1. 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 | Medline2. NICE . NICE guidance: Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and management. BJU Int 2019; 124(1): 9–26.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. Mottet, N, Bellmunt, J, Bolla, M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71(4): 618–629.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Kotwal, AA, Schumm, P, Mohile, SG, et al. The influence of stress, depression, and anxiety on PSA screening rates in a nationally representative sample. Med Care 2012; 50(12): 1037–1044.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Rudzinski, JK, Kawakami, J. Incidence of infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: A retrospective population-based analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8(5–6): E301–E305.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Grummet, JP, Weerakoon, M, Huang, S, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: Should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 2014; 114(3): 384–388.
Google Scholar | Medline7. Lee, SM, Liyanage, SH, Wulaningsih, W, et al. Toward an MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of transperineal prostate biopsy outcome: A physician and patient decision tool. Urol Oncol 2017; 35(11): 664.e11–664.e18.
Google Scholar | Crossref8. 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 | Medline9. Chau, EM, Arya, M, Petrides, N, et al. Performance characteristics of multiparametric-MRI at a non-academic hospital using transperineal template mapping biopsy as a reference standard. Int J Surg Open 2018; 10: 66–71.
Google Scholar | Crossref10. Stonier, T, Simson, N, Shah, T, et al. The ‘Is mpMRI Enough’ or IMRIE study: A multicentre evaluation of prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy. Eur Urol Focus 2020; 7(5): 1027–1034.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Cavadas, V, Osório, L, Sabell, F, et al. Prostate cancer prevention trial and European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators: A performance comparison in a contemporary screened cohort. Eur Urol 2010; 58(4): 551–558.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Trottier, G, Roobol, MJ, Lawrentschuk, N, et al. Comparison of risk calculators from the prostate cancer prevention trial and the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int 2011; 108(8 Pt. 2): E237–E244.
Google Scholar | Crossref13. Van Vugt, HA, Roobol, MJ, Kranse, R, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: External validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47(6): 903–909.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Yoon, DK, Park, JY, Yoon, S, et al. Can the prostate risk calculator based on Western population be applied to Asian population? Prostate 2012; 72(7): 721–729.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Alberts, AR, Roobol, MJ, Verbeek, JFM, et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol 2019; 75(2): 310–318.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Grey, AD, Chana, MS, Popert, R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015; 115(5): 728–735.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Mehralivand, S, Shih, JH, Rais-Bahrami, S, et al. A magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4(5): 678–685.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Boesen, L, Thomsen, FB, Nørgaard, N, et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naive men for prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22(4): 609–616.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. 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 | Medline