Cai, Q. et al. Estimates of over-time trends in incidence and mortality of prostate cancer from 1990 to 2030. Transl. Androl. Urol. Apr 9, 196–209 (2020).
Liu, Y., Hall, I. J., Filson, C. & Howard, D. H. Trends in the use of active surveillance and treatments in Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. 39, 432.e1–432.e10 (2021).
Willemse, P. M. et al. Systematic review of active surveillance for clinically localised prostate cancer to develop recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and surveillance repeat biopsy strategy. Eur. Urol. 81, 337–346 (2022).
Gnanapragasam, V. J. et al. Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 124, 758–767 (2019).
Drost, F. H., Nieboer, D., Morgan, T. M., Carroll, P. R. & Roobol, M. J. Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP) consortium. Predicting biopsy outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer: external validation of the canary prostate active surveillance study risk calculators in five large active surveillance cohorts. Eur. Urol. 76, 693–702 (2019).
Tomer, A. et al. Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium. Personalised biopsy schedules based on risk of Gleason upgrading for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int. 127, 96–107 (2021).
Cooperberg, M. R. et al. Tailoring intensity of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer based on individualized prediction of risk stability. JAMA Oncol. 6, e203187 (2020).
Thurtle, D. R., Jenkins, V., Pharoah, P. D. & Gnanapragasam, V. J. Understanding of prognosis in non-metastatic prostate cancer: a randomised comparative study of clinician estimates measured against the PREDICT prostate prognostic model. Br. J. Cancer 121, 715–718 (2019).
Chen, Q. F. et al. Surveillance strategy after complete ablation of initial recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a risk-based machine learning study. J. Vasc. Inter. Radio. 32, 1548–1557.e2 (2021).
Miller, H. A. et al. Evaluation of disease staging and chemotherapeutic response in non-small cell lung cancer from patient tumor-derived metabolomic data. Lung Cancer 156, 20–30 (2021).
Wang, L. et al. Development and validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Mortality Prediction in Selecting Patients With Dementia for Earlier Palliative Care Interventions. JAMA Netw. Open 2, e196972 (2019).
Jones, O. T. et al. Artificial intelligence techniques that may be applied to primary care data to facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer: systematic review. J. Med Internet Res 23, e23483 (2021).
Tran, K. A. et al. Deep learning in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment selection. Genome Med 27, 152 (2021).
Thurtle, D. et al. Progression and treatment rates using an active surveillance protocol incorporating image-guided baseline biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring for men with favourable-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 122, 59–65 (2018).
Caglic, I. et al. MRI-derived PRECISE scores for predicting pathologically-confirmed radiological progression in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Eur. Radio. 31, 2696–2705 (2021).
Moore, C. M. et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations-A report of a European school of oncology task force. Eur. Urol. 71, 648–655 (2017).
Merriel, S. W. D. et al. Prostate cancer UK expert reference group on active surveillance. Best practice in active surveillance for men with prostate cancer: a Prostate Cancer UK consensus statement. BJU Int 1, 47–54 (2019). 2019.
Nayan, M. et al. A machine learning approach to predict progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. 40, 161.e1–161.e7 (2022).
Venderbos, L. D., Luiting, H., Hogenhout, R. & Roobol, M. J. Interaction of MRI and active surveillance in prostate cancer: Time to re-evaluate the active surveillance inclusion criteria. Urol. Oncol. S1078-1439, 00367–7 (2021).
Pavlou, M. et al. How to develop a more accurate risk prediction model when there are few events. BMJ 8, 353:i3235 (2016).
Van Hemelrijck, M. et al. Members of the movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance GAP3 consortium; members of the movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance GAP3 consortium. Reasons for discontinuing active surveillance: assessment of 21 centres in 12 countries in the movember GAP3 consortium. Eur. Urol. 75, 523–531 (2019).
Philippou, Y., Raja, H. & Gnanapragasam, V. J. Active surveillance of prostate cancer: a questionnaire survey of urologists, clinical oncologists and urology nurse specialists across three cancer networks in the United Kingdom. BMC Urol. 13, 15:52 (2015).
Lee, C., Yoon, J. & Schaar, M. V. Dynamic-deephit: A deep learning approach for dynamic survival analysis with competing risks based on longitudinal data. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 67, 122–133 (2020).
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. & May, S. Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modelling of Time-to-Event Data. (John Wiley & Sons, New York 2008).
Uno, H., Cai, T., Pencina, M. J., D’Agostino, R. B. & Wei, L. J. On the C-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data. Stat. Med. 10, 1105–17 (2011).
Lee, C. & van der Schaar, M. Temporal phenotyping using deep predictive clustering of disease progression. Proc. 37th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. 535, 5767–5777 (2020).