Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 May-Jun;9(5-6):171-8.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2806.

Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations

Affiliations

Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations

Chris Morash et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 May-Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: The objective is to provide guidance on the role of active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer patients and to ensure that AS is offered to appropriate patients assessed by a standardized protocol. Prostate cancer is often a slowly progressive or sometimes non-progressive indolent disease diagnosed at an early stage with localized tumours that are unlikely to cause morbidity or death. Standard active treatments for prostate cancer include radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), but the harms from over diagnosis and overtreatment are of a significant concern. AS is increasingly being considered as a management strategy to avoid or delay the potential harms caused by unnecessary radical treatment.

Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, guideline databases and relevant meeting proceedings was performed and a systematic review of identified evidence was synthesized to make recommendations relating to the role of AS in the management of localized prostate cancer.

Results: No exiting guidelines or reviews were suitable for use in the synthesis of evidence for the recommendations, but 59 reports of primary studies were identified. Due to studies being either non-comparative or heterogeneous, pooled meta-analyses were not conducted.

Conclusion: The working group concluded that for patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤6) localized prostate cancer, AS is the preferred disease management strategy. Active treatment (RP or RT) is appropriate for patients with intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7) localized prostate cancer. For select patients with low-volume Gleason 3+4=7 localized prostate cancer, AS can be considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic diagram showing results from the primary literature search.

References

    1. Dahabreh I, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:582–90. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: Implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63:892–901. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liu JJ, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, et al. Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. Pathology. 2014;46:306–10. doi: 10.1097/PAT.0000000000000097. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kravchick S, Peled R, Cytron S. Watchful waiting and active surveillance approach in patients with low risk localized prostatic cancer: An experience of out-patients clinic with 12-year follow-up. Pathol Oncol Res. 2011;17:893–7. doi: 10.1007/s12253-011-9400-0. - DOI - PubMed