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

[1]  Z. Ji,et al.  Re: Transperineal Template Guided Prostate Biopsy Selects Candidates for Active Surveillance-How Many Cores are Enough?: K. N. Pham, C. R. Porter, K. Odem-Davis, E. M. Wolff, C. Jeldres, J. T. Wei and T. M. Morgan J Urol 2015;194:674-679. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[2]  J. Eastham,et al.  Age is Associated with Upgrading at Confirmatory Biopsy among Men with Prostate Cancer Treated with Active Surveillance. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[3]  Ruth Etzioni,et al.  Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. , 2015, European urology.

[4]  D. Nieboer,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, European urology.

[5]  John T. Wei,et al.  Transperineal Template Guided Prostate Biopsy Selects Candidates for Active Surveillance--How Many Cores are Enough? , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[6]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[7]  A. Ouzzane,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy Improves Selection of Patients Considered for Active Surveillance for Clinically Low Risk Prostate Cancer Based on Systematic Biopsies. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[9]  R. Guo,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis , 2015, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease.

[10]  P. Choyke,et al.  Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[11]  J. Bernhard,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. , 2015, European urology.

[12]  F. Beuvon,et al.  Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies--should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? , 2015, The Journal of urology.

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

[14]  David Y. Lu,et al.  Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. , 2015, European urology.

[15]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[16]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[17]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  G. Pond,et al.  A prospective comparison of MRI‐US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound‐guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  U. Capitanio,et al.  The number of cores at first biopsy may suggest the need for a confirmatory biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance-implication for clinical decision making in the real-life setting. , 2014, Urology.

[20]  M. Meng,et al.  Prostate Cancer Predictors of Pathologic Progression on Biopsy Among Men on Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer : The Value of the Pattern of Surveillance Biopsies , 2013 .

[21]  D. Margolis,et al.  Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[22]  D. Moses,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[23]  H. Jeon,et al.  Role of multiparametric 3.0‐Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance , 2014, BJU international.

[24]  S. Vowler,et al.  Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[25]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  J. Epstein,et al.  Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[27]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. , 2013, European urology.

[28]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[29]  P. Choyke,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[30]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? , 2013, Radiology.

[31]  A. Partin,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low‐risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance , 2013, BJU international.

[32]  Fang-Ming Deng,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization--a multiple-reader study. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[33]  H. Hricak,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[34]  M. Melamed,et al.  Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[35]  A. Mottrie,et al.  Age‐adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low‐risk prostate cancer patients , 2012, Cancer.

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

[37]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[38]  Theodorus H van der Kwast,et al.  The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. , 2011, European urology.

[39]  Lars Egevad,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[40]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. , 2010, Radiology.

[41]  A. Hoznek,et al.  The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. , 2009, European urology.

[42]  L. Klotz.  Nomogram for predicting survival in men with clinically localized prostate cancer who do not undergo definitive therapy , 2008, Nature Clinical Practice Urology.

[43]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.

[44]  E. Metter,et al.  Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[45]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[46]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[47]  T Tango,et al.  Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample design. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[48]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[49]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes. , 2015, Urology.

[50]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[51]  A. Kibel.  Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Confirming Eligibility for Active Surveillance for Men With Prostate Cancer , 2014 .

[52]  Pär Stattin,et al.  Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. , 2013, European urology.

[53]  Lars Egevad,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[54]  Liang Cheng,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins , 2011, Modern Pathology.