title: Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW) have been proposed as management strategies for low-risk, localized prostate cancer.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To systematically review strategies for observational management of prostate cancer (AS or WW), factors affecting their utilization, and comparative effectiveness of observational management versus immediate treatment with curative intent.
  
  
  METHODS
  MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (from inception to August 2011).
  
  
  METHODS
  Screened abstracts and reviewed full-text publications to identify eligible studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  One reviewer extracted data, and another verified quantitative data. Two independent reviewers rated study quality and strength of evidence for comparative effectiveness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Sixteen independent cohorts defined AS, 42 studies evaluated factors that affect the use of observational strategies, and 2 evidence reports and 22 recent studies reported comparisons of WW versus treatment with curative intent. The most common eligibility criteria for AS were tumor stage (all cohorts), Gleason score (12 cohorts), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration (10 cohorts), and number of biopsy cores positive for cancer (8 cohorts). For monitoring, studies used combinations of periodic PSA testing (all cohorts), digital rectal examination (14 cohorts), and rebiopsy (14 cohorts). Predictors of receiving no active treatment included older age, comorbid conditions, lower Gleason score, tumor stage, PSA concentration, and favorable risk group. No published studies compared AS with immediate treatment with curative intent. Watchful waiting was generally less effective than treatment with curative intent; however, applicability to contemporary patients may be limited.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Active surveillance and WW often could not be differentiated in the reviewed studies. Published randomized trials have assessed only WW and did not enroll patients diagnosed by PSA screening.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Evidence is insufficient to assess whether AS is an appropriate option for men with localized prostate cancer. A standard definition of AS that clearly distinguishes it from WW is needed to clarify scientific discourse.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
authors.affiliation: Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
authors.forename: Issa J
authors.initials: IJ
authors.lastname: Dahabreh
authors.forename: Mei
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Chung
authors.forename: Ethan M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Balk
authors.forename: Winifred W
authors.initials: WW
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Mathew
authors.forename: Joseph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lau
authors.forename: Stanley
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Ip
mesh_terms: D001706:Biopsy; D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research; D051517:Digital Rectal Examination; D018450:Disease Progression; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D060787:Neoplasm Grading; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D018579:Patient Selection; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000097:blood; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D012307:Risk Factors; D057832:Watchful Waiting
chemical_list: D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen