Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer

  • Luke Witherspoon
  • Rodney H. Breau
  • Luke T. LavalléeEmail author
Topic Paper


Active surveillance is a good management option for some men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we examine the evidence for several topics related to active surveillance. We examine: (1) which patients should be eligible for active surveillance, (2) what follow-up (monitoring) protocols should be used for men on surveillance, (3) what is the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on surveillance, and (4) what is the prognosis for men who choose surveillance compared to radical treatment. In many instances, the evidence is evolving or lacking. In these situations, we highlight the limitations of the data.


Active surveillance Prostate cancer Prostate cancer screening Shared decision-making 



  1. 1.
    Wong MCS, Goggins WB, Wang HHX et al (2016) Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 70:862–874. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C et al (2015) Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 9:171–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol 199:990–997. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI et al (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:3379–3385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K et al (2011) Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 185:477–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson JE, Hayen A, Landau A et al (2015) Medium-term oncological outcomes for extended vs saturation biopsy and transrectal vs transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:884–891. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marenghi C, Alvisi MF, Palorini F et al (2017) Eleven-year management of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: what have we learned? Tumori 103:464–474. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Boyer HD et al (2016) Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort. J Urol 195:313–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cristea O, Lavallée LT, Montroy J et al (2016) Active surveillance in Canadian men with low-grade prostate cancer. CMAJ 188:E141–E147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    da Silva V, Cagiannos I, Lavallée LT et al (2017) An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients. Can Urol Assoc J 11:238–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M et al (2012) Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 62:462–468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management guidance and guidelines NICE. Accessed 19 Aug 2018
  16. 16.
    Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2013) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 189:S12–S17. (discussion S17-18) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Inoue LYT, Lin DW, Newcomb LF et al (2018) Comparative analysis of biopsy upgrading in four prostate cancer active surveillance cohorts. Ann Int Med 168:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nieboer D, Tomer A, Rizopoulos D et al (2018) Active surveillance: a review of risk-based, dynamic monitoring. Transl Androl Urol 7:106–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loeb S, Zhou Q, Siebert U et al (2017) Active surveillance versus watchful waiting for localized prostate cancer: a model to inform decisions. Eur Urol 72:899–907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Alarid-Escudero F et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance strategies for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al (2015) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 67:619–626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA et al (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:1606–1612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ et al (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1728–1734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Soubra A et al (2018) Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 389:815–822. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spectrum bias—why clinicians need to be cautious when applying diagnostic test studies Family Practice Oxford Academic. Accessed 7 Nov 2018
  29. 29.
    Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F et al (2018) Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J (2005) 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293:2095–2101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF et al (2011) Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:228–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H et al (2015) Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 193:807–811. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367:203–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ et al (2017) Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA 317:1126–1140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryThe Ottawa Hospital and University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations