Prostate cancer risk assessment by the primary care physician and urologist: transabdominal- versus transrectal ultrasound prostate volume-based use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.

Background: Our objective was to assess the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) measured prostate volume in the primary care setting with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measured prostate volume by the urologist as the reference test. Furthermore, our objective was to assess whether risk-stratification using TAUS prostate volume by the primary care physician could reduce unnecessary referrals to the urologist. Methods: Men in two Dutch primary care offices with a prostate cancer (PCa) screening request received a digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate specific-antigen (PSA), and TAUS prostate volume measurement by the general practitioner, followed by Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) risk assessment. The examination was repeated by a urologist using TRUS. A prostate biopsy was performed in case of a RPCRC positive biopsy advice. A non-inferiority analysis was performed comparing TAUS and TRUS prostate volume differences. A risk-based referral strategy using TAUS and the RPCRC in the primary care setting was compared with the standard referral strategy based on PSA (≥3 ng/mL) and DRE. Results: A total of 105 men were included with a median PSA of 1.9 ng/mL. The mean prostate volumes measured by TAUS and TRUS were 55 and 45 mL, respectively. The mean overestimation of the prostate volume by TAUS as compared to the reference test was 9.9 mL (95% CI: 5.9-13.8). According to Dutch standard practice, 41 out of 105 (39%) men would have been referred to the urologist. Stratification in primary care based on the RPCRC using TAUS prostate volume would have avoided 29 out of the 41 (71%) referrals, at the expense of non-referral of 5 out of 11 (45%) men with a biopsy indication, according to the urologist. Conclusions: RPCRC-based risk stratification in primary care using TAUS prostate volume measurement is feasible and may prevent unnecessary referrals to the urologist and reduce costs. The accuracy of the risk assessment with TAUS might be improved by sufficient training and centralization to achieve a higher volume of consultations in primary care facilities.

Prostate cancer upgrading with serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging and repeat biopsy in men on active surveillance: are confirmatory biopsies still necessary?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may guide the utility of repeat targeted (TBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) when monitoring men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) at 1-year of active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included 111 consecutive men with low-risk (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] Grade 1) PCa, who received protocolled repeat MRI with or without TBx and repeat SBx at 1-year of AS. TBx was performed in Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3 lesions (MRI-positive men). Upgrading defined as ISUP Grade ≥2 PCa (I), Grade ≥2 with cribriform growth/intraductal carcinoma PCa (II), and Grade ≥3 PCa (III) was investigated. Upgrading detected by TBx only (not by SBx) and SBx only (not by TBx) was investigated in MRI-positive and -negative men, and related to radiological progression on MRI (Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation [PRECISE] score). RESULTS: Overall upgrading (I) was 32% (35/111). Upgrading in MRI-positive and -negative men was 48% (30/63) and 10% (5/48) (P < 0.001), respectively. In MRI-positive men, there was upgrading in 23% (seven of 30) by TBx only and in 33% (10/30) by SBx only. Radiological progression (PRECISE score 4-5) in MRI-positive men was seen in 27% (17/63). Upgrading (I) occurred in 41% (seven of 17) of these MRI-positive men, while this was 50% (23/46) in MRI-positive men without radiological progression (PRECISE score 1-3) (P = 0.534). Overall upgrading (II) was 15% (17/111). Upgrading in MRI-positive and -negative men was 22% (14/63) and 6% (three of 48) (P = 0.021), respectively. In MRI-positive men, there was upgrading in three of 14 by TBx only and in seven of 14 by SBx only. Overall upgrading (III) occurred in 5% (five of 111). Upgrading in MRI-positive and -negative men was 6% (four of 63) and 2% (one of 48) (P = 0.283), respectively. In MRI-positive men, there was upgrading in one of four by TBx only and in two of four by SBx only. CONCLUSION: Upgrading is significantly lower in MRI-negative compared to MRI-positive men with low-risk PCa at 1-year of AS. In serial MRI-negative men, the added value of repeat SBx at 1-year surveillance is limited and should be balanced individually against the harms. In serial MRI-positive men, the added value of repeat SBx is substantial. Based on this cohort, SBx is recommended to be performed in combination with TBx in all MRI-positive men at 1-year of AS, also when there is no radiological progression.

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI pathway), is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men suspected of having prostate cancer. At present, evidence on which test to use is insufficient to inform detailed evidence-based decision making. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests MRI only, MRI-targeted biopsy, MRI pathway, and systematic biopsy, as compared with template-guided biopsy (reference standard), in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade 2 or higher, in biopsy-naive men or those with a prior-negative biopsy (or mix of both). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically searched the literature and considered for inclusion any cross-sectional study if it investigated (1) one or more index tests verified by the reference standard, and (2) paired testing of the MRI pathway with systematic biopsy. Quality and certainty of evidence were assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Accuracy analyses: Using a baseline cancer prevalence of 30%, MRI pathway (sensitivity 0.72 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.60-0.82]; specificity 0.96 [0.94-0.98]; eight studies) may result in 216 (180-246) true positives, 28 (14-42) false positives, 672 (658-686) true negatives, and 84 (54-120) false negatives per 1000 men. Systematic biopsy (sensitivity 0.63 [0.19-0.93]; specificity 1.00 [0.91-1.00]; four studies) may result in 189 (57-279) true positives, 0 (0-63) false positives, 700 (637-700) true negatives, and 111 (21-243) false negatives per 1000 men. Agreement analyses: With a direct comparison of the MRI pathway with systematic biopsy concerning significant disease, we found pooled detection ratios of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95-1.16; 20 studies) in biopsy-naive men and 1.44 (1.19-1.75; 10 studies) in men with a prior-negative biopsy. Concerning insignificant disease, we found detection ratios of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.54-0.74), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44-0.88), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MRI pathway had the most favourable outcome in significant and insignificant prostate cancer detection compared with systematic biopsy. The certainty in our findings was reduced by study limitations. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed recent advances in prostate biopsy by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance and targeting for prostate cancer detection in comparison with standard diagnosis by systematic biopsies. The findings of this Cochrane review suggest that MRI pathway is better than systematic biopsies in making a correct diagnosis of clinically important prostate cancer and reducing redundant biopsies and the detection of unimportant cancers substantially. However, MRI pathway still misses some men with important prostate cancer. Therefore, further research in this area is important.

