Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR, Leapman MS, Rannikko A, Petrides N, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:151–67.
Kinsella N, Helleman J, Bruinsma S, Carlsson S, Cahill D, Brown C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:83–97.
Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Cek M, Grabe M, et al. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:521–7.
Ploussard G, Renard-Penna R. MRI-guided active surveillance in prostate cancer: not yet ready for practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2021;18:77–8.
Cary KC, Cowan JE, Sanford M, Shinohara K, Perez N, Chan JM, et al. Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:337–42.
Ganesan V, Dai C, Nyame YA, Greene DJ, Almassi N, Hettel D, et al. Prognostic significance of a negative confirmatory biopsy on reclassification among men on active surveillance. Urology. 2017;107:184–9.
Singh S, Sandhu P, Beckmann K, Santaolalla A, Dewan K, Clovis S, et al. Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment. BJUI Int. 2021;128:72–8.
Wong LM, Alibhai SM, Trottier G, Timilshina N, Van der Kwast T, Zlotta A, et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression. Eur Urol. 2014;66:406–13.
Kearns JT, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, et al. Role of surveillance biopsy with no cancer as a prognostic marker for reclassification: results from the canary prostate active surveillance study. Eur Urol. 2018;73:706–12.
Bruinsma SM, Zhang L, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Nieboer D, et al. The Movember Foundation’s GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date. BJU Int. 2018;121:737–44.
Lewicki P, Shoag J, Golombos DM, Oromendia C, Ballman KV, Halpern JA, et al. Prognostic significance of a negative prostate biopsy: an analysis of subjects enrolled in a prostate cancer screening trial. J Urol. 2017;197:1014–9.
Chu CE, Cowan JE, Fasulo V, Washington SL 3rd, de la Calle C, Shoemaker J, et al. The clinical significance of multiple negative surveillance prostate biopsies for men on active surveillance-does cancer vanish or simply hide? J Urol. 2021;205:109–14.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92.
Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al. Compliance rates with the prostate cancer research international active surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol. 2015;68:814–21.
Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Fahey M, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, et al. Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:80–91.
Loeb S, Curnyn C, Fagerlin A, Braithwaite RS, Schwartz MD, Lepor H, et al. Qualitative study on decision-making by prostate cancer physicians during active surveillance. BJU Int. 2017;120:32–9.
Xu J, Neale AV, Dailey RK, Eggly S, Schwartz KL. Patient perspective on watchful waiting/active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25:763–70.
Beckmann K, Cahill D, Brown C, Van Hemelrijck M, Kinsella J. Understanding reasons for non-adherence to acitve surveillance for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:2728–36.
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:597–603.
Beckmann K, Bangma C, Helleman J, Santaolalla A, Nieboer D, Bjartell A, et al. Comparison of different biopsy schedules among men on active surveillance: analysis of the GAP3 Global Consortium database. J Urol. 2020;203:e1291.
Nieboer D, Tomer A, Rizopoulos D, Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW. Active surveillance: a review of risk-based, dynamic monitoring. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:106–15.
Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM Jr., Hoefler J, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the canary-early detection research network active surveillance biopsy risk calculator. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1083–8.
Drost FH, Nieboer D, Morgan TM, Carroll PR, Roobol MJ. Movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance C. 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. 2019;76:693–702.
Borque-Fernando A, Rubio-Briones J, Esteban LM, Collado-Serra A, Pallas-Costa Y, Lopez-Gonzalez PA, et al. The management of active surveillance in prostate cancer: validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculator with the Spanish Urological Association Registry. Oncotarget 2017;8:108451–62.
Tomer A, Nieboer D, Roobol MJ, Bjartell A, Steyerberg EW, Rizopoulos D, et al. Personalised biopsy schedules based on risk of Gleason upgrading for patients with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int. 2021;127:96–107.
Moore CM, Parker C. The evolution of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:822–3.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.
Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Trock B, Punwani S, Allen C, Kirkham A, et al. Five-year outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging-based active surveillance for prostate cancer: a large cohort study. Eur Urol. 2020;78:443–51.
Ahlberg MS, Adami HO, Beckmann K, Bertilsson H, Bratt O, Cahill D, et al. PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e027860.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and management, NICE Guideline [NG131] 2019 [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis.
Manceau C, Fromont G, Beauval JB, Barret E, Brureau L, Crehange G, et al. Biomarker in active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:4251.