ReviewAsian journal of urology2025
Risk of reclassification and novel tools in active surveillance.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Low-risk prostate cancer usually has an indolent course, and in this scenario, active surveillance (AS) is currently the preferred management, reducing overtreatment without compromising oncologic outcomes in well-selected patients. Two pillars of this strategy are patient selection and adequate monitoring strategy to detect early progression, leading to active treatment in the window of curability. The aim of this review is to assess the novel available tools and their role in AS. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of the current literature addressing the risk of reclassification and studies evaluating traditional and emerging diagnostic and prognostic tools, including imaging modalities, biomarkers, and genomic classifiers, which could decrease reclassification rates and minimize the burden of serial exams during follow-up and, especially, the frequency of biopsies, which are still necessary to evaluate progression. Results: The most significant follow-up cohorts demonstrate long-term treatment rates ranging from 30% to 45%, and 36% of low-risk prostate cancer patients have an upgrade in radical prostatectomy specimens. Despite the emergence of new diagnostic and prognostic tools, few of them have been validated or included in the assessment of eligible patients for AS. In the current guidelines, a combination of cT stage, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen value, prostate-specific antigen density, and number of positive cores in biopsy is used to select patients for AS. However, various risk factors have been associated with the risk of reclassification, which reveals the need to incorporate better tools that may contribute to better risk stratification of patients eligible for AS. Conclusion: Although AS is feasible and safe, the risk of progression is of great concern for patients and physicians, and monitoring is also an important part of the therapeutic strategy. Novel risk stratification tools are promising but need further validation to improve results and decrease the burden and anxiety that monitoring can bring to patients.
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.