References
- Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359-386 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210
- Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 1987;317:909-916 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198710083171501
- Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2239-2246 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031918
- Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320-1328 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084
- European Association Urology. European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2018 edition. Uroweb.org Web site. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/. Published 2018. Accessed March 2, 2019
- Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005;293:2095-2101 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.17.2095
- Albertsen PC. Observational studies and the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:232-237 https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000157
- Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65:1046-1055 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062
- Neal DE, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Davis M, Young GJ, et al. Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received. Eur Urol 2020;77:320-330 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.030
- Borque-Fernando A, Rubio-Briones J, Esteban LM, Dong Y, Calatrava A, Gomez-Ferrer A, et al. Role of the 4Kscore test as a predictor of reclassification in prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019;22:84-90 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0074-5
- Borque-Fernando A, Rubio-Briones J, Esteban LM, Collado-Serra A, Pallas-Costa Y, Lopez-Gonzalez PA, et al. The management of active surveillance in prostate cancer: validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculator with the Spanish Urological Association Registry. Oncotarget 2017;8:108451-108462 https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.21984
- Luzzago S, de Cobelli O, Cozzi G, Peveri G, Bagnardi V, Catellani M, et al. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for active surveillance amongst patients with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) 1 or ISUP GG2 prostate cancer, according to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings. BJU Int 2020;126:104-113 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15048
- Kasivisvanathan V, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. Magnetic resonance imaging should be used in the active surveillance of patients with localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2020;77:318-319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.014
- Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI versus SelectMDx accuracy in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa in men enrolled in active surveillance. In Vivo 2020;34:393-396 https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11786
- Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman D, et al. Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol 2020;77:311-317 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007
- Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, et al. Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 2019;75:300-309 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025
- Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial update. Radiographics 2016;36:1354-1372 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150234
- Gomez Gomez E, Valero Rosa J, Carrasco Valiente J, Trivino Tarradas F, Anglada Curado F, Lopez Ruiz D, et al. New approach to guide target prostate biopsy: technique and initial experience. Urology 2018;121:198-199 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.027
- Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Macura KJ, Simopoulos DN, et al. Active surveillance of grade group 1 prostate cancer: long-term outcomes from a large prospective cohort. Eur Urol 2020;77:675-682 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.017
- Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Alarid-Escudero F, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM, Kuntz KM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance strategies for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2019;75:910-917 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.055
- Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF, Cornford P, Montorsi F, Mottet N, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the European Association of urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 2018;74:357-368 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
- Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A, et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations-a report of a European school of oncology task force. Eur Urol 2017;71:648-655 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011
- Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-822 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
- Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM, Landis P, Wolf S, Macura KJ, et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017;71:174-180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.021
- Hanna N, Wszolek MF, Mojtahed A, Nicaise E, Wu B, Gelpi-Hammerschmidt FJ, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy improves but does not replace standard template biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2019;202:944-951 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000359
- Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2018;122:946-958 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14358
- Carlsson S, Benfante N, Alvim R, Sjoberg DD, Vickers A, Reuter VE, et al. Risk of metastasis in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer managed with active surveillance at a tertiary cancer center. J Urol 2020;203:1117-1121 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000742
- Elkhoury FF, Simopoulos DN, Marks LS. Targeted prostate biopsy in the era of active surveillance. Urology 2018;112:12-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.007
- Cantiello F, Russo GI, Kaufmann S, Cacciamani G, Crocerossa F, Ferro M, et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for patients under active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review with diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019;22:206-220 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0113-2
- Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, van Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017;120:511-519 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13836
- Marliere F, Puech P, Benkirane A, Villers A, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, et al. The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol 2014;32:951-958 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1314-5
- Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hersey K, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012;187:1247-1252 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112
- Giganti F, Kirkham A, Allen C, Punwani S, Orczyk C, Emberton M, et al. Update on multiparametric prostate MRI during active surveillance: current and future trends and role of the PRECISE recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020 Jul [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23985
- Drost FH, Nieboer D, Morgan TM, Carroll PR, Roobol MJ; Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP) Consortium. Predicting biopsy outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer: external validation of the canary prostate active surveillance study risk calculators in five large active surveillance cohorts. Eur Urol 2019;76:693-702 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.041
- Kasabwala K, Patel N, Cricco-Lizza E, Shimpi AA, Weng S, Buchmann RM, et al. The learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2019;2:135-140 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.07.005
- Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Fahey M, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M, et al. Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the movember foundation's global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:80-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.014
- Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340-351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033