used tools are the D'Amico risk classification (18), the Kattan nomogram (24) and the Partin tables (30). The accuracy in the prediction of the pathological findings in the RP specimen ranges from 73% to 79% vs. 73% for the Epstein criteria. These studies indicate that these statistical tools are similar to the original Epstein criteria for insignificant PCa in their ability to predict pathologically confirmed insignificant PCa, but they offer the advantage of quantifying risks according to variable input of clinical information (15, 32, 33).

A nomogram with which to predict low volume/low-grade PCa in patients with a single positive biopsy core in an extended biopsy scheme has been proposed by Nakanishi et al. (31). The nomogram predicted low-volume/low-grade cancer with good discrimination. Calibration of this nomogram showed a good predicted probability. The authors recommended this nomogram for use in selecting patients for AS.

Chun et al. developed a nomogram to predict insignificant PCa. Predictors consisted of PSA, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason sum, core cancer length and percentage of positive biopsy cores (percentage positive cores). Insignificant PCa was defined as organ-confined PCa with tumor volume <0.5 cc and without Gleason 4 or 5 patterns. Insignificant PCa was pathologically confirmed in 5.7% of patients. The predictive accuracy of the new nomogram was 90% vs. 81% for the older models. (15). One possible reason for this improvement may be the use of cancer-tissue length in the model.

Issues on the Role of Prostate Biopsies in Patient Selection

Some authors have shown that a non-negligible proportion of patients who meet the entry criteria for AS actually harbor aggressive or locally advanced disease if they are submitted to RP (34-38). Ploussard et al. provided a detailed analysis evaluating, for the first time, the misclassification rate in patients who could be suitable for an AS program according to different biopsy schemes (39). All of their patients were submitted to a 21-core first biopsy mapped by location. The authors found that patients who could have been selected for AS programs based on a 12-core biopsy scheme showed higher rates of unfavorable PCa characteristics at RP compared to patients who would have been included only in a 21-core biopsy scheme (overall unfavorable PCa: 28.6-35.9% vs. 14.0-17.6%, respectively). Interestingly, among patients without cancer evidence in the 12-core scheme but with cancer diagnosed only at the 21-core biopsy, roughly 16% showed unfavorable disease at RP, defined as Gleason score ≥8 or category pT3 or higher. These data showed that a certain proportion of patients initially submitted to AS actually harbors aggressive disease at the time of diagnosis. The data by Ploussard et al. (39) could help reduce the misclassification risk by introducing detailed and aggressive biopsy strategies in the initial management of patients submitted to AS.

Follow-up Strategies to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression

Even though different AS follow-up strategies have been adopted (Table IV) (20-22, 40-44), the criteria are somewhat similar. For instance, patients with AS will have to undergo a yearly repeat biopsy at Johns Hopkins Hospital, compared with a repeat-biopsy scheme in Toronto of 12 to 18 months (40, 41, 44). Besides a regular repeat biopsy, regular PSA level testing, digital rectal examination (DRE) and optional transrectal ultrasound studies are warranted (44). During the individual counseling and decision making for AS for low-risk PCa, the clinician has to emphasize that regular follow-up visits are absolutely mandatory and that not overseeing progression constitutes higher risk (45).

The detection of PCa progression in a patient selected for AS remains a continuing challenge. What will serve as the best parameter to correctly identify patients that progress to more aggressive cancer in order not to miss the window of curability is still a matter of debate. At present, the choice between radical treatment and continued observation is based on evidence of disease progression, with progression defined in terms of PSADT and ’upgrading’ at repeat biopsy.

PSA testing and PSA kinetics. The PSA level is still of major importance during the decision process. Different studies have underlined the importance of PSA testing and PSA kinetics to predict PCa behavior and to identify the correct timing for more aggressive treatment (46-49).

According to D'Amico et al., a rapid pre-treatment PSA rise is associated with an increased risk of dying from PCa (46). The study by Carter et al. supports such findings: PSA velocity 15 year before diagnosis was significantly higher in patients who died of PCa (47). Furthermore, Freedland et al. showed that the postoperative PSADT is a strong predictor of PCa-specific mortality in patients with biochemical failure following RP (48). Khatami et al. also showed that a PSADT of <2 years in patients undergoing surgical treatment following AS was the strongest predictor of biochemical failure (49).

The pitfalls of PSA testing in terms of sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility are well understood (45). PSA level seems to be a valid marker for PCa and its progression; however, novel markers are acutely needed to improve AS monitoring.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Predicting progression during active surveillance (authors in alphabetic order).

Prostate cancer ‘upgrading’ at repeat biopsy. Prostate cancer ‘upgrading’ at repeat biopsy is a major criterion for active treatment (20-22, 40-44, 50-53). The study by van As et al. used PSA kinetics profiles, progression of Gleason grade, and increased percentage of cancer per core as indicators to stop AS in patients with low-risk PCa (22). Interestingly, in the cohort of Klotz et al., only 4% of patients were treated because of progression of Gleason grade alone (51). The greatest trigger for intervention in the Toronto cohort remained the PSADT, with 21% of the cohort having a PSADT <3 years (52).

Digital rectal examination. Stephenson et al. found that patients with stage progression detected by DRE on AS were more likely to have a PSADT <2 years (54). Again, this underlines the importance of PSA kinetics in the progression of presumed clinically insignificant PCa.

Imaging techniques. Current serial imaging techniques, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance, may also have a potential role, but are unproven. It will be interesting to see whether contrast-enhanced ultrasound can improve the detection of progression.

Outcomes

Multiple studies have reported their experience with AS, but the value of most studies is limited by a relatively short follow-up time (Table V) (20-22, 40-44, 52, 53, 55-58). In a recent study by Van As et al. it was found that 20% of patients received delayed radical treatment after a median follow-up of 22 months. Within this time frame, no patient developed metastatic disease or died of PCa (22). Hardie et al. reported similar findings at a median follow-up of 42 months (43). Approximately 91% of the patients had a Gleason score ≤6 and 73% a PSA level <10 ng/ml. All patients revealed organ-confined disease in the RP specimen.

Johns Hopkins Hospital experience. In 2002 Carter et al. described evidence of PCa progression in 31% of 81 patients (median age 65 years, range 52 to 72 years) with stage T1c prostate cancer who were thought to have small volume prostate cancer, based on needle biopsy findings and PSA density, and followed for more than 1 year with semi-annual PSA and DRE, and annual prostate biopsies (median follow-up 23 months) (40). Of the 81 patients, 25 (31%) had progression of disease at follow-up. 13 patients underwent RP, and 12 of 13 patients (92%) had curable PCa (41). PSA density was significantly higher and the percentage of free PSA was significantly lower in patients with progression compared with patients without evidence of progression.

In 2007, Carter et al. updated their experience on AS (41). Of 407 patients, 239 (59%) remained on active surveillance at a median follow-up of 3.4 years (range 0.43 to 12.5 years), 103 (25%) underwent curative intervention at a median of 2.2 years after diagnosis (range 0.96 to 7.39 years) and 65 (16%) were lost to follow-up (12), withdrew from the program (45), or died of causes other than PCa (8). Older age at diagnosis and an earlier date of diagnosis were significantly associated with curative intervention.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table V.

Treatment criteria (authors in alphabetic order).

Toronto experience. In one of the largest studies by Klotz et al. (299 patients), the overall survival rate was 85%, and the disease-specific survival rate was 99.3% at 8 years (52). Again, the median PSADT was 7 years, while 42% had a PSADT >10 years. In agreement with the Johns Hopkins Hospital study, the Gleason grade remained the same in 92% of the cohort (44). Of 24 patients undergoing RP for a PSADT <2 years, 14 patients (58%) were pT3a to pT3c and 2 patients (8%) were N+. Considering it was a low-risk PCa cohort, these numbers seem rather high. However, at the beginning, patients with cT2b disease, PSA values of up to 15 ng/ml and a Gleason score of 7 were included, meaning that these patients were very likely to have more advanced disease. Interestingly, in a recent study, PSADT was increased to 3 years, hoping to improve the outcome of these patients (59).

