281 320
affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the
manuscript (eg, employment/ affiliation, grants or funding, consultan-
cies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties,
or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Westphalen has
served as a scientific advisory board member for 3D Biopsy LLC.
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:
None.
[1_TD$DIFF]
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2016.08.023.
References
[1]
Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BP, Mulders PF, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int 2016;117:392–400.
[2]
Recabal P, Ehdaie B. The role of MRI in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:504–9.[3]
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;313:390–7.
[4]
Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic reso- nance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 2013;189:86–91.
[5]
Kates M, Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Feng Z, Carter HB, Partin AW. Indica- tions for intervention during active surveillance of prostate cancer: a comparison of the Johns Hopkins and Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocols. BJU Int 2015;115:216–22.[6]
Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664–70.[7]
Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, Zorlu F, Ozen H. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 2007;25: 376–82.
[8]
Koie T, Mitsuzuka K, Narita S, et al. A solitary positive prostate cancer biopsy does not predict a unilateral lesion in radical pros- tatectomy specimens. Scand J Urol 2015;49:103–7.[9]
Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;185: 1656–60.
[10]
Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:228–34.[11]
Jung AJ, Westphalen AC, Kurhanewicz J, et al. Clinical utility of endorectal MRI-guided prostate biopsy: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;40:314–23.
[12]
Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic reso- nance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67: 1112–21.
[13]
Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI- RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24:344–52.
[14]
Lin WC, Muglia VF, Silva GE, Chodraui Filho S, Reis RB, Westphalen AC. Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20151056.[15]
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading Committee. 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;40:244–52.[16]
Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, et al. Use of serial multi- parametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2015;33, 202.e1–7.
[17]
Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Trock BJ, Epstein JI. Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. Urology 2014;83:869–74.[18]
Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 2015; 85:423–8.[19]
Anderson CB, Sternberg IA, Karen-Paz G, et al. Age is associated with upgrading at confirmatory biopsy among men with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance. J Urol 2015;194:1607–11.
[20]
Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2015;193:807–11.[21]
Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2795–800.
[22]
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;192:385–90.[23]
Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, 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. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41: 220–5.[24]
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016;122:884–92.[25]
Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. Value of 3-T multi- parametric 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. Invest Radiol 2014;49:165–72.E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 7 5 – 2 8 1
281