Active surveillance or radical prostatectomy? Which treatment is best?

Objective: We evaluated the patients who are candidates for active surveillance and treated with radical prostatectomy. These patients were compared with other patients who had not met the criteria of active surveillance.
Methods: In total, 135 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups. The patients in Group 1 had less than three positive cores, Gleason 6 (3 + 3) and PSA level equal to or less than 10 ng/ml. Patients in Group 2 had three or more positive cores, Gleason 6 (3 + 3) and PSA level equal to or higher than 10 ng/ml. Pathological results of each groups were compared.
Results: The patients' ages were between 52 and 76, and 50 and 77 in groups 1 and 2, retrospectively. There were 69 and 66 patients in groups 1 and 2, retrospectively. The mean age of patients, PSA levels, PSA density, and prostate volumes were 63.89 ± 5.89 years, 5.82 ± 1.84 ng/ml, 0.14 ± 0.07 and 51.21 ± 31.75 cc (Group 1) and 65.77 ± 6.36 years, 13.65 ± 17.11 ng/ml, 0.63 ± 1.03 and 45.44 ± 26.77 cc (Group 2). T2a, T2c, T3a and T3b were reported in 28 patients, 36 patients, 3 patients and 2 patients after pathological evaluation in Group 1,respectively. T2a, T2c, T3a and T3b were reported in 13 patients, 47 patients, 5 patients and 1 patient in the other group, respectively.
Conclusion: The final pathology showed that there is no difference in the positive surgical margin, proportion of insignificant prostate cancer and Gleason upgrading between groups. The clinicians must be aware of the fact that active surveillance can be misdiagnosed in some patients (Tab. 2, Ref. 20).