ReviewEuropean urology focus2021
When and How Should Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer be De-Escalated?
Review in European urology focus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging for long-term active surveillance biopsy decision-making.BJU international · 2025Article
- Is MRI ready to replace biopsy during active surveillance?European radiology · 2024Review
- Validation of a prognostic blood-based sphingolipid panel for men with localized prostate cancer followed on active surveillance.Biomarker research · 2024Article
- Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe?European radiology · 2024Review
- Establishing a model predicting Gleason grade group upgrading in prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- The Severity of Pain in Prostate Biopsy Depends on the Biopsy Sector.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Association Between a 22-feature Genomic Classifier and Biopsy Gleason Upgrade During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.European urology open science · 2022Article
- Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite widespread adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer, less is known about how or when monitoring should be deintensified. We performed a narrative review of the available evidence and guidelines addressing transitions from active to passive monitoring, including watchful waiting. Increasing age and comorbidity limit quality-adjusted life years gained from curative intervention, although no universal thresholds exist to denote a transition from active monitoring. Despite observational studies indicating that AS intensity decreases over time, the risk of distant progression also increases with age, suggesting an opportunity to improve decision support that incorporates multiple factors when navigating these decisions. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the available evidence surrounding transitioning from active monitoring to observation. Clinical practice guidelines and research studies support decreasing intensity based on an appreciation of age, other medical problems, and patient preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.