References
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2019;69(1):7-34.
2. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2016;40(2):244-52.
3. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. The Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027-35.
4. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. The Journal of urology. 2011;186(5):1818-24.
5. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. European urology. 2016;69(1):16-40.
6. Ting F, Van Leeuwen PJ, Thompson J, Shnier R, Moses D, Delprado W, et al. Assessment of the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy against a combined targeted plus systematic biopsy approach using 24-core transperineal template saturation mapping prostate biopsy. Prostate cancer. 2016;2016.
7. Özden E, Akpınar Ç, İbiş A, Kubilay E, Erden A, Yaman Ö. Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectal-ultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2021;47(1):22.
8. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. The Journal of urology. 2013;190(4):1213-7.
9. Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E. EAU Guidelines edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona. 2019.
10. Caverly TJ, Hayward RA, Reamer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Connochie D, Heisler M, et al. Presentation of benefits and harms in US cancer screening and prevention guidelines: systematic review. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2016;108(6).
11. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Lilja H, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. European urology. 2015;68(3):354-60.
12. Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology. 2017;283(1):119-29.
13. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. The American journal of surgical pathology. 1997;21(5):566-76.
14. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti Jr JC, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007;69(3):495-9.
15. Arsov C, Becker N, Rabenalt R, Hiester A, Quentin M, Dietzel F, et al. The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology. 2015;141(11):2061-8.
16. Morlacco A, Sharma V, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Carlson RE, Froemming AT, et al. The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer staging before radical prostatectomy. European urology. 2017;71(5):701-4.
17. Lebacle C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Moktefi A, Bouanane M, De La Taille A, Salomon L. Integration of MRI to clinical nomogram for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy. World journal of urology. 2017;35(9):1409-15.
18. Nassiri N, Chang E, Lieu P, Priester AM, Margolis DJ, Huang J, et al. Focal therapy eligibility determined by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy. The Journal of urology. 2018;199(2):453-8.
19. Kattan MW, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society. 1997;79(3):528-37.
20. Toledano AY, Obuchowski NA. Methods for quantitative imaging biomarker studies. Handbook for Clinical Trials of Imaging and Image‐Guided Interventions. 2016:170-88.
21. Felker ER, Margolis DJ, Nassiri N, Marks LS, editors. Prostate cancer risk stratification with magnetic resonance imaging. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations; 2016: Elsevier.
22. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358(12):1250-61.
23. Ho R, Siddiqui MM, George AK, Frye T, Kilchevsky A, Fascelli M, et al. Preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157313.
24. Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Borghesi M, Dababneh H, Chessa F, Pultrone CV, et al. MRI displays the prostatic cancer anatomy and improves the bundles management before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Journal of endourology. 2018;32(4):315-21.
25. Dvorak T, Chen M-H, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, Richie JP, D’Amico AV. Maximal tumor diameter and the risk of PSA failure in men with specimen-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 2005;66(5):1024-8.
26. Tonttila PP, Kuisma M, Pääkkö E, Hirvikoski P, Vaarala MH. Lesion size on prostate magnetic resonance imaging predicts adverse radical prostatectomy pathology. Scandinavian journal of urology. 2018;52(2):111-5.
27. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the prospective assessment of image registration in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PAIREDCAP) study. JAMA surgery. 2019;154(9):811-8.