Timo Soeterik

73 Impact of MRI on Risk Classification REFERENCES 1. D’Amico AV, Whittinton R, Malkowicz B, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA . 1998;280:969–974. 2. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw . 2016;14:19–30. 3. 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;71:618–629. 4. 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;389:815–822. 5. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel 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-naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol . 2018;75:570–578. 6. Marenco J, Orczyk C, Collins T, Moore C, Emberton M. Role of MRI in planning radical prostatectomy: what is the added value? World J Urol . 2019;37:1289–1292. 7. Boesen L, Chabanova E, Logager V, Balslev I, Mikines K, Thomsen HS. Prostate cancer staging with extracapsular extension risk scoring using multiparametric MRI: a correlation with histopathology. Eur Radiol . 2015;25:1776–1785. 8. Caglic I, Kovac V, Barrett T. Multiparametric MRI - local staging of prostate cancer and beyond. Radiol Oncol. 2019;53:159–170. 9. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, 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. 10. Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, Amin MB. Updates in the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging classification for urologic cancers. Eur Urol . 2018;73:560–569. 11. Draulans C, Everaerts W, Isebaert S, et al. Impact of magnetic resonance imaging on prostate cancer staging and European Association of urology risk classification. Urology . 2019;130:113–119. 12. Marcus DM, Rossi PJ, Nour SG, Jani AB. The impact of multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging on risk stratification in patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology . 2014;84:132– 137. 13. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. 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. 14. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI- RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. EurUrol . 2016;69:16–40. 15. Fine SW, Amin MB, Berney DM, et al. A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol . 2012;62:20–39. 16. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med . 1985; 312:1604–1608. 17. Anderson BB, Oberlin DT, Razmaria AA, et al. Extraprostatic extension is extremely rare for contemporary gleason score 6 prostate cancer. Eur Urol . 2017;72:455–460. 4