ArticleRadiology2021
Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness.
Article in Radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-level simulation models in cancer care: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic discordance in outside prostate biopsies: Implications for active surveillance patient selection.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Feasibility of water vapor thermal therapy for treating lower urinary tract symptoms in men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance: a case series.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
- A Personalized, Risk-Based Approach to Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer with Takeaways from Broader Oncology Practices: A Mixed Methods Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Recommendations from Imaging, Oncology, and Radiology Organizations to Guide Management in Prostate Cancer: Summary of Current Recommendations.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Review
- Upgrading of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer at Prostatectomy: Germline Risk Factors in a Prospective Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Contemporary Review of Multimodality Imaging of the Prostate Gland.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Let's Go 3D! New Generation of Models for Evaluating Drug Response and Resistance in Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Delta radiomic patterns on serial bi-parametric MRI are associated with pathologic upgrading in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: preliminary findings.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Influence of Active Surveillance on Gleason Score Upgrade and Prognosis in Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Contemporary Strategies for Clinical Chemoprevention of Localized Prostate Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Surveillance varies in MRI, frequency of follow-up, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score that would repeat biopsy. Purpose To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AS strategies for low-risk PC with versus without MRI. Materials and Methods This study developed a mathematical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies in a simulation of men with a diagnosis of low-risk PC. The following strategies were compared: watchful waiting, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and annual biopsy without MRI, and PSA testing and MRI with varied PI-RADS thresholds for biopsy. MRI strategies differed regarding scheduling and use of PI-RADS score of at least 3, or a PI-RADS score of at least 4 to indicate the need for biopsy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by using microsimulation. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of varying parameter values on results. Results For the base case of 60-year-old men, all strategies incorporating prostate MRI extended QALYs and life-years compared with watchful waiting and non-MRI strategies. Annual MRI strategies yielded 16.19 QALYs, annual biopsy with no MRI yielded 16.14 QALYs, and watchful waiting yielded 15.94 QALYs. Annual MRI with PI-RADS score of at least 3 or of at least 4 as the biopsy threshold and annual MRI with biopsy even after MRI with negative findings offered similar QALYs and the same unadjusted life expectancy: 23.05 life-years. However, a PI-RADS score of at least 4 yielded 42% fewer lifetime biopsies. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY, annual MRI with biopsy for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater was most cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $67 221 per QALY). Age, treatment type, risk of initial grade misclassification, and quality-of-life impact of procedural complications affected results. Conclusion The use of active surveillance (AS) with biopsy decisions guided by findings from annual MRI reduces the number of biopsies while preserving life expectancy and quality of life. Biopsy in lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater is likely the most cost-effective AS strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer who are younger than 70 years. © RSNA, 2021
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.