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.