Advances in the diagnostic options for prostate cancer

References

• World Health Organization. Cancer Today: Data visualization tools for exploraing the global cancer burden in 2018; 2018 [cited 2020 16 July]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home
   Google Scholar
• Carioli G, Bertuccio P, Boffetta P, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2020 with a focus on prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2020 May;31(5):650–658. PubMed PMID: 32321669; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jan;70(1):7–30. PubMed PMID: 31912902; eng. DOI:10.3322/caac.21590
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, et al. A 16-yr follow-up of the european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):43–51. PubMed PMID: 30824296; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilt TJ, Vo TN, Langsetmo L, et al. Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: extended follow-up of the prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol. 2020 Jun;77(6):713–724. PubMed PMID: 32089359; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2319–2329. PubMed PMID: 30575473; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 2015;314(1):80–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal DE, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, 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 Mar;77(3):320–330. PubMed PMID: 31771797; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das S, Salami SS, Spratt DE, et al. Bringing prostate cancer germline genetics into clinical practice. J Urol. 2019 Aug;202(2):223–230. PubMed PMID: 30730411; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018 Mar;199(3):683–690. Epub 2017 Dec 15. PubMed PMID: 29203269; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent [Article]. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll PH, Mohler JL. NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 May;16(5s):620–623. PubMed PMID: 29784740; eng. DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volk RJ, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, et al. Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Nov;33(5):428–434. PubMed PMID: 17950409; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry MJ, Wexler RM, Brackett CD, et al. Responses to a decision aid on prostate cancer screening in primary care practices. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Oct;49(4):520–525. PubMed PMID: 25960395; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Stam MA, Pieterse AH, van der Poel HG, et al. Shared decision making in prostate cancer care-encouraging every patient to be actively involved in decision making or ensuring the patient preferred level of involvement? J Urol. 2018 Sep;200(3):582–589. PubMed PMID: 29501555; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-González NA, Plate A, Markun S, et al. Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1153–1174. eCollection 2019. PubMed PMID: 31413545; eng.. DOI:10.2147/ppa.S202034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wollersheim BM, van Stam MA, Bosch R, et al. Unmet expectations in prostate cancer patients and their association with decision regret. J Cancer Surviv. 2020 May 8;14(5):731–738. PubMed PMID: 32385837; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, et al. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. Jama. 1999 Dec 22-29;282(24):2313–2320. PubMed PMID: 10612318; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin GA, Aaronson DS, Knight SJ, et al. Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Nov-Dec;59(6):379–390. PubMed PMID: 19841280; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, et al. Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Oct 14;173(18):1704–1712. PubMed PMID: 23896732; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3992617. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vromans RD, van Eenbergen MC, Pauws SC, et al. Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment - A systematic review. Urol Oncol. 2019 Jul;37(7):409–429. Epub 2019 Apr 30. PubMed PMID: 31053529; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu GS, Andriole GL. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. J National Cancer Inst Monog. 2012 Dec;201245:146–151. PubMed PMID: 23271765; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3540879. eng. DOI:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs031
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansson JE. Expectant management of early stage prostatic cancer: Swedish experience. J Urol. 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1753–1756. PubMed PMID: 7933233; eng. DOI:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)32378-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, et al. Impact of comorbidity on survival among men with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 1;29(10):1335–1341. PubMed PMID: 21357791; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3084001 found at the end of this article. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1310–1319. PubMed PMID: 19297565; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2944770. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. New Eng j med. 2012 Mar 15;366(11):981–990. PubMed PMID: 22417251; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6027585. eng. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1113135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 17;157(2):120–134. PubMed PMID: 22801674; eng. DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Reconsidering prostate cancer mortality - the future of PSA screening. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1557–1563. PubMed PMID: 32294352; eng. DOI:10.1056/NEJMms1914228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch HG, Gorski DH, Albertsen PC. Trends in Metastatic Breast and Prostate Cancer–Lessons in Cancer Dynamics. N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 29;373(18):1685–1687. PubMed PMID: 26510017; eng. DOI:10.1056/NEJMp1510443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiner AB, Matulewicz RS, Eggener SE, et al. Increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in the United States (2004-2013). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016 Dec;19(4):395–397. PubMed PMID: 27431496; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu JC, Nguyen P, Mao J, et al. Increase in prostate cancer distant metastases at diagnosis in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 1;3(5):705–707. PubMed PMID: 28033446; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5470389 Intuitive Surgical and Genomic Health. Dr Nguyen reported consulting for Ferring and Nanobiotix. No other disclosures were reported. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinsky PF, Miller E, Prorok P, et al. Extended follow-up for prostate cancer incidence and mortality among participants in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian randomized cancer screening trial. BJU Int. 2019 May;123(5):854–860. PubMed PMID: 30288918; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6450783. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoag JE, Mittal S, Hu JC. Reevaluating PSA testing rates in the PLCO Trial. N Engl J Med. 2016 May 5;374(18):1795–1796. PubMed PMID: 27144870; eng. DOI:10.1056/NEJMc1515131
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsodikov A, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk EAM, et al. Reconciling the effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167(7):449–455. PubMed PMID: 28869989; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5734053. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Jama. 2018 May 8;319(18):1901–1913. PubMed PMID: 29801017; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers AJ, Ulmert D, Sjoberg DD, et al. Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2013 Apr;15(346):f2023. PubMed PMID: 23596126; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3933251 www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that HL holds patents for free PSA, intact PSA, and hK2 assays; HL, AJV, and PTS are named as co-inventors on a patent application for a statistical method to predict the result of prostate biopsy; HL has support from NIH, Swedish Cancer Society, and Arctic Partners; PS has support from OPKO Health; and AV has support from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Genomic Heath for the submitted work; HL has a patent and stock relationship with Arctic Partners; PS has a consultancy, patent, stock, and royalties relationship with OPKO; AV has a consultation and honorarium relationship with GSK, Genomic Heath, and OPKO. eng. DOI:10.1136/bmj.f2023
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr., et al. Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 1990 Jun;143(6):1146–52;discussion 1152–4. PubMed PMID: 1692885; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Telesca D, Etzioni R, Gulati R. Estimating lead time and overdiagnosis associated with PSA screening from prostate cancer incidence trends. Biometrics. 2008 Mar;64(1):10–19. PubMed PMID: 17501937; eng. DOI:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00825.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 27;350(22):2239–2246. PubMed PMID: 15163773; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen SB, Brasso K, Iversen P, et al. Baseline prostate-specific antigen measurements and subsequent prostate cancer risk in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort. Eur j cancer. 2013 Sep;49(14):3041–3048. PubMed PMID: 23684783; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4074899. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulmert D, Cronin AM, Björk T, et al. Prostate-specific antigen at or before age 50 as a predictor of advanced prostate cancer diagnosed up to 25 years later: a case-control study. BMC Med. 2008 Feb;15(6):6. PubMed PMID: 18279502; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2275744. eng. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-6-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston MA, Gerke T, Carlsson SV, et al. Baseline Prostate-specific Antigen Level in Midlife and Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Black Men. Eur Urol. 2019 Mar;75(3):399–407. PubMed PMID: 30237027; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6390280. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijnsdijk EAM, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lifetime Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer. JNCI. 2020. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djaa001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin RM, Donovan JL, Turner EL, et al. Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama. 2018 Mar 6;319(9):883–895. PubMed PMID: 29509864; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5885905 Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley RW, Maweni RM, Gorman L, et al. European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators significantly outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) 2.0 in the prediction of prostate cancer: a multi-institutional study. BJU Int. 2016 Nov;118(5):706–713. PubMed PMID: 26833820; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ankerst DP, Straubinger J, Selig K, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Cohorts. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):197–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, et al. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2015 May;26(5):848–864. PubMed PMID: 25403590; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poyet C, Nieboer D, Bhindi B, et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort. BJU Int. 2016 Mar;117(3):401–408. PubMed PMID: 26332503; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira-Azevedo N, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, et al. Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome. Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Feb 7;7(1):18–26. PubMed PMID: 29594016; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5861294. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, et al. Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):310–318. PubMed PMID: 30082150; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, et al. Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):888–896. PubMed PMID: 28400169; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saba K, Wettstein MS, Lieger L, et al. External validation and comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020 Apr;203(4):719–726. PubMed PMID: 31651228; eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortezavi A, Palsdottir T, Eklund M, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Conventional, and Image- and Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. Eur Urol Focus. 2020 May 22. PubMed PMID: 32451315; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.euf.2020.05.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16–40. PubMed PMID: 26427566; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6467207. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, 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 Sep;76(3):340–351. PubMed PMID: 30898406; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE Guidance. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management: © NICE (2019) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. BJU Int. 2019 Jul;124(1):9–26. PubMed PMID: 31206997; eng.. DOI:10.1111/bju.14809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Feb 25;389(10071):815–822. PubMed PMID: 28110982; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767–1777. PubMed PMID: 29552975; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Apr 25;4(4):Cd012663. PubMed PMID: 31022301; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6483565 Ewout W Steyerberg reports the following relevant financial activities outside the submitted work: receives royalties from Springer for the textbook entitled Clinical Prediction Models Chris H Bangma: none known Monique J Roobol: none known Ivo G Schoots reports the following relevant activities related to the submitted work: a guideline associate panel member of the EAU–ESTRO–ESUR–SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. PubMed PMID: 32130814; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390–397. PubMed PMID: 25626035; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4572575. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):570–578. PubMed PMID: 30477981; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2020 Apr;203(4):706–712. PubMed PMID: 31642740; eng..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barth BK, Rupp NJ, Cornelius A, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Curr Urol. 2019 Mar 8;12(2):88–96. PubMed PMID: 31114466; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6504800. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baur AD, Daqqaq T, Wagner M, et al. T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol. 2016 Jun;85(6):1075–1084. PubMed PMID: 27161055; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2017 May;90:192–197. PubMed PMID: 28583633; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al. Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Feb;45(2):579–585. PubMed PMID: 27391860; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Jul 5;(4):592–599. PubMed PMID: 29226826; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, et al. Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. Radiology. 2020 Jul;296(1):76–84. PubMed PMID: 32315265; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management [NG131]: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2019. [cited 2020 July 3]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10057/documents/draft-guideline
   Google Scholar
• Brizmohun Appayya M, Adshead J, Ahmed HU, et al. National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2018 Jul;122(1):13–25. PubMed PMID: 29699001; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6334741. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latifoltojar A, Appayya MB, Barrett T, et al. Similarities and differences between Likert and PIRADS v2.1 scores of prostate multiparametric MRI: a pictorial review of histology-validated cases. Clin Radiol. 2019 Nov;74(11):895.e1-895.e15. PubMed PMID: 31627804; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M, et al. Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2020 Jan;125(1):49–55. PubMed PMID: 31599113; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Pantelidou M, et al. Comparison of Likert and PI-RADS version 2 MRI scoring systems for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J radiol. 2020 Aug;93(1112):20200298. PubMed PMID: 32479105; eng. DOI:10.1259/bjr.20200298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, et al. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): A new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur urol oncol. 2020 Jul 6. PubMed PMID: 32646850; eng. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020 May 19. PubMed PMID: 32424596; eng. DOI:10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leest M, Israël B, Cornel EB, et al. High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility. Eur Urol. 2019 Nov;76(5):574–581. PubMed PMID: 31167748; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter KK, King A, Galgano SJ, et al. Financial implications of biparametric prostate MRI. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Mar;23(1):88–93. PubMed PMID: 31239513; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alabousi M, Salameh JP, Gusenbauer K, et al. Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2019 Aug;124(2):209–220. PubMed PMID: 30929292; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, et al. Abbreviated Biparametric Versus Standard Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Feb;212(2):357–365. PubMed PMID: 30512996; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Salmi I, Menezes T, El-Khodary M, et al. Prospective evaluation of the value of dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging for prostate cancer detection, with pathology correlation. Can J Urol. 2020 Jun;27(3):10220–10227. PubMed PMID: 32544044; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosaily AE, Frangou E, Ahmed HU, et al. Additional Value of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Sequences in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Data from the PROMIS Study. Eur Urol. 2020 Apr 17. PubMed PMID: 32312543; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taghipour M, Ziaei A, Alessandrino F, et al. Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Apr;44(4):1520–1527. PubMed PMID: 30361870; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6440804. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G, et al. Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI). Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 May;44(5):1883–1893. PubMed PMID: 30788558; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Shaida N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2020 Jul;30(7):4039–4049. PubMed PMID: 32166495; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy Naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Aug 19. PubMed PMID: 32812795; eng. DOI:10.2214/ajr.20.24268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock M, Eggert T, Palisaar RJ, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound of the prostate: adding contrast enhanced ultrasound to real-time elastography to detect histopathologically confirmed cancer. J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):93–98. PubMed PMID: 23164379; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema A, Mischi M, de la Rosette J, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1651–1659. PubMed PMID: 25761736; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4617844. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannaerts CK, Wildeboer RR, Remmers S, et al. Multiparametric Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization: Correlation of B-mode, Shear Wave Elastography and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound with Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. J Urol. 2019 Dec;202(6):1166–1173. PubMed PMID: 31246546; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):569–576. PubMed PMID: 25257029; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allan RW, Sanderson H, Epstein JI. Correlation of minute (0.5 MM or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific antigen density. J Urol. 2003 Aug;170(2 Pt 1):370–372. PubMed PMID: 12853777; eng. DOI:10.1097/01.ju.0000074747.72993.cb
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radwan MH, Yan Y, Luly JR, et al. Prostate-specific antigen density predicts adverse pathology and increased risk of biochemical failure. Urology. 2007 Jun;69(6):1121–1127. PubMed PMID: 17572199; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018 Apr;21(1):57–63. PubMed PMID: 29259293; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Görtz M, Radtke JP, Hatiboglu G, et al. The Value of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Strategy to Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Dec 12. PubMed PMID: 31839564; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.012
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Falagario UG, Martini A, Wajswol E, et al. Avoiding Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Biopsies: Negative and Positive Predictive Value of MRI According to Prostate-specific Antigen Density, 4Kscore and Risk Calculators. Eur urol oncol. 2019 Sep 20. PubMed PMID: 31548130; eng. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikolajczyk SD, Marks LS, Partin AW, et al. Free prostate-specific antigen in serum is becoming more complex. Urology. 2002 Jun;59(6):797–802. PubMed PMID: 12031356; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin AW, Brawer MK, Subong EN, et al. Prospective evaluation of percent free-PSA and complexed-PSA for early detection of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1998 Jun 1;(4):197–203. PubMed PMID: 12496895; eng. DOI:10.1038/sj.pcan.4500232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filella X, Giménez N. Evaluation of [−2] proPSA and Prostate Health Index (phi) for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013 Apr;51(4):729–739. PubMed PMID: 23154423; eng. DOI:10.1515/cclm-2012-0410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, et al. A multicenter study of [−2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1650–1655. PubMed PMID: 21419439; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3140702. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Catalona WJ. The Prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol. 2014 Apr;6(2):74–77. PubMed PMID: 24688603; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3943368. eng.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015 Apr;193(4):1163–1169. PubMed PMID: 25463993; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4404198. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo GI, Regis F, Castelli T, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Prostate Health Index and 4-Kallikrein Panel Score in Predicting Overall and High-grade Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Aug;15(4):429–439.e1. Epub 2016 Dec 30. PubMed PMID: 28111174; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, et al. Serum isoform [−2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol. 2013 Jun;63(6):986–994. PubMed PMID: 23375961; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu PK, Ng CF, Semjonow A, et al. A Multicentre Evaluation of the Role of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in Regions with Differing Prevalence of Prostate Cancer: Adjustment of PHI Reference Ranges is Needed for European and Asian Settings. Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):558–561. PubMed PMID: 30396635; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):464–470. PubMed PMID: 25454615; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zappala SM, Scardino PT, Okrongly D, et al. Clinical performance of the 4Kscore Test to predict high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy: A meta-analysis of us and European clinical validation study results. Rev Urol. 2017;19(3):149–155. PubMed PMID: 29302237; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5737341. eng. DOI:10.3909/riu0776
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Darst BF, Chou A, Wan P, et al. The Four-Kallikrein Panel Is Effective in Identifying Aggressive Prostate Cancer in a Multiethnic Population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Jul;29(7):1381–1388. PubMed PMID: 32385116; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7334056. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deras IL, Aubin SM, Blase A, et al. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. J Urol. 2008 Apr;179(4):1587–1592. PubMed PMID: 18295257; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui Y, Cao W, Li Q, et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer antigen 3 for detecting prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016 May;10(6):25776. PubMed PMID: 27161545; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4861967. eng. DOI:10.1038/srep25776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlins SA, Aubin SM, Siddiqui J, et al. Urine TMPRSS2: ERGfusion transcript stratifies prostate cancer risk in men with elevated serum PSA. Sci Transl Med. 2011 Aug 3;3(94):94ra72. PubMed PMID: 21813756; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3245713. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson A, Graff RE, Bauer SR, et al. The TMPRSS2: ERGrearrangement, ERG expression, and prostate cancer outcomes: a cohort study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Sep;21(9):1497–1509. PubMed PMID: 22736790; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3671609. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leyten GH, Hessels D, Jannink SA, et al. Prospective multicentre evaluation of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic and prognostic urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014 Mar;65(3):534–542. PubMed PMID: 23201468; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlins SA, Day JR, Lonigro RJ, et al. Urine TMPRSS2: ERGPlus PCA3 for Individualized Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment. Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):45–53. PubMed PMID: 25985884; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4644724. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanda MG, Feng Z, Howard DH, et al. Association Between Combined TMPRSS2: ERGand PCA3 RNA Urinary Testing and Detection of Aggressive Prostate Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;3(8):1085–1093. PubMed PMID: 28520829; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5710334 Hospital have been issued a patent on the detection of ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer, on which Drs Tomlins, Rubin, and Chinnayian are listed as coinventors. The diagnostic field of use has been licensed to Hologic/GenProbe Inc, which sublicensed rights to Ventana Medical Systems Inc. Dr Tomlins has received honoraria from and has served as a consultant to Ventana Medical Systems. Dr Chinnayian has served as consultant to GenProbe Inc and Ventana Medical Systems. For Dr Rubin, the invention is disclosed and handled under Cornell University’s financial conflict of interest related to research policy (https://www.dfa.cornell.edu/tools-library/policies/financial-conflict-interest-related-research). Drs Chinnaiyan and Tomlins have conflict of interest management plans in place that were developed by the University of Michigan Medical School conflict of interest board. The Medical School conflict of interest board is charged with reviewing all disclosures by faculty members and/or professional staff and recommending appropriate conflict management if appropriate. Details of the University of Michigan Medical School conflict of interest board’s policies and procedures can be found at http://research-compliance.umich.edu/operations-manual-conflicts-interest-and-commitment. Dr Groskopf is an employee of Hologic Inc, the manufacturer of the Progensa PCA3 assay and licensee of the diagnostic field of use for TMPRSS2: ERG.Dr Thompson has served as consultant for Exosome Diagnostics. Dr Wei has research collaborations with NCI, Hologic, and Exosome Inc; he has also been on the speaker bureau for Metamark. Among the EDRN-PCA3 Study Group authors, Dr Bidair is investigator for prostate cancer studies with Amgen, Aragon, Astellas, Bayer, Bavarian Nordic and Nymox; he was previously a consultant on an advisory board for prostate cancer for Astellas. Dr Kibel is a consultant for Dendreon, Sanofi Aventis, Tokai, Profound, and MTG. Dr Lin has research collaborations with NCI, DOD, Hologic, Genomic Health Inc, and GenomeDx; he is a consultant for Astellas. Dr Taneja is a consultant for Hitachi-Aloka and advisory board member for Opko; he is also a scientific investigator for Trod Medical. No other disclosures are reported. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, O’Neill V, et al. A Novel Urine Exosome Gene Expression Assay to Predict High-grade Prostate Cancer at Initial Biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jul 1;2(7):882–889. PubMed PMID: 27032035; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, Margolis E, et al. A Prospective Adaptive Utility Trial to Validate Performance of a Novel Urine Exosome Gene Expression Assay to Predict High-grade Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prostate-specific Antigen 2-10ng/ml at Initial Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2018 Dec;74(6):731–738. PubMed PMID: 30237023; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutrone R, Donovan MJ, Torkler P, et al. Clinical utility of the exosome based ExoDx Prostate(IntelliScore) EPI test in men presenting for initial Biopsy with a PSA 2-10 ng/mL. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 May 7. PubMed PMID: 32382078; eng. DOI:10.1038/s41391-020-0237-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, et al. Detection of High-grade Prostate Cancer Using a Urinary Molecular Biomarker-Based Risk Score. Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):740–748. PubMed PMID: 27108162; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haese A, Trooskens G, Steyaert S, et al. Multicenter Optimization and Validation of a 2-Gene mRNA Urine Test for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer before Initial Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2019 Aug;202(2):256–263. PubMed PMID: 31026217; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govers TM, Caba L, Resnick MJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Urinary Biomarker Panel in Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment. J Urol. 2018 Dec;200(6):1221–1226. PubMed PMID: 30012363; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govers TM, Hessels D, Vlaeminck-Guillem V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of SelectMDx for prostate cancer in four European countries: a comparative modeling study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Mar;22(1):101–109. PubMed PMID: 30127462; eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordström T, Vickers A, Assel M, et al. Comparison Between the Four-kallikrein Panel and Prostate Health Index for Predicting Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):139–146. PubMed PMID: 25151013; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4503229. eng.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysock JS, Becher E, Persily J, et al. Concordance and Performance of 4Kscore and SelectMDx for Informing Decision to Perform Prostate Biopsy and Detection of Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2020 Apr;12(141):119–124. PubMed PMID: 32294481; eng. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2020.02.032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar