Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Macura KJ, Simopoulos DN, et al. Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort. Eur Urol. 2020;77:675–82.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Boyer HD, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, et al. Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. J Urol. 2016;195:313–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chu CE, Cowan JE, Lonergan PE, Washington SL, Fasulo V, de la Calle CM, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Prognostic Value of Serial Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:537–43.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

O’Connor LP, Wang AZ, Yerram NK, Long L, Ahdoot M, Lebastchi AH, et al. Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression for Men on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:227–34.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Liss MA, Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, Garcia MP, Filson CP, Boyer H, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of High Grade Cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. J Urol. 2020;204:701–6.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A Multi-institutional Prospective Trial in the USA Confirms that the 4Kscore Accurately Identifies Men with High-grade Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:464–70.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Punnen S, Freedland SJ, Polascik TJ, Loeb S, Risk MC, Savage S, et al. A Multi-Institutional Prospective Trial Confirms Noninvasive Blood Test Maintains Predictive Value in African American Men. J Urol. 2018;199:1459–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown MD, Sjoberg DD, Dong Y, Brooks JD, et al. Evaluating the Four Kallikrein Panel of the 4Kscore for Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer in Men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Eur Urol. 2017;72:448–54.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Borque-Fernando Á, Rubio-Briones J, Esteban LM, Dong Y, Calatrava A, Gómez-Ferrer Á, et al. Role of the 4Kscore test as a predictor of reclassification in prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22:84–90.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Vince RA, Sun Y, Mahal B, Ginsburg K, George A, Cher M, et al. The Impact of a Statewide Active Surveillance Initiative: A Roadmap for Increasing Active Surveillance Utilization Nationwide. Eur Urol S0302283822024058 (2022).

Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van Der Kwast T, et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial. Eur Urol. 2019;75:300–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Marsden T, McCartan N, Brown L, Rodriguez-Justo M, Syer T, Brembilla G, et al. The ReIMAGINE prostate cancer risk study protocol: A prospective cohort study in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer who are referred onto an MRI-based diagnostic pathway with donation of tissue, blood and urine for biomarker analyses. Plos One. 2022;17:e0259672.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Eng SE, Basasie B, Lam A, John Semmes O, Troyer DA, Clarke GD, et al. Prospective comparison of restriction spectrum imaging and non-invasive biomarkers to predict upgrading on active surveillance prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00591-w (2022).

Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Clements M, Aly M, Annerstedt M, et al. Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1240–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Giganti F, Kirkham A, Allen C, Punwani S, Orczyk C, Emberton M, et al. Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216:943–51.

Article  Google Scholar 

Chesnut GT, Vertosick EA, Benfante N, Sjoberg DD, Fainberg J, Lee T, et al. Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. Eur Urol. 2020;77:501–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Westphalen A, McCulloch C, Anaokar J, Arora S, Barashi N, Barentsz J, et al. Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel. Radiology. 2020;296:1380–1.

Article  Google Scholar 

Esses SJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Imaging Facilities’ Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI. Acad Radio. 2018;25:188–95.

Article  Google Scholar 

Fulgham PF, Rukstalis DB, Turkbey IB, Rubenstein JN, Taneja S, Carroll PR, et al. AUA Policy Statement on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prosate cancer. J Urol. 2017;198:832–8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Besasie BD, Sunnapwar AG, Gao F, Troyer D, Clarke GD, White H, et al. Restriction Spectrum Imaging-Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Improve Prostate Cancer Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2021;206:44–51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al. Compliance Rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) Protocol and Disease Reclassification in Noncompliers. Eur Urol. 2015;68:814–21.

Heinze G, Schemper M. A Solution to the Problem of Separation in Logistic Regression. Stat Med. 2002;21:2409–19.