Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Emmett L, Buteau J, Papa N, Moon D, Thompson J, Roberts MJ, et al. The Additive Diagnostic Value of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography to Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Triage in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PRIMARY): A Prospective Multicentre Study. Eur Urol. 2021;80:682–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.08.002.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, Davies L, Kasivisvanathan V, Punwani S, et al. Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;78:402–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wadera A, Alabousi M, Pozdnyakov A, Kashif Al-Ghita M, Jafri A, McInnes MD, et al. Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. 2021;94:20191050. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20191050.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wang RS, Kim EH, Vetter JM, Fowler KJ, Shetty AS, Mintz AJ, et al. Determination of the Role of Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate in Clinical Practice: Is Biopsy Still Necessary? Urology. 2017;102:190–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.040.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;73:353–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.021.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chiu PK, Leow JJ, Chiang CH, Mok A, Zhang K, Hsieh PF, et al. Prostate Health Index Density Outperforms Prostate-specific Antigen Density in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: A Multicenter Evaluation. J Urol. 2023;210:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000003450.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A, Ettala O, Stabile A, Taimen P, et al. Combined Use of Prostate-specific Antigen Density and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Biopsy Decision Planning: A Retrospective Multi-institutional Study Using the Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:971–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.014.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Oishi M, Shin T, Ohe C, Nassiri N, Palmer SL, Aron M, et al. Which Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Can Safely Avoid Biopsy for Prostate Cancer? J Urol. 2019;201:268–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.046.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gan JM, Kikano EG, Smith DA, Rao S, Podury R, Wang M, et al. Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection After a Negative Prebiopsy MRI Examination: Comparison of Biparametric Versus Multiparametric MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;218:859–66. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.21.26569.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Shi J, Li D, Chen M, Fu Y, Peng S, Zhang Q, et al. The Value of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MRI for Classifying Patients with PI-RADS 3 Lesions on Multiparametric MRI: A Prospective Single-Center Study. J Nucl Med. 2024. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.266742.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Emmett L, Papa N, Buteau J, Ho B, Liu V, Roberts M, et al. The PRIMARY Score: Using Intraprostatic (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT Patterns to Optimize Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:1644–50. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263448.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Guo S, Kang F, Ma S, Jiao J, Ren J, Wang J, et al. The PRIMARY Score: Diagnostic Performance and Added Value Compared With MRI in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2024;49:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000004951.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tang W, Tang Y, Qi L, Zhang Y, Tang G, Gao X, et al. Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia-Related False-Positive of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: The Achilles’ Heel of Biopsy-Free Radical Prostatectomy? J Urol. 2023;210:845–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000003680.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhang J, Kang F, Gao J, Jiao J, Quan Z, Ma S, et al. A Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET-Based Approach for Improved Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Gleason Grade Group 1: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:1750–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.265001.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Yang J, Li J, Xiao L, Zhou M, Fang Z, Cai Y, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT-based multivariate model for highly accurate and noninvasive diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in the PSA gray zone. Cancer Imaging. 2023;23:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-023-00562-x.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jiao J, Kang F, Zhang J, Quan Z, Wen W, Zhao X, et al. Establishment and prospective validation of an SUV(max) cutoff value to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer from benign prostate diseases in patients with suspected prostate cancer by (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT: a real-world study. Theranostics. 2021;11:8396–411. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.58140.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gao X, Tang Y, Chen M, Li J, Yin H, Gan Y, et al. A prospective comparative study of [(68)Ga]Ga-RM26 and [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT imaging in suspicious prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:2177–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06142-2.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Ceci F, Cho S, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1014–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Qiu DX, Li J, Zhang JW, Chen MF, Gao XM, Tang YX, et al. Dual-tracer PET/CT-targeted, mpMRI-targeted, systematic biopsy, and combined biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:2821–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05636-1.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Calais J, Ceci F, et al. PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM procedure guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for prostate cancer imaging 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:1466–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-06089-w.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lv J, Yu H, Yin H, Shi Y, Shi H. A single-center, multi-factor, retrospective study to improve the diagnostic accuracy of primary prostate cancer using [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 total-body PET/CT imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024;51:919–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06464-1.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Liu C, Liu T, Zhang Z, Zhang N, Du P, Yang Y, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT Combined with PET/Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy Can Diagnose Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men with Previous Negative Biopsy Results. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:1314–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.235333.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

van Leenders G, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, Evans AJ, Kristiansen G, Kweldam CF, et al. 2020. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 44:e87-e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000001497.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Schoots IG, Padhani AR. Risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int. 2021;127:175–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15277.

Article