Increasing consensus on eligibility criteria for active surveillance

A paper in the journal Virchows Archiv suggests increasing consensus on both inclusion criteria for management on active surveillance and progression criteria suggesting the need for active treatment.

The paper, by Montironi et al., is entitled “Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist“, which gives a clear indication of the importance of appropriate pathological evidence in the selection of patients who are appropriate candidates for active surveillance  and in evaluation of patients over time in order to determine who needs to come off active surveillance and be given active treatment.

Unfortunately, the abstract of this paper contains no details about the areas of consensus, and so the abstract alone is of little value from a practical perspective. What is evident, however, is that the 15 authors of the paper include several respected leaders in the field of active surveillance research.

The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink is trying to obtain a full text copy of this article so that we can communicate any really key points from this consensus statement to our readers.

6 Responses

  1. I’m glad to see such a document, and glad to see that Dr. Laurence Klotz is one of the 24 authors.

    However, I’m curious that the following leaders in active surveillance are not included: Dr. Peter Carroll, UCSF; Dr. H. Ballentine Carter, JHU; Dr. Peter Scardino, MSK; Dr. Richard Babaian, Anderson; and Dr. Fritz Schröder, Erasmus Medical Center.

    I’m looking forward to any changes from the 2007 consensus statement from the group of experts led by Dr. Carroll.

  2. The consensus statement about the role of the pathologist in AS was also published last week in the Archives of Pathology. You can read the full text at this link.

  3. Thank you Allen. I’ll have a look at the full text in the Archives of Pathology the morning

  4. Hi Jim! This is a consensus statement about the role of pathologists in AS rather than about AS overall.

  5. Allen (and other readers):

    I have had a chance to have a quick look through the article in the Archives of Pathology this morning. It is long and it is detailed, and I am going to need time to read through this with care before making any sensible comment. Since I shall be traveling all day today, it is unlikely that I shall be able to get to this until (at the earliest) some time late tomorrow, but I shall definitely get back to this as soon as I can.

  6. Thanks Allen and Sitemaster.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: