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.

[1]  S. Shariat,et al.  Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2021, European urology.

[2]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2021, Systematic Reviews.

[3]  I. Tsaur,et al.  Active surveillance , 2020, Ureteroceles.

[4]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[5]  T. Peters,et al.  Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT. , 2020, Health technology assessment.

[6]  M. Roobol,et al.  Prostate cancer upgrading with serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging and repeat biopsy in men on active surveillance: are confirmatory biopsies still necessary? , 2020, BJU international.

[7]  S. Teplitsky,et al.  Impact of Tumor Regional Involvement on Active Surveillance Outcomes: Validation of the Cumulative Cancer Location Metric in a US Population. , 2020, European urology focus.

[8]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). , 2019, European urology.

[9]  L. Holmberg,et al.  PCASTt/SPCG-17—a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design , 2019, BMJ Open.

[10]  J. Witjes,et al.  Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in a Real-life Cohort: Comparing Outcomes for PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible Patients. , 2018, European urology oncology.

[11]  A. Finelli,et al.  Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes , 2018, Translational andrology and urology.

[12]  D. Cahill,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices , 2018, Translational andrology and urology.

[13]  Lurdes Y. T. Inoue,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts , 2018, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  J. Epstein,et al.  Tumor Volume on Biopsy of Low Risk Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[15]  J. Eastham,et al.  An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients. , 2017, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[16]  L. Klotz.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer , 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[17]  N. Zaffaroni,et al.  Eleven-year Management of Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance: What have We Learned? , 2017, Tumori.

[18]  D. Murphy,et al.  Population-based study of grade progression in patients who harboured Gleason 3 + 3 , 2017, World Journal of Urology.

[19]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Role of Hormonal Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients with Nonmetastatic Disease Recurrence After Local Curative Treatment: A Systematic Review. , 2016, European urology.

[20]  P. Carroll,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[21]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Samir S Taneja,et al.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. , 2014, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[23]  S. Eggener,et al.  Development and multi‐institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[24]  Wei Huang,et al.  Impact of immediate TRUS rebiopsy in a patient cohort considering active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. , 2013, Urologic oncology.

[25]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. , 2013, European urology.

[26]  L. Klotz.  Active surveillance: the Canadian experience , 2012, Current opinion in urology.

[27]  P. Santaguida,et al.  Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions , 2012 .

[28]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience , 2011 .

[30]  Alan Horwich,et al.  Prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time , 2009, BJU international.

[31]  L. Bégin,et al.  Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2008, Cancer.

[32]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Predictors of histological disease progression in untreated, localized prostate cancer. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[33]  R Garside,et al.  Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[34]  J. Cheville,et al.  The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. , 2000, The Journal of urology.