Editorial Comment to: SAMS: A randomized study comparing two different follow-up schedules for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer

摘要

The current manuscript describes a prospective, mul-ticentre study of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer based on a randomized part comparing standard re-biopsy and follow-up with an extensive initial re-biopsy coupled with less intensive follow-up with no further scheduled biopsies (SAMS-FU), as well as an observational part (SAMS-ObsQoL). Before challenging any part or elements of the study,, it is crucial to acknowledge that we are lacking randomized trials on active surveillance and any well designed and performed study should be welcome and encouraged. Nevertheless, as much as we desire more light in darkness, critical issues need to be addressed. Active surveillance certainly is one of the keys to solve issues related to over- or under-treatment and may also partly solve the screening debate. However, we have to agree that the tools available to accomplish an accurate AS strategy are far from denned or standardized.