Sung, H. et al. World Most cancers Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Nations. CA: A Most cancers J. Clin. 71, 209–249 (2021).
Desai, C., Ehsanullah, S. A., Bhojwani, A. & Dhanasekaran, A. 648 Exterior Validation of The European Randomized Research of Screening for Prostate Most cancers Danger Calculator 3 (ERSPC-RC3) Within the Detection of Prostate Most cancers and Avoiding Pointless Prostate Biopsies. British J. Surg. 108 https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab134.566 (2021).
Verbeek, J. F. M. & Roobol, M. J. What’s an appropriate false destructive charge within the detection of prostate most cancers? Transl. Androl. Urol. 7, 54–60 (2018).
Alford, A. V. et al. Using biomarkers in prostate most cancers screening and remedy. Rev. Urol. 19, 221–234 (2017).
Chang, E. Okay., Gadzinski, A. J. & Nyame, Y. A. Blood and urine biomarkers in prostate most cancers: Are we prepared for reflex testing in males with an elevated prostate-specific antigen? Asian J. Urol. 8, 343–353 (2021).
Culp, M. B., Soerjomataram, I., Efstathiou, J. A., Bray, F. & Jemal, A. Current world patterns in prostate most cancers incidence and mortality charges. Eur. Urol. 77, 38–52 (2020).
Van Poppel, H. et al. Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate most cancers in Europe and globally: previous, current and future. Nat. Rev. Urol. 19, 562–572 (2022).
Getaneh, A. M., Heijnsdijk, E. A., Roobol, M. J. & de Koning, H. J. Evaluation of harms, advantages, and price‐effectiveness of prostate most cancers screening: A micro‐simulation research of 230 situations. Most cancers Med. 9, 7742–7750 (2020).
Van Poppel, H. et al. Prostate-specific antigen testing as a part of a risk-adapted early detection technique for prostate most cancers: european affiliation of urology place and suggestions for 2021. Eur. Urol. 80, 703–711 (2021).
Schröder, F. H. et al. The European randomized research of screening for prostate most cancers – prostate most cancers mortality at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384, 2027–2035 (2014).
Mottet, N. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG pointers on prostate most cancers—2020 replace. Half 1: screening, analysis, and native remedy with healing intent. Eur. Urol. 79, 243–262 (2021).
Heijnsdijk, E. A., Denham, D. & de Koning, H. J. The price-effectiveness of prostate most cancers detection with the usage of prostate well being index. Worth Well being 19, 153–157 (2016).
Cooperberg, M. R. & Carroll, P. R. Developments in administration for sufferers with localized prostate most cancers, 1990-2013. Jama 314, 80–82 (2015).
Fenton, J. J. et al. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate most cancers: proof report and systematic evaluation for the US preventive companies process pressure. Jama 319, 1914–1931 (2018).
Drost, F.-J. H. et al. Can energetic surveillance actually cut back the harms of overdiagnosing prostate most cancers? A mirrored image of actual life medical follow within the PRIAS research. Transl. Androl. Urol. 7, 98–105 (2018).
Loeb, S. et al. 5-year nationwide follow-up research of energetic surveillance for prostate most cancers. Eur. Urol. 67, 233–238 (2015).
Stabile, A. et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate most cancers analysis: present standing and future instructions. Nat. Rev. Urol. 17, 41–61 (2019).
Alberts, A. R. et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate most cancers following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: bettering the rotterdam european randomized research of screening for prostate most cancers threat calculators. Eur. Urol. 75, 310–318 (2019).
Kohestani, Okay. et al. The GÖTEBORG prostate most cancers screening 2 trial: a potential, randomised, population-based prostate most cancers screening trial with prostate-specific antigen testing adopted by magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Scand. J. Urol. 55, 116–124 (2021).
Drost, F. J. H. et al. Prostate MRI, with or with out MRI‐focused biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate most cancers. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2 (2019).
Sonn, G. A. et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies considerably throughout radiologists. Eur. Urol. focus 5, 592–599 (2019).
Westphalen, A. C. et al. Variability of the Constructive Predictive Worth of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI throughout 26 Facilities: Expertise of the Society of Belly Radiology Prostate Most cancers Illness-focused Panel. Radiology 296, 76–84 (2020).
Kinnaird, A. et al. Danger of prostate most cancers after a destructive magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. J. Urol. 204, 1180–1186 (2020).
Kim, S. J., Vickers, A. J. & Hu, J. C. Challenges in adopting stage 1 proof for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for prostate most cancers screening. JAMA Oncol. 4, 1663–1664 (2018).
Cerantola, Y. et al. Price-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and focused biopsy in diagnosing prostate most cancers. Urologic Oncol.: Semin. Authentic Investig. 34, 119.e111–119.e119 (2016).
Venderink, W., Govers, T. M., de Rooij, M., Fütterer, J. J. & Sedelaar, J. P. M. Price-effectiveness comparability of imaging-guided prostate biopsy strategies: systematic transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and picture fusion. Am. J. Roentgenol. 208, 1058–1063 (2017).
de Rooij, M. et al. Price-effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging and MR-guided focused biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate most cancers: a modelling research from a well being care perspective. Eur. Urol. 66, 430–436 (2014).
Amini, A. E. & Salari, Okay. Incorporating genetic threat into prostate most cancers care: implications for early detection and precision oncology. JCO Summary. Oncol. 8, e2300560 (2024).
Bosaily, A. E.-S. et al. PROMIS—prostate MR imaging research: a paired validating cohort research evaluating the function of multi-parametric MRI in males with medical suspicion of prostate most cancers. Contemp. Clin. trials 42, 26–40 (2015).
Lepor, A., Catalona, W. J. & Loeb, S. The prostate well being index: its utility in prostate most cancers detection. Urol. Clin. North Am. 43, 1–6 (2016).
Vickers, A. J., Vertosick, E. A. & Sjoberg, D. D. Worth of a statistical mannequin based mostly on 4 kallikrein markers in blood, commercially accessible as 4Kscore, in all cheap prostate biopsy subgroups. Eur. Urol. 74 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.032 (2018).
Ankerst, D. P. et al. A recent prostate biopsy threat calculator based mostly on a number of heterogeneous cohorts. Eur. Urol. 74, 197–203 (2018).
Kinnaird, A. et al. A prostate most cancers threat calculator: Use of medical and magnetic resonance imaging knowledge to foretell biopsy final result in North American males. Can. Urological Assoc. J. = J. de. l’Assoc. des. urologues du Can. 16, E161–e166 (2022).
Grönberg, H. et al. Prostate most cancers screening in males aged 50–69 years (STHLM3): a potential population-based diagnostic research. lancet Oncol. 16, 1667–1676 (2015).
Loeb, S. et al. Systematic evaluation of problems of prostate biopsy. Eur. Urol. 64, 876–892 (2013).
Cheng, Okay. C. et al. Emergency attendances and hospitalisations for problems after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: a five-year retrospective multicentre research. Hong Kong Medical J. https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj197825 (2019).
Rudzinski, J. Okay. & Kawakami, J. Incidence of infectious problems following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: A retrospective population-based evaluation. Can. Urological Assoc. J. = J. de. l’Assoc. des. urologues du Can. 8, E301–E305 (2014).
Liss, M. et al. The Prevention and Therapy of the Extra Frequent Problems Associated to Prostate Biopsy Replace, https://www.auanet.org/pointers/pointers/prostate-needle-biopsy-complications (2016).
Kaufmann, B. et al. Prostate most cancers detection charge in males present process transperineal template-guided saturation and focused prostate biopsy. Prostate 82, 388–396 (2022).
Kasivisvanathan, V. et al. MRI-targeted or commonplace biopsy for prostate-cancer analysis. N. Engl. J. Med. 378, 1767–1777 (2018).
Vasquez, C. et al. Cohort profile: the Alberta Prostate Most cancers Analysis Initiative (APCaRI) Registry and Biorepository facilitates know-how translation to the clinic via the usage of linked, longitudinal medical and patient-reported knowledge and biospecimens from males in Alberta, Canada. BMJ Open 10, e037222 (2020).
NICE. Stockholm3 for prostate most cancers screening. Report No. MIB303, (2022).
FDA. Multi-analyte take a look at system with algorithmic evaluation for detection of prostate most cancers, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P190022 (2021).
Vigneswaran, H. T. et al. Stockholm3 validation in a multi-ethnic cohort for prostate most cancers (SEPTA) detection: A multicentered, potential trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 42, 262–262 (2024).
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Be taught. 45, 5–32 (2001).
Ankerst, D. P. et al. Prostate most cancers prevention trial threat calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- versus high-grade prostate most cancers. Urology 83, 1362–1368 (2014).
Roobol, M. J. et al. Prediction of Prostate Most cancers Danger: The Function of Prostate Quantity and Digital Rectal Examination within the ERSPC Danger Calculators. Eur. Urol. 61, 577–583 (2012).
Wagaskar, V. G. et al. A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based mostly nomogram to diagnose prostate most cancers. Most cancers Rep. 6, e1668 (2023).
Wagaskar, V. G. et al. A 4K rating/MRI‐based mostly nomogram for predicting prostate most cancers, clinically important prostate most cancers, and unfavorable prostate most cancers. Most cancers Rep. 4, e1357 (2021).
World Medical, A. World Medical Affiliation Declaration of Helsinki. Moral ideas for medical analysis involving human topics. Bull. World Well being Organ. 79, 373–374 (2001).
SWOP. The prostate most cancers threat calculators, https://www.prostatecancer-riskcalculator.com/seven-prostate-cancer-risk-calculators (2023).
UT-Well being. Prostate Most cancers Prevention Trial Danger Calculator Model 2.0, https://riskcalc.org/PCPTRC/ (2018).
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M. & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. Evaluating the areas beneath two or extra correlated receiver working attribute curves: a nonparametric strategy. Biometrics, 837-845 (1988).
