Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR, Leapman MS, Rannikko A, Petrides N, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:151–67.
Kinsella N, Helleman J, Bruinsma S, Carlsson S, Cahill D, Brown C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary global practice. Transl. Androl Urol. 2018;7:83–97.
Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Cek M, Grabe M, et al. Infectious complications after prostate biopsy: results from the Global Prevalence of Infections in Urology (GPIU) Study 2010 and 2011, a multicenter prospective multinational study of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;63:521–7.
Ploussard G, Renard-Penna R. MRI-guided active surveillance in prostate cancer: not yet ready for practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2021;18:77–8.
Cary KC, Cowan JE, Sanford M, Shinohara K, Perez N, Chan JM, et al. Predictors of pathological progression on biopsy in men under active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of surveillance biopsy pattern. Eur Urol. 2014;66:337–42.
Ganesan V, Dai C, Nyame YA, Greene DJ, Almassi N, Hettel D, et al. Prognostic significance of a negative confirmatory biopsy at reclassification in men under active surveillance. Urology. 2017;107:184–9.
Singh S, Sandhu P, Beckmann K, Santaolalla A, Dewan K, Clovis S, et al. A negative first follow-up prostate biopsy under active surveillance is associated with a reduced risk of upgrading, suspected progression, and conversion to active treatment. BJUI Int. 2021;128:72–8.
Wong LM, Alibhai SM, Trottier G, Timilshina N, Van der Kwast T, Zlotta A, et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy in men under active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histological grade progression. Eur Urol. 2014;66:406–13.
Kearns JT, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, et al. Role of surveillance biopsy in the absence of cancer as a prognostic marker for reclassification: results of the active surveillance study of the prostate in canaries. Eur Urol. 2018;73:706–12.
Bruinsma SM, Zhang L, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Nieboer D, et al. The Movember Foundation GAP3 Cohort: A Profile of the World’s Largest Active Prostate Cancer Surveillance Database to Date. BJU Int. 2018;121:737–44.
Lewicki P, Shoag J, Golombos DM, Oromendia C, Ballman KV, Halpern JA, et al. Prognostic significance of a negative prostate biopsy: analysis of subjects enrolled in a prostate cancer screening trial. J Urol. 2017;197:1014–9.
Chu CE, Cowan JE, Fasulo V, Washington SL 3rd, de la Calle C, Shoemaker J, et al. The clinical significance of multiple watch-negative prostate biopsies in men under active surveillance: is the cancer going away or just hiding? J Urol. 2021;205:109–14.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92.
Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al. Prostate Cancer Research Protocol International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) compliance rate and disease reclassification among non-compliant. Eur Urol. 2015;68:814–21.
Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Fahey M, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, et al. Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the movember foundation global action plan active prostate cancer surveillance initiative. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:80–91.
Loeb S, Curnyn C, Fagerlin A, Braithwaite RS, Schwartz MD, Lepor H, et al. Qualitative study of prostate cancer physician decision making during active surveillance. BJU Int. 2017;120:32–9.
Xu J, Neale AV, Dailey RK, Eggly S, Schwartz KL. Patient perspective on watchful waiting/active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25:763–70.
Beckmann K, Cahill D, Brown C, Van Hemelrijck M, Kinsella J. Understanding the reasons for nonadherence to active surveillance for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Transl. Androl Urol. 2021;10:2728–36.
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:597–603.
Beckmann K, Bangma C, Helleman J, Santaolalla A, Nieboer D, Bjartell A, et al. Comparison of different biopsy schedules in men under active surveillance: analysis of the GAP3 Global Consortium database. J Urol. 2020;203:e1291.
Nieboer D, Tomer A, Rizopoulos D, Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW. Active surveillance: a review of dynamic risk-based surveillance. Transl. Androl Urol. 2018;7:106–15.
Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM Jr., Hoefler J, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, et al. Precision medicine in the active surveillance of prostate cancer: development of the active surveillance biopsy risk calculator of the canary-early detection research network. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1083–8.
Drost FH, Nieboer D, Morgan TM, Carroll PR, Roobol MJ. Movember Foundation Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance C. Predicting Biopsy Results During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: External Validation of Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators Canary in five large active surveillance cohorts. Eur Urol. 2019;76:693–702.
Borque-Fernando A, Rubio-Briones J, Esteban LM, Collado-Serra A, Pallas-Costa Y, Lopez-Gonzalez PA, et al. The management of active surveillance of prostate cancer: validation of the risk calculator of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with the register of the Spanish urological association. Oncotarget 2017;8:108451–62.
Tomer A, Nieboer D, Roobol MJ, Bjartell A, Steyerberg EW, Rizopoulos D, et al. Personalized biopsy schedules based on Gleason upgrade risk for patients with low-risk prostate cancer under active surveillance. BJU Int. 2021;127:96–107.
Moore CM, Parker C. The evolution of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:822–3.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.
Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, et al. Five-year results of magnetic resonance imaging-based active surveillance for prostate cancer: a large cohort study. Eur Urol. 2020;78:443–51.
Ahlberg MS, Adami HO, Beckmann K, Bertilsson H, Bratt O, Cahill D, et al. PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomized active surveillance trial in prostate cancer: rationale and design. BMJ open. 2019;9:e027860.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management, NICE Guideline [NG131] 2019[Availablefrom:https://wwwniceorguk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis[Availablefrom:https://wwwniceorguk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis[Disponiblesur :https://wwwniceorguk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis[Availablefrom:https://wwwniceorguk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis
Manceau C, Fromont G, Beauval JB, Barret E, Brureau L, Crehange G, et al. Biomarker in the active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:4251.