Miami and UCSF experience. Soloway et al. reported on 99 patients undergoing AS with a mean follow-up of 45 months, mean age of 66 years, and a mean PSA level of 5.77 ng/ml (21). On the initial repeat biopsy, about 63% of patients did not have PCa, whereas 34% had PCa with a Gleason sum ≤6. Of these patients, eight underwent treatment (three patients underwent androgen deprivation therapy, and five were treated with curative intent). Of the five patients treated with curative intent, two underwent RP and three chose radiotherapy. These patients were free of biochemical recurrence with a follow-up time of up to 83 months. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed a 5-year probability of treatment-free survival on AS of 85%. No patient in this cohort died of PCa. Cox regression analysis identified PSADT and clinical stage as significant predictors to predict progression to treatment.

In a University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) study of 500 patients, 24% received secondary treatment with a median of 3 years following the initiation of AS. In this cohort, 38% of patients had a Gleason grade progression in their repeat biopsy, and this was the greatest driver of secondary treatment (17).

Active Surveillance, Patient Anxiety and Focal Therapy

Concerns about overdetection of prostate cancer and consequent overtreatment of clinically insignificant tumors in combination with the significant morbidity that traditional therapies carry have resulted in questioning the need for radical treatments of PCa for selected groups of patients with low-risk PCa. AS has been introduced as a conservative management option for PCa that closely monitors patients and treats them when progression is identified.

Patient anxiety can be a greater confounder than biochemical progression or other clinical parameters in active surveillance of patients heading into active treatment. There is no doubt that thorough patient education about the low-risk nature of the cancer is the best instrument to circumvent psychological problems, even though cultural, social and intellectual differences cannot be neglected.

Recently, because of technological advances, focal therapy has been introduced to optimize control of low-risk cancer while minimizing the adverse events of whole-gland therapy and the anxiety associated with delayed treatment (60).

The Future

AS may prove to be not just an attractive alternative to immediate radical treatment, but also a step towards a new paradigm for PCa management. AS provides an ideal opportunity for healthcare professionals to improve their understanding of the basis for the extraordinary variation in PCa behavior. If patients receive immediate radical treatment, only 15-25% of them will develop recurrence, which typically is detected years later. Long-term follow-up of large numbers is therefore needed to obtain outcome data to assess the use of candidate biomarkers, and it is impossible to distinguish insignificant tumors from those that are significant but were treated successfully. By contrast, outcome in terms of PSADT is available for all patients on AS within a matter of months, so those candidate biomarkers can be assessed rapidly in a modest number of patients. A better understanding of the determinants of PCa behavior would not only enable healthcare professional to identify which cases need treatment but, perhaps more importantly, would also indicate potential targets for the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

Molecular makers. Multiple susceptibility genes and many additional mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis and cancer progression have been discovered (61). However, no single biomarker capable of improving the common clinical parameters included in the currently used predictive models has yet been identified (62).

Epigenetic events, mainly DNA hypermethylation at various gene loci, are of major importance during prostate carcinogenesis and progression. DNA hypermethylation was introduced about 25 years ago by Vogelstein et al. (63), while Nelson et al. introduced GSTP1 hypermethylation as a central part of prostate carcinogenesis (64). One study comparing the GSTP1 hypermethylation status in serum samples of patients undergoing RP showed it to be the single most powerful predictor of biochemical recurrence in patients with presumed localized cancer (65).

A promising study from Demichelis et al. demonstrated an association of the TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion with PCa-specific mortality (66). They suggested that PCa containing the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion gene may have a more aggressive phenotype, possibly mediated through increased ERG gene expression (66).

The study by Haese et al. investigated the use of PCA3 in a rebiopsy setting of patients with a negative prostate biopsy. In their work, the risk to detect PCa increased with increasing PCA3 scores (67). These findings were also supported by Nakanishi et al. in a North American study (68). Contrary to this, Deras et al. found that PCA3 testing is independent of tumor volume, thus the true value of the test in the setting of AS remains unclear at this point (69).

In a study by Tosoian et al. in patients with low-risk PCa who were carefully selected for active surveillance, PCA3 score was not significantly associated with progressive disease in the short term (70). While there was a trend toward higher PCA3 scores in patients with high grade disease on surveillance biopsy, significant overlap between the groups prevented the identification of a threshold PCA3 score for clinical use.

Assessment of therapeutic agents. AS could also provide an attractive setting for the assessment of therapeutic agents. Cancer prevention trials typically require tens of thousands of healthy subjects, at low risk of developing cancer, followed up for decades. Patients with early PCa on AS could take part in trials of prevention strategies, with the aim being the prevention of clinically significant disease. Prevention strategies could be rapidly tested in small numbers of patients, with early endpoints based on PSADT, functional imaging, and repeat biopsies. This novel approach to clinical trials could accelerate progress towards a situation where the management of early PCa will be based on observation, with the selective use of therapies designed, not to eradicate the disease, but to alter its natural history.

Conclusion

AS is a new strategy that aims to individualize therapy by selecting only those patients with significant cancer for curative therapy. Patients with favorable tumor characteristics are closely monitored using serum PSA concentrations and repeat prostate biopsies. The choice between radical treatment and continued observation is based on evidence of disease progression, defined in terms of the PSADT and ‘upgrading’ at repeat biopsy.

As is well-known from clinical practice, the diagnosis of cancer dramatically changes the lives of every patient and their families. Additionally, the decision-making process of therapy choice has become complicated. Interestingly, only limited numbers of patients under AS require additional treatment (58, 71). It should be recognized that prognostic risk assessment is far from perfect, but there is plenty of time to provide counsel and to discuss all available treatment options.

AS provides an excellent opportunity for studies to identify markers of PCa behavior. Knowledge of PCa biomarkers would have an immediate effect on clinical decision-making and would also identify targets for the development of novel therapeutic strategies. In the longer term, AS may accelerate progress towards a new treatment paradigm for early PCa based on the selective use of therapies designed, not to eradicate the disease, but to alter its natural history.

