Timo Soeterik

55 Active Surveillance: Follow-up REFERENCES 1. Bruinsma SM, Bokhorst LP, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH. How Often is Biopsy Necessary in Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance? J Urol . 2016;195:11-12. 2. Loeb S, Berglund A, Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol . 2013;190:1742-1749. 3. Weerakoon M, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: A pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int . 2015;115:50-56. 4. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C, Robinson D, Bratt O, Stattin P. Uptake of active surveillance for very-Low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol . 2017;3:1393-1398. 5. 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. 6. Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov D V. How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States. J Urol . 2016;196:721-726. 7. Azmi A, Dillon RA, Borghesi S, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: diversity of practice across Europe. Ir J Med Sci . 2015;184:305-311. 8. Mitsuzuka K, Koga H, Sugimoto M, et al. Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: A nationwide survey in Japan. Int J Urol . 2015;22:754-759. 9. 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. 10. Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Biesma DH, Witjes JA, van Basten JPA. Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in a Real-life Cohort: Comparing Outcomes for PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible Patients. Eur Urol Oncol . 2018;1:231-237. 11. 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. 12. Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recommend a Switch to Active Treatment. Eur Urol . 2016;70:954-960. 13. Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, et al. Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol . 2015;68:814-821. 14. Barnett CL, Auffenberg GB, Cheng Z, et al. Optimizing active surveillance strategies to balance the competing goals of early detection of grade progression and minimizing harm from biopsies. Cancer . 2018;124:698-705. 15. Kearns JT, Faino A V., Newcomb LF, et al. Role of Surveillance Biopsy with No Cancer as a Prognostic Marker for Reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study[Formula presented]. Eur Urol . 2018;73:706-712. 16. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol . 2015;33:272-277. 17. 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. 18. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol . 2013;64:981-987. 19. Thompson JE, Hayen A, Landau A, et al. Medium-term oncological outcomes for extended vs saturation biopsy and transrectal vs transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int . 2015;115 (6):884-891. 3