National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Prostate Cancer. Version 1.2023. Published: 16 September 2022. In.

Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part II: considerations for a prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2023;210:54–63.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part I: introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. J Urol. 2022;208:10–18.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Walker CH, Marchetti KA, Singhal U, Morgan TM. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes. World J Urol. 2022;40:35–42.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cooperberg M, Meeks W, Fang R, Gaylis F, Catalona W, Makarov D. MP43-03 Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: time trends and variation in the AUA Quality (AQUA) registry. J Urol. 2022;207(Supplement 5):e740.

Botejue M, Abbott D, Danella J, Fonshell C, Ginzburg S, Guzzo TJ, et al. Active surveillance as initial management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: data from the PURC. J Urol. 2019;201:929–36.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kim HL, Li P, Huang HC, Deheshi S, Marti T, Knudsen B, et al. Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22:399–405.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Herlemann A, Huang HC, Alam R, Tosoian JJ, Kim HL, Klein EA, et al. Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:136–43.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Falagario UG, Beksac AT, Martini A, Cumarasamy S, Gupta A, Prasad S, et al. Defining prostate cancer at favorable intermediate risk: the potential utility of magnetic resonance imaging and genomic tests. J Urol. 2019;202:102–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Helfand BT, Paterakos M, Wang CH, Talaty P, Abran J, Bennett J, et al. The 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score assay as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0273782.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tosoian JJ, Chappidi MR, Bishoff JT, Freedland SJ, Reid J, Brawer M, et al. Prognostic utility of biopsy-derived cell cycle progression score in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy: implications for treatment guidance. BJU Int. 2017;120:808–14.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kidd LC, Loecher M, Ahmed N, Terzian J, Song J, Reese AC. Prostate cancer active surveillance outcomes in a cohort composed primarily of African American and Hispanic American Men. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:730.e731–730.e738.

Article  Google Scholar 

Seiden B, Weng S, Sun N, Gordon D, Harris WN, Barnett J, et al. NCCN risk reclassification in black men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer after genomic testing. Urology. 2022;163:81–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nyame YA, Grimberg DC, Greene DJ, Gupta K, Kartha GK, Berglund R, et al. Genomic scores are independent of disease volume in men with favorable risk prostate cancer: implications for choosing men for active surveillance. J Urol. 2018;199:438–44.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gaffney C, Golan R, Cantu MD, Scognamiglio T, McCarthy H, Mosquera JM, et al. The clinical utility of the genomic prostate score in men with very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;202:96–101.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lynch JA, Rothney MP, Salup RR, Ercole CE, Mathur SC, Duchene DA, et al. Improving risk stratification among veterans diagnosed with prostate cancer: impact of the 17-gene prostate score assay. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24:S4–s10.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Auffenberg GB, Lane BR, Linsell S, Brachulis A, Ye Z, Rakic N, et al. A roadmap for improving the management of favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;198:1220–2.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sood A, Kishan AU, Evans CP, Feng FY, Morgan TM, Murphy DG, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography imaging and tumor molecular profiling on risk stratification, treatment choice, and oncological outcomes of patients with primary or relapsed prostate cancer: an international collaborative review of the existing literature. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;7:27–43.

Hu JC, Tosoian JJ, Qi J, Kaye D, Johnson A, Linsell S, et al. Clinical utility of gene expression classifiers in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:PO.18.00163.

Makarov DV, Chrouser K, Gore JL, Maranchie J, Nielsen ME, Saigal C, et al. AUA white paper on implementation of shared decision making into urological practice. Urol Pract. 2016;3:355–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mitchell JM, Gresenz CR. Association between receipt of definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer and adverse health outcomes: a claims-based approach. Value Health. 2022.

Hanna B, Ranasinghe W, Lawrentschuk N. Risk stratification and avoiding overtreatment in localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29:612–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Abdelhafez A, Hosny K, El-Nahas AR, Liew M. The health-related quality of life in patients with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite survey: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2022;20:61–70.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lardas M, Liew M, van den Bergh RC, De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Van den Broeck T, et al. Quality of life outcomes after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:869–85.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gustavsen G, Gullet L, Cole D, Lewine N, Bishoff JT. Economic burden of illness associated with localized prostate cancer in the United States. Future Oncol. 2020;16:4265–77.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Aizer AA, Gu X, Chen MH, Choueiri TK, Martin NE, Efstathiou JA, et al. Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:61–68.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McIntosh M, Opozda MJ, O’Callaghan M, Vincent AD, Galvão DA, Short CE. Why do men with prostate cancer discontinue active surveillance for definitive treatment? A mixed methods investigation. Psychooncology. 2022;31:1420–30.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

van Stam MA, van der Poel HG, van der Voort van Zyp JRN, Tillier CN, Horenblas S, Aaronson NK, et al. The accuracy of patients’ perceptions of the risks associated with localised prostate cancer treatments. BJU Int. 2018;121:405–14.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES. NCCN guidelines updates: management of prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:583–6.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cuzick J, Stone S, Fisher G, Yang ZH, North BV, Berney DM, et al. Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:382–9.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cuzick J, Swanson GP, Fisher G, Brothman AR, Berney DM, Reid JE, et al. Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:245–55.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Tward J, Lenz L, Flake DD II, Rajamani S, Yonover P, Olsson C, et al. The Clinical Cell-Cycle Risk (CCR) score is associated with metastasis after radiation therapy and provides guidance on when to forgo combined androgen deprivation therapy with dose-escalated radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;113:66–76.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tward JD, Schlomm T, Bardot S, Canter DJ, Scroggins T, Freedland SJ, et al. Personalizing localized prostate cancer: validation of a combined clinical cell-cycle risk (CCR) score threshold for prognosticating benefit from multimodality therapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021;19:296–304.e293.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Canter DJ, Reid J, Latsis M, Variano M, Halat S, Rajamani S, et al. Comparison of the prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score for predicting clinical outcomes in African American and Non-African American men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75:515–22.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sommariva S, Tarricone R, Lazzeri M, Ricciardi W, Montorsi F. Prognostic value of the cell cycle progression score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:107–15.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lin DW, Crawford ED, Keane T, Evans B, Reid J, Rajamani S, et al. Identification of men with low-risk biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer as candidates for active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:310.e317–310.e313.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP, Litwin MS, Latini DM, Du Chane J, et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;173:1938–42.