Heterogeneity in active surveillance protocols worldwide

Affiliations

¹ The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD.
² Population Health, New York University, New York, NY.
³ Department of Urology New York, NY.

Review

Stacy Loeb et al. Rev Urol. 2014.

. 2014;16(4):202-3.

¹ The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD.
² Population Health, New York University, New York, NY.
³ Department of Urology New York, NY.

No abstract available

References

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2014 Clinical Practice Guidelines: Prostate Cancer. [Accessed June 13, 2014].
1. Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190:1742–1749. - PubMed
1. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:591–595. - PMC - PubMed
1. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Kettermann A, et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol. 2010;183:534–538. - PubMed
1. Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown EC, et al. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:2442–2450. - PMC - PubMed