Active surveillance (AS) has been widely adopted for the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding the optimal approach for monitoring men in AS protocols. While conservative management aims to reduce the burden of invasive testing without compromising oncological safety, inadequate assessment can result in misclassification and unintended over- or undertreatment, leading to increased patient morbidity, cost, and undue risk. No universally accepted AS protocol exists, although numerous strategies have been developed in an attempt to optimize the management of clinically localized disease. Variability in selection criteria, reclassification, triggers for definitive treatment, and follow-up exists between guidelines and institutions for AS. In this review, we summarize the landscape of AS by providing an overview of the existing AS protocols, guidelines, and their published outcomes.
A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify representative studies and guidelines pertaining to AS selection criteria and outcomes.
While AS is a safe and increasingly utilized treatment modality for lower-risk forms of PCa, ongoing research is needed to optimize patient selection as well as surveillance protocols along with improved implementation across practices. Further, assessment of companion risk assessment tools, such as mpMRI and tissue-based biomarkers, is also needed and will require rigorous prospective study.
World journal of urology. 2021 Mar 02 [Epub ahead of print]
Colton H Walker, Kathryn A Marchetti, Udit Singhal, Todd M Morgan
Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, 7308 CCC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA., Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, 7308 CCC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. .