Active surveillance eligibility of MRI-positive patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer: a pathological study

[1]  C. Lallas,et al.  Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer, A Population-Based Analysis. , 2021, Urology.

[2]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Evaluating the Safety of Active Surveillance: Outcomes of Deferred Radical Prostatectomy after an Initial Period of Surveillance. , 2019, The Journal of urology.

[3]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Genomic Prostate Score, PI-RADS™ version 2 and Progression in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance , 2019, The Journal of urology.

[4]  P. Stattin,et al.  Defining Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Suitable for Active Surveillance , 2019, The Journal of urology.

[5]  Clayton P Smith,et al.  Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer? , 2019, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  D. Portalez,et al.  Refining the risk-stratification of transrectal biopsy-detected prostate cancer by elastic fusion registration transperineal biopsies , 2019, World Journal of Urology.

[7]  J. Stolzenburg,et al.  Rate of misclassification in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy but fulfilling active surveillance criteria according to the European Association of Urology guidelines on prostate cancer: a high-volume center experience. , 2018, Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology.

[8]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  How can we expand active surveillance criteria in patients with low‐ and intermediate‐risk prostate cancer without increasing the risk of misclassification? Development of a novel risk calculator , 2018, BJU international.

[9]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  François Cornud,et al.  Precision Matters in MR Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: Evidence from a Prospective Study of Cognitive and Elastic Fusion Registration Transrectal Biopsies. , 2018, Radiology.

[11]  Janet E Cowan,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. , 2017, European urology.

[12]  J. Hardenberg,et al.  Precision of MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: an ex vivo comparison of alternative biopsy techniques on prostate phantoms , 2017, World Journal of Urology.

[13]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men? , 2017, European urology.

[14]  P. Carroll,et al.  Management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance: never or sometimes? , 2017, Current opinion in urology.

[15]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. , 2017, European urology.

[16]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes in the Sunnybrook Experience. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[17]  P. Choyke,et al.  Efficiency of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis by MR/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy vs Standard Extended-Sextant Biopsy for MR-Visible Lesions. , 2016, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

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

[19]  P. Stattin,et al.  Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.

[20]  P. Stattin,et al.  Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[21]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen‐detected localized prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.

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

[23]  A. Hoznek,et al.  Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance--does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[24]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2009, Urology.

[25]  P. Carroll,et al.  Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[26]  A. Haese*,et al.  Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low‐risk prostate cancer , 2008, Cancer.

[27]  A. Haese*,et al.  CURRENTLY USED CRITERIA FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE IN MEN WITH LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER. AN ANALYSIS OF PATHOLOGICAL FEATURES , 2008 .

[28]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.