  • Received May 16, 2010.
  • Revision received June 4, 2010.
  • Accepted June 11, 2010.
  • Copyright© 2010 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Etzioni R,
    2. Penson DF,
    3. Legler JM,
    4. di Tommaso D,
    5. Boer R,
    6. Gann PH,
    7. Feuer EJ
    : Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from US prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 981-990, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Johansson JE,
    2. Andren O,
    3. Andersson SO,
    4. Dickman PW,
    5. Holmberg L,
    6. Magnuson A,
    7. Adami HO
    : Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291: 2713-2719, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bastian PJ,
    2. Carter BH,
    3. Bjartell A,
    4. Seitz M,
    5. Stanislaus P,
    6. Montorsi F,
    7. Stief CG,
    8. Schröder F
    : Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 55: 1321-1330, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Dall'Era MA,
    2. Cooperberg MR,
    3. Chan JM,
    4. Davies BJ,
    5. Albertsen PC,
    6. Klotz LH,
    7. Warlick CA,
    8. Holmberg L,
    9. Bailey DE Jr..,
    10. Wallace ME,
    11. Kantoff PW,
    12. Carroll PR
    : Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 112: 1650-1659, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Parker C
    : Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol 5: 101-106, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Stamey TA,
    2. Kabalin JN,
    3. McNeal JE,
    4. Johnstone IM,
    5. Freiha F,
    6. Redwine EA,
    7. Yang N
    : Prostate-specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of adenocarcinoma of the prostate II. Radical prostatectomy-treated patients. J Urol 141: 1076-1083, 1989.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Schmid HP,
    2. McNeal JE,
    3. Stamey TA
    : Clinical observations on the doubling time of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 23: 60-63, 1993.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Parker CC,
    2. Dearnaley DP
    : The management of PSA failure after radical radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 49: 103-110, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Sandler HM,
    2. Dunn RL,
    3. McLaughlin PW,
    4. Hayman JA,
    5. Sullivan MA,
    6. Taylor JM
    : Overall survival after prostate-specific antigen-detected recurrence following conformal radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48: 629-633, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Bill-Axelson A,
    2. Holmberg L,
    3. Filén F,
    4. Ruutu M,
    5. Garmo H,
    6. Busch C,
    7. Nordling S,
    8. Häggman M,
    9. Andersson SO,
    10. Bratell S,
    11. Spångberg A,
    12. Palmgren J,
    13. Adami HO,
    14. Johansson JE
    : Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100: 1144-1154, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Epstein JI,
    2. Walsh PC,
    3. Carmichael M,
    4. Brendler CB
    : Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271: 368-374, 1994.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Epstein JI,
    2. Chan DW,
    3. Sokoll LJ,
    4. Walsh PC,
    5. Cox JL,
    6. Rittenhouse H,
    7. Wolfert R,
    8. Carter HB
    : Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 160: 2407-2411, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Bastian PJ,
    2. Mangold LA,
    3. Epstein JI,
    4. Partin AW
    : Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 101: 2001-2005, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Jeldres C,
    2. Suardi N,
    3. Walz J,
    4. Hutterer GC,
    5. Ahyai S,
    6. Lattouf JB,
    7. Haese A,
    8. Graefen M,
    9. Erbersdobler A,
    10. Heinzer H,
    11. Huland H,
    12. Karakiewicz PI
    : Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 54: 1306-1313, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Chun FK,
    2. Haese A,
    3. Ahyai SA,
    4. Walz J,
    5. Suardi N,
    6. Capitanio U,
    7. Graefen M,
    8. Erbersdobler A,
    9. Huland H,
    10. Karakiewicz PI
    : Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer 113: 701-709, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cheng L,
    2. Poulos CK,
    3. Pan CX,
    4. Jones TD,
    5. Daggy JK,
    6. Eble JN,
    7. Koch MO
    : Preoperative prediction of small volume cancer (less than 0.5 ml) in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174: 898-902, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Dall'Era MA,
    2. Cooperberg MR,
    3. Chan JM,
    4. Davies BJ,
    5. Albertsen PC,
    6. Klotz LH,
    7. Warlick CA,
    8. Holmberg L,
    9. Bailey DE Jr.,
    10. Wallace ME,
    11. Kantoff PW,
    12. Carroll PR
    : Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 112: 1650-1659, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. D'Amico AV,
    2. Cote K,
    3. Loffredo M,
    4. Renshaw AA,
    5. Schultz D
    : Determinants of prostate cancer-specific survival after radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 4567-4573, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Graefen M,
    2. Ahyai S,
    3. Heuer R,
    4. Salomon G,
    5. Schlomm T,
    6. Isbarn H,
    7. Budäus L,
    8. Heinzer H,
    9. Huland H
    : Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urologe A 47: 261-269, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Patel MI,
    2. DeConcini DT,
    3. Lopez-Corona E,
    4. Ohori M,
    5. Wheeler T,
    6. Scardino PT
    : An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 171: 1520-1524, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Soloway MS,
    2. Soloway CT,
    3. Williams S,
    4. Ayyathurai R,
    5. Kava B,
    6. Manoharan M
    : Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 101: 165-169, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Van As NJ,
    2. Norman AR,
    3. Thomas K,
    4. Khoo VS,
    5. Thompson A,
    6. Huddart RA,
    7. Horwich A,
    8. Dearnaley DP,
    9. Parker CC
    : Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 54: 1297-1305, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Van den Bergh RCN,
    2. Roemeling S,
    3. Roobol MJ,
    4. Roobol W,
    5. Schroder FH,
    6. Bangma CH
    : Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52: 1560-1563, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Kattan MW,
    2. Eastham JA,
    3. Wheeler TM,
    4. Maru N,
    5. Scardino PT,
    6. Erbersdobler A,
    7. Graefen M,
    8. Huland H,
    9. Koh H,
    10. Shariat SF,
    11. Slawin KM,
    12. Ohori M
    : Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogramfor predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 170: 1792-1797, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Steyerberg EW,
    2. Roobol MJ,
    3. Kattan MW,
    4. van der Kwast TH,
    5. de Koning HJ,
    6. Schröder FH
    : Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 177: 107-112, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Cooperberg MR,
    2. Lubeck DP,
    3. Meng MV,
    4. Mehta SS,
    5. Carroll PR
    : The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 22: 2141-2149, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Draisma G,
    2. Boer R,
    3. Otto SJ,
    4. van der Cruijsen IW,
    5. Damhuis RA,
    6. Schröder FH,
    7. de Koning HJ
    : Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 868-878, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Albertsen PC,
    2. Hanley JA,
    3. Fine J
    : 20-Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293: 2095-2101, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Capitanio U,
    2. Jeldres C,
    3. Shariat SF,
    4. Karakiewicz P
    : Clinicians are most familiar with nomograms and rate their clinical usefulness highest, look-up tables are second best. Eur Urol 54: 958-959, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Makarov DV,
    2. Trock BJ,
    3. Humphreys EB,
    4. Mangold LA,
    5. Walsh PC,
    6. Epstein JI,
    7. Partin AW
    : Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69: 1095-1101, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Nakanishi H,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Ochiai A,
    4. Trpkov K,
    5. Yilmaz A,
    6. Donnelly JB,
    7. Davis JW,
    8. Troncoso P,
    9. Babaian RJ
    : A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 110: 2441-2447, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Roemeling S,
    2. Roobol MJ,
    3. de Vries SH,
    4. Wolters T,
    5. Gosselaar C,
    6. van Leenders GJ,
    7. Schröder FH
    : Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 51: 1244-1251, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. D'Amico AV,
    2. Whittington R,
    3. Malkowicz SB,
    4. Schultz D,
    5. Blank K,
    6. Broderick GA,
    7. Tomaszewski JE,
    8. Renshaw AA,
    9. Kaplan I,
    10. Beard CJ,
    11. Wein A
    : Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280: 969-974, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Ploussard G,
    2. Salomon L,
    3. Xylinas E,
    4. Allory Y,
    5. Vordos D,
    6. Hoznek A,
    7. Abbou CC,
    8. de la Taille A
    : Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance –does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 183: 539-544, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sanda MG,
    2. Kaplan ID
    : A 64-year-old man with low-risk prostate cancer: review of prostate cancer treatment. JAMA 301: 2141-2151, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Smaldone MC,
    2. Cowan JE,
    3. Carroll PR,
    4. Davies BJ
    : Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort. J Urol 183: 138-143, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Thaxton CS,
    2. Loeb S,
    3. Roehl KA,
    4. Kan D,
    5. Catalona WJ
    : Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 75: 414-418, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Tseng KS,
    2. Landis P,
    3. Epstein JI,
    4. Trock BJ,
    5. Carter HB
    : Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. J Urol 183: 1779-1785, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Ploussard G,
    2. Xylinas E,
    3. Salomon L,
    4. Allory Y,
    5. Vordos D,
    6. Hoznek A,
    7. Abbou CC,
    8. de la Taille A
    : The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 56: 891-898, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Carter HB,
    2. Walsh PC,
    3. Landis P,
    4. Epstein JI
    : Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol 167: 1231-1234, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Carter HB,
    2. Kettermann A,
    3. Warlick C,
    4. Metter EJ,
    5. Landis P,
    6. Walsh PC,
    7. Epstein JI
    : Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 178: 2359-2364, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dall'Era MA,
    2. Konety BR,
    3. Cowan JE,
    4. Shinohara K,
    5. Stauf F,
    6. Cooperberg MR,
    7. Meng MV,
    8. Kane CJ,
    9. Perez N,
    10. Master VA,
    11. Carroll PR
    : Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112: 2664-2670, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Hardie C,
    2. Parker C,
    3. Norman A,
    4. Eeles R,
    5. Horwich A,
    6. Huddart R,
    7. Dearnaley D
    : Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 95: 956-960, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Klotz L
    : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol 23: 8165-8169, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Heidenreich A,
    2. Aus G,
    3. Bolla M,
    4. Joniau S,
    5. Matveev VB,
    6. Schmid HP,
    7. Zattoni F
    : European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53: 68-80, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. D'Amico AV,
    2. Chen MH,
    3. Roehl KA,
    4. Catalona WJ
    : Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 351: 125-135, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Carter HB,
    2. Ferrucci L,
    3. Kettermann A,
    4. Landis P,
    5. Wright EJ,
    6. Epstein JI,
    7. Trock BJ,
    8. Metter EJ
    : Detection of lifethreatening prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen velocity during a window of curability. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1521-1527, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Freedland SJ,
    2. Humphreys EB,
    3. Mangold LA,
    4. Eisenberger M,
    5. Dorey FJ,
    6. Walsh PC,
    7. Partin AW
    : Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 294: 433-439, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Khatami A,
    2. Aus G,
    3. Damber JE,
    4. Lilja H,
    5. Lodding P,
    6. Hugosson J
    : PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int J Cancer 120: 170-174,2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Van As NJ,
    2. Parker CC
    : Active surveillance with selective radical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer J 13: 289-294,2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Klotz L
    : Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention is the way to manage ‘good-risk’ prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2: 136-142, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Klotz L
    : Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 24: 46-50, 2006.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Zietman AL,
    2. Thakral H,
    3. Wilson L,
    4. Schellhammer P
    : Conservative management of prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era: the incidence and time course of subsequent therapy. J Urol 166: 1702-1706, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Stephenson AJ,
    2. Jones JS,
    3. Hernandez AV,
    4. Ciezki JP,
    5. Gong MC,
    6. Klein EA
    : Analysis of T1c prostate cancers treated at very low prostate-specific antigen levels. Eur Urol 55: 610-616, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Ercole B,
    2. Marietti SR,
    3. Fine J,
    4. Albertsen PC
    : Outcomes following active surveillance of men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 180: 1336-1339, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Carter CA,
    2. Donahue T,
    3. Sun L,
    4. Wu H,
    5. McLeod DG,
    6. Amling C,
    7. Lance R,
    8. Foley J,
    9. Sexton W,
    10. Kusuda L,
    11. Chung A,
    12. Soderdahl D,
    13. Jackmaan S,
    14. Moul JW
    : Temporarily deferred therapy (watchful waiting) for men younger than 70 years and with low-risk localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 21: 4001-4008, 2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Meng MV,
    2. Elkin EP,
    3. Harlan SR,
    4. Mehta SS,
    5. Lubeck DP,
    6. Carroll PR
    : Predictors of treatment after initial surveillance in men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 170: 2279-2283, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Warlick C,
    2. Trock B,
    3. Landis P,
    4. Epstein J,
    5. Carter H
    : Delayed vs. immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 355-357, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Klotz LH,
    2. Nam RK
    : Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer: clinical experience and a ‘number needed to treat’ analysis. Can J Urol 13: 48-55, 2006.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Gravas S,
    2. de Reijke T
    : Is focal therapy an alternative to active surveillance? J Endourol 2010.
  53. ↵
    1. Nelson WG,
    2. De Marzo AM,
    3. Isaacs WB
    : Prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 366-381, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Shariat SF,
    2. Karakiewicz PI
    : Perspectives on prostate cancer biomarkers. Eur Urol 54: 8-10, 2008.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Feinberg AP,
    2. Vogelstein B
    : Hypomethylation distinguishes genes of some human cancers from their normal counterparts. Nature 301: 89-92, 1983.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Lee WH,
    2. Morton RA,
    3. Epstein JI,
    4. Brooks JD,
    5. Campbell PA,
    6. Bova GS,
    7. Hsieh WS,
    8. Isaacs WB,
    9. Nelson WG
    : Cytidine methylation of regulatory sequences near the pi-class glutathione S-transferase gene accompanies human prostatic carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 11733-11737, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Bastian PJ,
    2. Palapattu GS,
    3. Lin X,
    4. Yegnasubramanian S,
    5. Mangold LA,
    6. Trock B,
    7. Eisenberger MA,
    8. Partin AW,
    9. Nelson WG
    : Preoperative serum DNA GSTP1 CpG island hypermethylation and the risk of early prostate-specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 11: 4037-4043, 2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Demichelis F,
    2. Fall K,
    3. Perner S,
    4. Andrén O,
    5. Schmidt F,
    6. Setlur SR,
    7. Hoshida Y,
    8. Mosquera JM,
    9. Pawitan Y,
    10. Lee C,
    11. Adami HO,
    12. Mucci LA,
    13. Kantoff PW,
    14. Andersson SO,
    15. Chinnaiyan AM,
    16. Johansson JE,
    17. Rubin MA
    : TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene 26: 4596-4599, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Haese A,
    2. de la Taille A,
    3. van Poppel H,
    4. Marberger M,
    5. Stenzl A,
    6. Mulders PF,
    7. Huland H,
    8. Abbou CC,
    9. Remzi M,
    10. Tinzl M,
    11. Feyerabend S,
    12. Stillebroer AB,
    13. van Gils MP,
    14. Schalken JA
    : Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 54: 1081-1088, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Nakanishi H,
    2. Groskopf J,
    3. Fritsche HA,
    4. Bhadkamkar V,
    5. Blase A,
    6. Kumar SV,
    7. Davis JW,
    8. Troncoso P,
    9. Rittenhouse H,
    10. Babaian RJ
    : PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 179: 1804-1809, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Deras IL,
    2. Aubin SM,
    3. Blase A,
    4. Day JR,
    5. Koo S,
    6. Partin AW,
    7. Ellis WJ,
    8. Marks LS,
    9. Fradet Y,
    10. Rittenhouse H,
    11. Groskopf J
    : PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. J Urol 179: 1587-1592, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Tosoian JJ,
    2. Loeb S,
    3. Kettermann A,
    4. Landis P,
    5. Elliot DJ,
    6. Epstein JI,
    7. Partin AW,
    8. Carter HB,
    9. Sokoll LJ
    : Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol 183: 534-538, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Freedland SJ,
    2. Kane CJ,
    3. Amling CL,
    4. Aronson WJ,
    5. Presti JC Jr..,
    6. Terris MK
    : SEARCH Database Study Group: Delay of radical prostatectomy and risk of biochemical progression in men with low-risk prostate cancer. J Urol 175: 1298-1302, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 30 (9)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 30, Issue 9
September 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer
ROBERTA MAZZUCCHELLI, IOANNIS NESSERIS, LIANG CHENG, ANTONIO LOPEZ-BELTRAN, RODOLFO MONTIRONI, MARINA SCARPELLI
Anticancer Research Sep 2010, 30 (9) 3683-3692;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer
ROBERTA MAZZUCCHELLI, IOANNIS NESSERIS, LIANG CHENG, ANTONIO LOPEZ-BELTRAN, RODOLFO MONTIRONI, MARINA SCARPELLI
Anticancer Research Sep 2010, 30 (9) 3683-3692;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Active Surveillance
    • Selection Criteria for Cancer with Low Risk of Progression
    • Risk Assessment of Prostate Cancer with Predictive Models
    • Issues on the Role of Prostate Biopsies in Patient Selection
    • Follow-up Strategies to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression
    • Outcomes
    • Active Surveillance, Patient Anxiety and Focal Therapy
    • The Future
    • Conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Oncological Outcomes in Men With Favorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Enrolled in Active Surveillance
  • Impact of Common Medications on Serum Total Prostate-specific Antigen Levels and Risk Group Assignment in Patients with Prostate Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Four Different Artificial Intelligence Models Versus Logistic Regression to Enhance the Diagnostic Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in the Detection of Colorectal Carcinoma in a Screening Setting
  • In-hospital Outcomes Between Total Parenteral Nutrition and Enteral Feeding in Esophageal and Gastric Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis
  • Phase II Study of the Effectiveness of the Germinated Wheat-derived Rigenase Plus Polyhexanide in the Prophylaxis for Hypofractionated Radiation-induced Acute Skin Toxicity in Breast Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire