PARLAMENTO DE PAICAVI DE
87mui a proposito para ello y donde se a derramado mucha sangre de españoles es la llave
1. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272- 7.
2. Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, et al. A Decade of Active Surveillance in the PRIAS Study: An Update and Evaluation of the Criteria Used to Recom- mend a Switch to Active Treatment. Eur Urol. 2016.
3. Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al. Compliance Rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) Protocol and Disease Reclassification in Noncompliers. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):814-21.
4. Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV. How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Follow-Up During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2016.
5. Bokhorst LP, Lepisto I, Kakehi Y, Bangma CH, Pickles T, Valdagni R, et al. Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. BJU Int. 2016;118(3):366-71.
6. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rothwax JT, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(5):202 e1-7.
7. Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, Maruf M, Siddiqui MM, Kongnyuy M, et al. Magnetic Reso- nance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016.
8. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):627- 36.
9. Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. Eur Urol. 2016.
10. Recabal P, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, Lee D, Laudone VP, Touijer K, et al. The Efficacy of Multipa- rametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and MRI-Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2016.
11. Satasivam P, Poon BY, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Eastham JA. Can Confirmatory Biopsy be Omitted in Patients with Prostate Cancer with Favorable Diagnostic Features on Active Surveillance? J Urol. 2015.
12. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(5):1732-8.
154
13. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hersey K, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among ac- tive surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1247-52. 14. Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, Vesprini D, Chung H, Loblaw A, et al. A prospective comparison
of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(1):220-5.
15. Siddiqui MM, Truong H, Rais-Bahrami S, Stamatakis L, Logan J, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance. J Urol. 2015;193(6):1943-9.
16. Marliere F, Puech P, Benkirane A, Villers A, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, et al. The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):951-8.
17. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007;52(6):1560- 3.
18. Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, van Leenders GJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Risk-based Patient Selection for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy after Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Random Biopsy Avoids Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1129-34.
19. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16-40.
20. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 Interna- tional 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(2):244-52.
21. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):544-52.
22. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Bonekamp D, Freitag MT, Wolf MB, Alt CD, et al. Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(3):283-91.
23. Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, Sharma DS, Huang J, Dorey FJ, et al. Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Inter- mediate Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016.
24. Pessoa RR, Viana P, Mattedi RL, Guglielmetti GB, Cordeiro MD, Coelho RF, et al. Value of 3-T mul- tiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2016.
155