Recommendations for research

The guideline committee has made the following recommendations for research.

As part of the 2019 update, the guideline committee made additional research recommendations on the follow‑up, diagnosis and progression of prostate cancer.

Key recommendations for research

1 Follow-up during active surveillance

What is the most suitable surveillance protocol (including the role of digital rectal examination [DRE] and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] measures) for people for whom active surveillance is appropriate, as assessed by multiparametric MRI and biopsy, when there are no clinical concerns during follow‑up?

To find out why the committee made the research recommendation on follow‑up during active surveillance, see rationale and impact.

2 Follow-up after radical treatment

What is the most clinically and cost-effective follow‑up protocol for people with prostate cancer who have had radical treatment, with specific regard to risk stratification, duration of follow‑up, frequency of follow‑up appointments, the type of examination or blood tests, and the roles of primary and secondary care in follow‑up?

To find out why the committee made the research recommendation on follow‑up after radical treatment, see rationale and impact.

3 Diagnosis of clinically significant cancer

What is the most clinically and cost-effective pathway for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer?

To find out why the committee made the research recommendation on diagnosing clinically significant cancer, see rationale and impact.

4 Progression of cancer

What is the most clinically and cost-effective pathway for excluding the clinically significant progression of cancer in people with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer?

To find out why the committee made the research recommendation on the clinically significant progression of cancer, see rationale and impact.

5 Natural history of prostate cancer

What is the natural history of people with a Likert score on MRI of less than 3 without biopsy at long-term follow‑up?

To find out why the committee made the research recommendation on diagnosing clinically significant cancer, see rationale and impact.

Other recommendations for research

Diagnosing prostate cancer

In patients with negative MRI (Likert score 1 or 2), what is the next best diagnostic investigation to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?

What is the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal mapping biopsy compared with transperineal non-mapping biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer?

Risk stratification

What is the prognostic value of different risk stratification methods for people with locally advanced prostate cancer?

Zoledronic acid

What is the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different scheduling of zoledronic acid in the prevention and reduction of skeletal events in people with hormone-refractory prostate cancer?

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)