Gomez Veiga Francisco, Portela Pereira Paula, Vazquez-Martul Pazos Dario, Pertega Diaz Sonia, Martinez Breijo Sara, Mendez Diaz Cristina, Rodríguez Esther
Servicio de Urología. Servicio de Epidemiología y Estadística. Servicio de Radiología. CHUAC. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña.Hospital Universitario de Salamanca. Salamanca. España.
Arch Esp Urol. 2014 Jun;67(5):495-508.
Active treatment in localized prostate cancer, in its various types, is assumed as a valid alternative. The effect of the possible overtreatment has raised that options such as active surveillance are offered as an alternative to active treatments, without evidence about its validity in many points. The objective of this study is to analyze the current controversies to define candidates to this alternative, follow up criteria, impact on quality of life and evidence bases to do it.
We perform an analysis updating the Medline search with the terms localized prostate cancer and active surveillance, analyzing the articles and their evidence, as well as guidelines recommendations.
Selection criteria for candidates to active surveillance are heterogeneous, without evidence of uniformity. Likewise, follow up and its criteria or progression are not well defined. The impact on progression, or delay in decision-making, have not been analyzed and we lack of studies of highest evidence including comparative studies for cancer specific or global survival results.
Although AS seems to be a reasonable alternative in many patients with localized prostate cancer, we still need to define many features of inclusion and decision-making. Comparative studies are needed to better define selection and validity of active surveillance.
