• 1
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 1130
  • 2
    Sinnott M, Falzarano SM, Hernandez AV et al. Discrepancy in prostate cancer localization between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens in patients with unilateral positive biopsy: implications for focal therapy. Prostate 2012; 72: 11791186
  • 3
    Han M, Chang D, Kim C et al. Geometric evaluation of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2012; 188: 24042409
  • 4
    Roobol MJ, Carlsson SV. Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening. Nat Rev Urol 2012; 10: 3848
  • 5
    Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 10191024
  • 6
    Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A et al. Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J Urol 2012; 188: 781785
  • 7
    Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 477494
  • 8
    Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 177184
  • 9
    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: 125140
  • 10
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746757
  • 11
    Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR et al. Prostate cancer, Version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012; 10: 10811087
  • 12
    Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011; 186: 22142220
  • 13
    Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, Wang CY, de la Roza G. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008; 15: 38663871
  • 14
    Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 2012; 188: 21522157
  • 15
    Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS. Targeted prostate biopsy: opportunities and challenges in the era of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2012; 188: 10721073
  • 16
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 17321738
  • 17
    Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 23: 4350
  • 18
    Lavery HJ, Droller MJ. Do Gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease States? J Urol 2012; 188: 16671675
  • 19
    Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 762768
  • 20
    Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulié M et al. Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 2012; 80: 656660
  • 21
    Stoianovici D. Technology advances for prostate biopsy and needle therapies. J Urol 2012; 188: 10741075
  • 22
    Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 462468
  • 23
    Wong LM, Neal DE, Johnston RB et al. International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 14671473
  • 24
    Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 16361647
  • 25
    Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 575590
  • 26
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011; 259: 775784
  • 27
    Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A et al. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 962977
  • 28
    Kuru TH, Roethke M, Popeneciu V et al. Phantom study of a novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating preinterventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasonography fusion. J Endourol 2012; 26: 807813