Timo Soeterik

41 Active Surveillance: Patient Selection REFERENCES 1. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Progress and promise. J Clin Onco l. 2011;29:3669-3676. 2. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: The PRIAS study. Eur Urol . 2013;63:597-603. 3. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) -A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform . 2009;42:377-381. 4. Matulewicz RS, Weiner AB, Schaeffer EM. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. JAMA . 2017;318:2152. 5. van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schröder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective Validation of Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: The PRIAS Study. Eur Urol . 2007;52:1560-1563. 6. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the Definition of Biochemical Recurrence in Patients Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer: The American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel Report and Recommendations for a Standard in the Reporting of surgical outcome. J Urol . 2007;177:540-545. 7. Dall’Era M, Klotz L. Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. Curr Urol Rep . 2017;18:1-6. 8. Perlis N, Klotz L. Contemporary Active Surveillance: Candidate Selection, Follow-up Tools, and Expected Outcomes. Urol ClinNorth Am . 2017;44:565-574. 9. Bul M, Van Den Bergh RCN, Zhu X, et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen- detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int . 2012;110:1672-1677. 10. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Pihl CG, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Long-term Results of Active Surveillance in the Göteborg Randomized, Population-basedProstate Cancer Screening Trial. Eur Urol . 2016;70:760-766. 11. Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L, et al. Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes in the Sunnybrook Experience. J Urol . 2016;196: 1651-1658. 12. Nyame YA, Almassi N, Haywood SC, et al. Intermediate-Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance. J Urol . 2017;198:591-599. 13. Jeffrey J. Tosoian, H. Ballentine Carter, Abbey Lepor and SL. Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Contemporary State of Practice. Nat Rev Urol . 2016;116:1477-1490. 14. Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P. Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol . 2014;191:350-357. 15. Reese AC, Landis P, Han M, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at johns hopkins: A preliminary analysis. J Urol . 2013;190:2033-2038. 16. Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Carter HB. Risk Stratification of Men Choosing Surveillance for Low Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol . 2010;183:1779-1785. 17. San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM, Garnick MB, Bubley G, Dewolf WC. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol . 2011;185:471-476. 18. Barayan GA, Brimo F, Bégin LR, et al. Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: A McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int . 2014;114:E99-E104. 19. Mamawala MM, Rao K, Landis P, et al. Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. BJU Int . 2017;120:25-31. 2