For men enrolled in active surveillance, pre-biopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging significantly reduces the risk of reclassification and disease progression after 1 year

References

• Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer-a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(8):830–835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Briganti A, Fossati N, et al. The problem is not what to do with indolent and harmless prostate cancer-the problem is how to avoid finding these cancers. Eur Urol. 2016;70(4):547–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men: the biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer (BIDOC) study. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(2):e180219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Emberton M, et al. MRI in active surveillance: a critical review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(1):5–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed HU, El-Shater AB, 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(10071):815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, et al. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1112–1121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013;63(1):125–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):17.e1–e7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Association of Urology. Guidelines on prostate cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU; 2012. [cited 2020 Jul 31]. Available from: http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#6
   Google Scholar
• Merisaari H, Jambor I, Ettala O, et al. IMPROD biparametric MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (IMPROD Trial): sensitivity for prostate cancer detection in correlation with whole-mount prostatectomy sections and implications for focal therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;50(5):1641–1650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int. 2015;115(3):381–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barth KB, De Visschere PJL, Cornelius A, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: short dual-pulse sequence versus standard multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study. Radiology. 2017;284(3):725–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thestrup KCD, Løgager V, Boesen L, et al. Comparison of bi- and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to select men for active surveillance. Acta Radiol Open. 2019;8(8):2058460119866352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danish Urological Cancer Group. National guidelines for diagnostic and treatment of Prostate cancer 6.1. Active surveillance and watchful waiting. Denmark: DUCG; 2016. [cited 2020 Jul 31]. Available from: http://ducg.dk/fileadmin/www.ducg.dk/Prostatacancer/Kl._retningslinjer/2017/6.1_Active_surveillance.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):41–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(9):1228–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rstudio Version: SKS 1.1.5. [cited 2020 Jul 31]. Available from: https://www.rstudio.com/
   Google Scholar
• Giganti F, Moore CM. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance-a modern approach. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):116–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):275–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse PPM, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (DETECTIVE study). Eur Urol. 2019;76(6):790–813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations-A report of a European school of oncology task force. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):648–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thestrup KCD, Logager V, Baslev I, et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Radiol Open. 2016;5(8):205846011666304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L. Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Asian J Urol. 2019;6(2):146–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar