1. Taitt, HE . Global trends and prostate cancer: A review of incidence, detection, and mortality as influenced by race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Am J Mens Health 2018; 12(6): 1807–1823.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and management: NICE guideline [NG131], 2019, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131 (accessed 25 March 2021).
Google Scholar3. Davies, C, Castle, JT, Stalbow, K, et al. Prostate mpMRI in the UK: The state of the nation. Clin Radiol 2019; 74(11): 894.e11–894.e18.
Google Scholar | Crossref4. Sokhi, HK, Padhani, AR, Patel, S, et al. Diagnostic yields in patients with suspected prostate cancer undergoing MRI as the first-line investigation in routine practice. Clin Radiol 2020; 75(12): 950–956.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Van der Leest, M, Cornel, E, Israël, B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: A large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019; 75(4): 570–578.
Google Scholar | Medline6. Baco, E, Rud, E, Eri, LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 2016; 69(1): 149–156.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Tonttila, PP, Lantto, J, Pääkkö, E, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: Results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 2016; 69(3): 419–425.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Rouvière, O, Puech, P, Renard-Penna, R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20(1): 100–109.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Ilic, D, Djulbegovic, M, Jung, JH, et al. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018; 362: k3519.
Google Scholar | Medline10. Jain, S, Bhojwani, AG, Mellon, JK. Improving the utility of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: The use of PSA derivatives and novel markers. Postgrad Med J 2002; 78(925): 646–650.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Anastasiadis, AG, Lichy, MP, Nagele, U, et al. MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 2006; 50(4): 738–748.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Lawrentschuk, N, Fleshner, N. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. BJU Int 2009; 103(6): 730–733.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prostate-cancer-risk-management-programme-psa-test-benefits-and-risks/prostate-cancer-risk-management-programme-pcrmp-benefits-and-risks-of-psa-testing#the-psa-test (accessed 25 March 2021).
Google Scholar14. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prostate-specific-antigen-testing-explanation-and-implementation (accessed 25 March 2021).
Google Scholar15. Lein, M, Koenig, F, Jung, K, et al. The percentage of free prostate specific antigen is an age-independent tumour marker for prostate cancer: Establishment of reference ranges in a large population of healthy men. Br J Urol 1998; 82(2): 231–236.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Oesterling, JE, Jacobsen, SJ, Chute, CG, et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men: Establishment of age-specific reference ranges. JAMA 1993; 270(7): 860–864.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Bosch, JL, Tilling, K, Bohnen, AM, et al. Establishing normal reference ranges for PSA change with age in a population-based study: The Krimpen study. Prostate 2006; 66(4): 335–343.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Borer, JG, Sherman, J, Solomon, MC, et al. Age specific prostate specific antigen reference ranges: Population specific. J Urol 1998; 159(2): 444–448.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Gilbert, R, Tilling, K, Martin, RM, et al. Developing new age-specific prostate-specific antigen thresholds for testing for prostate cancer. Cancer Cause Control 2018; 29(3): 383–388.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Kim, L, Boxall, N, George, A, et al. Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: The PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study. BMC Med 2020; 18(1): 95.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Light, A, Burns-Cox, N, Maccormick, A, et al. The diagnostic impact of UK regional variations in age-specific prostate-specific antigen guidelines. BJU Int 2021; 128(3): 298–300.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Seed, P . DIAGT: Stata module to report summary statistics for diagnostic tests compared to true disease status. Stata J 2002; 4: S423401.
Google Scholar23. Gnanapragasam, VJ, Bratt, O, Muir, K, et al. The Cambridge Prognostic Groups for improved prediction of disease mortality at diagnosis in primary non-metastatic prostate cancer: A validation study. BMC Med 2018; 16(1): 31.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Ozdal, OL, Aprikian, AG, Bégin, LR, et al. Comparative evaluation of various prostate specific antigen ratios for the early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2004; 93(7): 970–974.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Nordström, T, Akre, O, Aly, M, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21(1): 57–63.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline26. Yusim, I, Krenawi, M, Mazor, E, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1): 20015.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Nam, RK, Toi, A, Klotz, LH, et al. Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(24): 3582–3588.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline28. Hernandez, DJ, Han, M, Humphreys, EB, et al. Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy: Comparison of a novel logistic regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk calculator, and prostate-specific antigen level alone. BJU Int 2009; 103(5): 609–614.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline29. Eklund, M, Jäderling, F, Discacciati, A, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 908–920.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline30. Kasivisvanathan, V, Stabile, A, Neves, JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2019; 76(3): 284–303.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Elwenspoek, MMC, Sheppard, AL, McInnes, MDF, et al. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2(8): e198427.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline32. Bryant, RJ, Hobbs, CP, Eyre, KS, et al. Comparison of prostate biopsy with or without prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection: An observational cohort study. J Urol 2019; 201(3): 510–519.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline33. Callender, T, Emberton, M, Morris, S, et al. Benefit, harm, and cost-effectiveness associated with magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in age-based and risk-stratified screening for prostate cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4(3): e2037657.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline34. Brönimann, S, Pradere, B, Karakiewicz, P, et al. An overview of current and emerging diagnostic, staging and prognostic markers for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2020; 20(8): 841–850.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline35. Moolupuri, A, Camacho, J, de Riese, WT. Association between prostate size and the incidence of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis and review for urologists and clinicians. Int Urol Nephrol 2021; 53(10): 1955–1961.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline36. Briganti, A, Chun, FK, Suardi, N, et al. Prostate volume and adverse prostate cancer features: Fact not artifact. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43(18): 2669–2677.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline37. Lorenzo, G, Hughes, TJR, Dominguez-Frojan, P, et al. Computer simulations suggest that prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia mechanically impedes prostate cancer growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116(4): 1152–1161.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline38. Osses, DF, Roobol, MJ, Schoots, IG. Prediction medicine: Biomarkers, risk calculators and magnetic resonance imaging as risk stratification tools in prostate cancer diagnosis. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20(7): 1637.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline39. Becker, C, Piironen, T, Pettersson, K, et al. Discrimination of men with prostate cancer from those with benign disease by measurements of human glandular kallikrein 2 (HK2) in serum. J Urol 2000; 163(1): 311–316.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline40. Le, BV, Griffin, CR, Loeb, S, et al. [-2]Proenzyme prostate specific antigen is more accurate than total and free prostate specific antigen in differentiating prostate cancer from benign disease in a prospective prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2010; 183(4): 1355–1359.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline41. Epstein, JI, Walsh, PC, Carmichael, M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271(5): 368–374.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline42. Sfoungaristos, S, Perimenis, P. Evaluating PSA density as a predictor of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: Results of a prospective study after a median follow-up of 36 months. ISRN Urol 2013; 2013: 984951.
Google Scholar | Medline43. Gnanapragasam, VJ, Barrett, T, Thankapannair, V, et al. Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019; 124(5): 758–767.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline44. Grönberg, H, Adolfsson, J, Aly, M, et al. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): A prospective population-based diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16(16): 1667–1676.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline45. Roobol, MJ, Schröder, FH, Hugosson, J, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: Results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol 2012; 30(2): 149–155.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline46. Boesen, L, Nørgaard, N, Løgager, V, et al. Prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in detecting and ruling out gleason 7-10 prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2(3): 311–319.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline47. Distler, FA, Radtke, JP, Bonekamp, D, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 2017; 198(3): 575–582.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline48. Moldovan, PC, Van den Broeck, T, Sylvester, R, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72(2): 250–266.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline49. Kohestani, K, Wallström, J, Dehlfors, N, et al. Performance and inter-