References
- Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379–3385.
- Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer-a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:830–835.
- Thomsen FB, Berg KD, Iversen P, et al. Poor association between the progression criteria in active surveillance and subsequent histopathological findings following radical prostatectomy. Scand J Urol. 2015;49:354–359.
- Guo R, Cai L, Fan Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:221–228.
- Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance–guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Investig Radiol. 2014;49:165–172.
- Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192:385–390.
- Elkjaer MC, Andersen MH, Høyer S, et al. Prostate cancer: in-bore magnetic resonance guided biopsies at active surveillance inclusion improve selection of patients for active treatment. Acta Radiol. 2017. [Jan 1]. DOI:10.1177/0284185117723372
- Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–757.
- Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–1242.
- Marliere F, Puech P, Benkirane A, 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.
- Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–636.
- Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM, et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;71:174–180.
- Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, 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. Eur Urol. 2015;68:438–450.
- 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;313:390–397.
- Dall'Era MA, Klotz L. Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:1–6.
- van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int. 2009;103:1472–1477.
- Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016;196:405–411.
- Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, et al. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:1096–1101.
- Roth H, Millar JL, Cheng AC, et al. The state of TRUS biopsy sepsis: readmissions to Victorian hospitals with TRUS biopsy-related infection over 5 years. BJU Int. 2015;116:49–53.