Milea Timbergen

172 (p < 0.001) with a HR of 12.4 (95% CI 4.9%- 31.4%), and 4.8 (95% CI 1.8% to 12.6%), respectively 36 . Patients who experienced pain were also more likely (p < 0.001) to shift to an active form of treatment, with a HR of 2.55 (95% CI 1.63%-3.99%) 36 . Cassidy et al. found no association between intervention (i.e., shift to active treatment) and age (p = 0.22), as well as intervention and sex (p = 0.07) 31 . Table 4. Reported time intervals and survival data to express the success rate of the active surveillance approach Ref. Outcome Median time to intervention Cassidy, 2018 31  11.7 months (±6.5) Van Houdt, 2019 36  6.5 months Median time to progression Salas, 2011 22  19.7 months (range: 7.8-46.2 months) Huang, 2014 28  15.3 months (range 7:.8-41 months) Colombo, 2015 9  16 months Van Broekhoven, 2018 32  7.3 months (IQR: 4.1-11.9 months) Krieg, 2019 34  1.2 years (range: 0.9-1.5 years) Median time to stable disease Barbier, 2010 27  13.2 months (range: 6-30 months) Kim, 2020 37  30.4 months (range: 7-112 months) a Median time to regression Briand, 2014 8  54.8 months (range: 21-130 months) Median progression-free survival Turner, 2019 38  10 months (range: 2-94 months) 2-year progression-free survival De Bruyns, 2019 33  71% (95% CI 0.6% to 0.84%) 3-year progression-free survival Turner, 2019 38  38% Park, 2016 30  92% 5-year progression-free survival Fiore, 2009 14  47% (SE: 10.3%) primary tumours  54% (SE: 11.5%) recurrent tumours 2-year event-free survival Penel, 2017 6  85.7 (±9.6) core needle biopsy  52.8 (±4.6) open biopsy 5-year event-free survival Huang, 2014 28  71.2% a mean value instead of median CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; SE, standard error 6