References
  1. De Rooij M, Hamon EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO and Rovers MM: Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202: 343-351, 2014.
  2. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313: 390-397, 2015
  3. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54:371-81.
  4. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1019-24.
  5. Alchin DR,  Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N. Risk factors for Gleason score upgrading following radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017 ;69: 459-465.
  6. Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W, et al. A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2019 Oct;37(10):2109-2117. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02634-9. Epub 2019 Jan 16.
  7. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928.
  8. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. (2017) 389:815–22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
  9. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1767–77.
  10. Rührup J, Preisser F, Theißen L, et al. MRI-Fusion Targeted vs. Systematic Prostate Biopsy-How Does the Biopsy Technique Affect Gleason Grade Concordance and Upgrading After Radical Prostatectomy? Front Surg. 2019 Sep 18;6:55. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2019.00055. eCollection 2019.
  11. Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, et al. Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;3(1):10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.001. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
  12. Porpiglia F, DE Luca S, Passera R, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Improves Agreement Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score. Anticancer Res. 2016; 36: 4883-9.
  13. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU Int. 2016 Aug;118(2):213-20.
  14. D. Lea J, Stephensond S, Bruggerd M, et al. MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol. 2014 November ; 192(5): 1367–1373.
  15. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging — Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40.
  16. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al.The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;  40(2):244–52.
  17. Harris PA,Taylor R,Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) –  A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-81.
  18. Harris PA,Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. REDCap Consortium The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019 May 9 [doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208]
  19. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2002; 89: 538-542.
  20. van Luijtelaar A, Bomers J, Fütterer J. A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging techniques used to secure biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2019 Aug;19(8):705-716.
  21. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD012663.
  22. Alshak MN, Patel N, Gross MD, Margolis D, Hu JC. Persistent Discordance in Grade, Stage and NCCN Risk Stratification in Men Undergoing targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy. Urology 2020; 135: 117-123.
  23. Boesen L. Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Dan Med J. 2017 Feb;64(2). pii: B5327.
  24. Drost FJH, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, et al. Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study. Transl Androl Urol  2018; 7 : 98-105.
  25. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Bonekamp D, et al. Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2016; 19: 283-291.
  26. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol. 2008;180:1964-1967.
  27. Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L, et al. Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the sunnybrook experience. J Urol. 2016;196:1651-1658.
  28. Patel HD, Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Adverse pathologic findings for men electing immediate radical prostatectomy: defining a favorable intermediate-risk group. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:89-92.
  29. Tinay I, Aslan G, Kural AR, et al. Pathologic Outcomes of Candidates for Active Surveillance Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Contemporary Turkish Patient Cohort. Urol Int. 2018;100:43-49.
  30. Gondo T, Poonc BY ,Matsumotoa K, Bernsteina M, Sjobergc DD , Easthama JA. Clinical role of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015 January ; 115: 81–86.