1. Cancer Research UK . Prostate cancer incidence statistics, 2015, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence (accessed 1 December 2019).
Google Scholar2. Drost, FJH, Osses, DF, Nieboer, D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019(4): CD012663.
Google Scholar3. Kasivisvanathan, V, Rannikko, AS, Borghi, M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(19): 1767–1777.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Ahmed, HU, El-Shater Bosaily, A, Brown, LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389(10071): 815–822.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) . Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and management: Guidance: Recommendations, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations (accessed 1 December 2019).
Google Scholar6. National Prostate Cancer Audit . NPCA annual report 2019, https://www.npca.org.Uk/reports/npca-annual-report-2019/ (accessed 15 June 2020).
Google Scholar7. Barrett, T, Slough, R, Sushentsev, N, et al. Three-year experience of a dedicated prostate mpMRI pre-biopsy programme and effect on timed cancer diagnostic pathways. Clin Radiol 2019; 74(11): 894.e1–894.e9.
Google Scholar | Crossref8. Turkbey, B, Rosenkrantz, AB, Haider, MA, 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(3): 340–351.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Steiger, P, Thoeny, HC. Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: How we review and report. Cancer Imaging 2016; 16(1): 9.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. 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 | Medline11. 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 | Medline12. 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 | Medline13. Latifoltojar, A, Appayya, MB, Barrett, T, et al. Similarities and differences between Likert and PIRADS v2.1 scores of prostate multiparametric MRI: A pictorial review of histology-validated cases. Clin Radiol 2019; 74(11): 895.e1–895.e15.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Khoo, CC, Eldred-Evans, D, Peters, M, et al. Likert vs PI-RADS v2: A comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2020; 125(1): 49–55.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Appayya, MB, Sidhu, HS, Dikaios, N, et al. Characterizing indeterminate (Likert-score 3/5) peripheral zone prostate lesions with PSA density, PI-RADS scoring and qualitative descriptors on multiparametric MRI. Br J Radiol 2018; 91(1083): 20170645.
Google Scholar | Medline16. Distler, FA, Radtke, JP, Bonekamp, D, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADSTM for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 2017; 198(3): 575–582.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Felker, ER, Raman, SS, Margolis, DJ, et al. Risk stratification among men with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 3 transition zone lesions: Is biopsy always necessary? Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209(6): 1272–1277.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Srirangam, V, Rai, BP, Abroaf, A, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: Should we be concerned? An observational cohort study with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Curr Urol 2017; 10(4): 199–205.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Manning, TG, Cheung, E, Perera, M, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A contemporary review. Urology 2017; 107: 5–10.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Gupta, A, Roehrborn, CG. Verification and incorporation biases in studies assessing screening tests: Prostate-specific antigen as an example. Urology 2004; 64(1): 106–111.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Swann, R, McPhail, S, Witt, J, et al. Diagnosing cancer in primary care: Results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit. Br J Gen Pract 2018; 68(666): e63–e72.
Google Scholar | Crossref22. NHS England . Rapid cancer diagnostic and assessment pathways, https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/rapid-cancer-diagnostic-and-assessment-pathways/ (accessed 26 June 2020).
Google Scholar23. Klotz, L. Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Asian J Urol 2019; 6(2): 146–152.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Redaniel, MT, Martin, RM, Gillatt, D, et al. Time from diagnosis to surgery and prostate cancer survival: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 2013; 13: 559.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI25. Gupta, N, Bivalacqua, TJ, Han, M, et al. Evaluating the impact of length of time from diagnosis to surgery in patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk to very-high-risk clinically localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2019; 124(2): 268–274.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline