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
Review
. 2025 Feb 25;15(3):84.
doi: 10.3390/jpm15030084.

A Personalized, Risk-Based Approach to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer with Takeaways from Broader Oncology Practices: A Mixed Methods Review

Affiliations
Review

A Personalized, Risk-Based Approach to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer with Takeaways from Broader Oncology Practices: A Mixed Methods Review

Jeroen J Lodder et al. J Pers Med. .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: To summarize the current state of knowledge regarding personalized, risk-based approaches in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) and to explore the lessons learned from AS practices in other types of cancer. Methods: This mixed methods review combined a systematic review and a narrative review. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic rviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with searches performed in the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases. Only studies evaluating personalized, risk-based AS programs for PCa were included. The narrative review focused on AS approaches in other solid tumors (thyroid, breast, kidney, and bladder cancer) to contextualize the findings and highlight lessons learned. Results: After screening 3137 articles, 9 were suitable for inclusion, describing the following four unique risk-based AS tools: PRIAS, Johns Hopkins, Canary PASS, and STRATCANS. These models were developed using data from men with low-risk (Grade Group 1) disease, with little to no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. They used patient information such as (repeated) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements and biopsy results to predict the risk of upgrading at the next biopsy or at radical prostatectomy, or to assign a patient to a pre-defined risk category with a corresponding pre-defined follow-up (FU) regimen. Performance was moderate across models, with the area under the curve/concordance index values ranging from 0.58 to 0.85 and calibration was generally good. The PRIAS, Canary PASS, and STRATCANS models demonstrated the benefits of less burdensome biopsies, clinic visits, and MRIs during FU when used, compared to current one-size-fits-all practices. Although little is known about risk-based AS in thyroid, breast, kidney, and bladder cancer, learning from their current practices could further refine patient selection, streamline monitoring protocols, and address adoption barriers, improving AS's overall effectiveness in PCa management. Conclusions: Personalized, risk-based AS models allow for a reduction in the FU burden for men at low risk of progression while maintaining sensitive FU visits for those at higher risk. The comparatively limited evidence and practice of risk-based AS in other cancer types highlight the advanced state of AS in PCa.

Keywords: active surveillance; prostatic neoplasms; risk prediction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of the review search.

References

    1. Bray F., Laversanne M., Sung H., Ferlay J., Siegel R.L., Soerjomataram I., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024;74:229–263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Denijs F.B., van Harten M.J., Meenderink J.J.L., Leenen R.C.A., Remmers S., Venderbos L.D.F., van den Bergh R.C.N., Beyer K., Roobol M.J. Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024;27:544–557. doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00852-w. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leenen R.C.A., Venderbos L.D.F., Helleman J., Gomez Rivas J., Vynckier P., Annemans L., Chloupkova R., Majek O., Briers E., Vasilyeva V., et al. Prostate Cancer Early Detection in the European Union and UK. Eur. Urol. 2024;87:326–339. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.07.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hugosson J., Godtman R.A., Wallstrom J., Axcrona U., Bergh A., Egevad L., Geterud K., Khatami A., Socratous A., Spyratou V., et al. Results after Four Years of Screening for Prostate Cancer with PSA and MRI. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024;391:1083–1095. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2406050. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cornford P., van den Bergh R.C.N., Briers E., Van den Broeck T., Brunckhorst O., Darraugh J., Eberli D., De Meerleer G., De Santis M., Farolfi A., et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur. Urol. 2024;86:148–163. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources