Timo Soeterik

151 MRI T-stage for LNI Risk Prediction REFERENCES 1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 20202; presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. 2. Wilczak W, Wittmer C, Clauditz T, et al. Marked Prognostic Impact of Minimal Lymphatic Tumor Spread in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol . 2018;74:376-386. 3. Luiting HB, van Leeuwen PJ, Busstra MB, et al. Use of gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography for detecting lymph node metastases in primary and recurrent prostate cancer and location of recurrence after radical prostatectomy: an overview of the current literature. BJU Int . 2020;125:206-214. 4. Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, et al. Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer—Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Ant igen-avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-. Eur Urol . 2020;77:403-417. 5. Fossati N, Suardi N, Gandaglia G, et al. Identifying the Optimal Candidate for Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer: Results from a Large, Multi-institutional Analysis. Eur Urol . 2019;75:176-183. 6. Oderda M, Diamand R, Albisinni S, et al. Indications for and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: accuracy of available nomograms for the prediction of lymph node invasion. BJU Int . 2021;127:318-325. 7. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw . 2016;14:509-519. 8. Hueting TA, Cornel EB, Somford DM, et al. External Validation of Models Predicting the Probability of Lymph Node Involvement in Prostate Cancer Patients. Eur Urol Oncol . 2018;1:411-417. 9. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Pre-radical prostatectomy tool to predict probability of lymph node involvement in prostate cancer patients. www.mskcc.org/ nomograms/prostate/pre_op. Published 2018, Accessed June 15 2020. 10. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: The essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol . 2012;61:480-487. 11. Bjurlin MA, Carrol PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer. J Urol . 2020;203:706-712. 12. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol . 2016;70:233-245. 13. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol . 2016;69:428-435. 14. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol . 2016;40:244-252. 15. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI- RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. EurUrol . 2016;69:16-40. 8