http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1642-4495
References
- Dy GW, Gore JL, Forouzanfar MH, et al. Global Burden of Urologic Cancers, 1990-2013. Eur Urol. 2017;71:437–446.
- Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2012;62:68–75.
- Sartor O, Eisenberger M, Kattan MW, et al. Unmet needs in the prediction and detection of metastases in prostate cancer. Oncologist. 2013;18:549–557.
- Lecouvet FE, Geukens D, Stainier A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. Jco. 2007;25:3281–3287.
- Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
- Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU Int. 2016;118:213–220.
- Kivrak AS, Paksoy Y, Erol C, et al. Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient values among different MRI platforms: a multicenter phantom study. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19:433–437.
- Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr., 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.
- OECD Health Statistics [Internet]. 2016. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2016 [cited 2016 Dec 1] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm.
- Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196:1613–1618.
- Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259:453–461.
- Lebovici A, Sfrangeu SA, Feier D, et al. Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness. BMC Med Imaging. 2014;14:15.
- Utsumi T, Oka R, Endo T, et al. External validation and comparison of two nomograms predicting the probability of Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology in two patient populations: a retrospective cohort study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45:1091–1095.
- Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, et al. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:468–475.
- 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;389:815–822.
- Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, et al. Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer. 2017;123:1941–1948.
- Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, 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. Eur Urol. 2016;70:954–960.
- Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, et al. False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging. 2015;6:449–463.
- Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 2013;266:207–217.