Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

[1]  P. Albers,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study , 2020, European Radiology.

[2]  B. Trock,et al.  Five-year Outcomes of Magnetic Resonance Imaging–based Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Large Cohort Study , 2020, European urology.

[3]  C. Catalano,et al.  DWI and PRECISE criteria in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: A multicentre preliminary experience of different ADC calculations. , 2019, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[4]  C. Catalano,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study , 2019, European Radiology.

[5]  G. Pond,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. , 2019, European urology.

[6]  J. Piper,et al.  Sequential prostate MRI reporting in men on active surveillance: initial experience of a dedicated PRECISE software program. , 2019, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[7]  A. Stenzinger,et al.  Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reporting Using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion with Transperineal Saturation Biopsy to Select Men on Active Surveillance. , 2019, European urology focus.

[8]  G. Pond,et al.  Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial. , 2019, European urology.

[9]  S. Punwani,et al.  The natural history of prostate cancer on MRI: lessons from an active surveillance cohort , 2018, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[10]  D. Nieboer,et al.  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 , 2018, BJU international.

[11]  D. Murphy,et al.  Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria , 2018, The Medical journal of Australia.

[12]  Liying Zhang,et al.  The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date , 2018, BJU international.

[13]  F. Giganti,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance—a modern approach , 2018, Translational andrology and urology.

[14]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. , 2017, European urology.

[15]  Brandon Whitcher,et al.  MRI findings in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: does dutasteride make MRI visible lesions less conspicuous? Results from a placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial , 2017, European Radiology.

[16]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  The role of whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient analysis for predicting outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance , 2017, Abdominal Radiology.

[17]  P. Carroll,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. , 2017, European urology.

[18]  Brandon Whitcher,et al.  The Effect of Dutasteride on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Defined Prostate Cancer: MAPPED—A Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Double‐Blind Clinical Trial , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[19]  M. Roobol,et al.  A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recommend a Switch to Active Treatment. , 2016, European urology.

[20]  I. Thompson,et al.  Biases in Recommendations for and Acceptance of Prostate Biopsy Significantly Affect Assessment of Prostate Cancer Risk Factors: Results From Two Large Randomized Clinical Trials. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  H. Lepor,et al.  How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[22]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Men Initially Treated with Active Surveillance. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[23]  D. Margolis,et al.  Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Incremental Value. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[24]  P. Carroll,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[25]  A. Villers,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2015, European urology.

[26]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Prostate Cancer Risk Inflation as a Consequence of Image-targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: A Computer Simulation Study , 2014, European urology.

[27]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[28]  Anna Kettermann,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.