Predicting Biopsy Outcomes During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators in Five Large Active Surveillance Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) are followed through regular prostate biopsies, a burdensome and often unnecessary intervention, not without risks. Identifying men with at a low risk of disease reclassification may help reduce the number of biopsies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the external validity of two Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators (PASS-RCs), which estimate the probability of reclassification (Gleason grade ≥7 with or without >34% of biopsy cores positive for PCa) on a surveillance biopsy, using a mix of months since last biopsy, age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, number of prior negative biopsies, and percentage (or ratio) of positive cores on last biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data up to November 2017 from the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan (GAP3) consortium, a global collaboration between AS studies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: External validity of the PASS-RCs for estimating reclassification on biopsy was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and decision curve analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Five validation cohorts (Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance, Johns Hopkins, Toronto, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and University of California San Francisco), comprising 5105 men on AS, were eligible for analysis. The individual cohorts comprised 429-2416 men, with a median follow-up between 36 and 84 mo, in both community and academic practices mainly from western countries. Abilities of the PASS-RCs to discriminate between men with and without reclassification on biopsy were reasonably good (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values 0.68 and 0.65). The PASS-RCs were moderately well calibrated, and had a greater net benefit than most default strategies between a predicted 10% and 30% risk of reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Both PASS-RCs improved the balance between detecting reclassification and performing surveillance biopsies by reducing unnecessary biopsies. Recalibration to the local setting will increase their clinical usefulness and is therefore required before implementation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Unnecessary prostate biopsies while on active surveillance (AS) should be avoided as much as possible. The ability of two calculators to selectively identify men at risk of progression was tested in a large cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer on AS. The calculators were able to prevent unnecessary biopsies in some men. Usefulness of the calculators can be increased by adjusting them to the characteristics of the population of the clinic in which the calculators will be used.

Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men suspected of having prostate cancer. At present, evidence on which test to use is insufficient to inform detailed evidence-based decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests MRI only, MRI-targeted biopsy, the MRI pathway (MRI with or without MRI-targeted biopsy) and systematic biopsy as compared to template-guided biopsy as the reference standard in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer as the target condition, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher. Secondary target conditions were the detection of grade 1 and grade 3 or higher-grade prostate cancer, and a potential change in the number of biopsy procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic literature search up to 31 July 2018. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and one trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion any cross-sectional study if it investigated one or more index tests verified by the reference standard, or if it investigated the agreement between the MRI pathway and systematic biopsy, both performed in the same men. We included only studies on men who were biopsy naïve or who previously had a negative biopsy (or a mix of both). Studies involving MRI had to report on both MRI-positive and MRI-negative men. All studies had to report on the primary target condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. To estimate test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate model. To estimate agreement between the MRI pathway and systematic biopsy, we synthesised detection ratios by performing random-effects meta-analyses. To estimate the proportions of participants with prostate cancer detected by only one of the index tests, we used random-effects multinomial or binary logistic regression models. For the main comparisions, we assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The test accuracy analyses included 18 studies overall.MRI compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83 to 0.95; 12 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.46; 12 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, MRI may result in 273 (95% CI: 249 to 285) true positives, 441 false positives (95% CI: 378 to 497), 259 true negatives (95% CI: 203 to 322) and 27 (95% CI: 15 to 51) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.MRI-targeted biopsy compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.87; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.97; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, MRI-targeted biopsy may result in 240 (95% CI: 207 to 261) true positives, 42 (95% CI: 21 to 70) false positives, 658 (95% CI: 630 to 679) true negatives and 60 (95% CI: 39 to 93) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.The MRI pathway compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.82; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.98; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, the MRI pathway may result in 216 (95% CI: 180 to 246) true positives, 28 (95% CI: 14 to 42) false positives, 672 (95% CI: 658 to 686) true negatives and 84 (95% CI: 54 to 120) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Systemic biopsy compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.93; 4 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.91 to 1.00; 4 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, systematic biopsy may result in 189 (95% CI: 57 to 279) true positives, 0 (95% CI: 0 to 63) false positives, 700 (95% CI: 637 to 700) true negatives and 111 (95% CI: 21 to 243) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.Agreement analyses: In a mixed population of both biopsy-naïve and prior-negative biopsy men comparing the MRI pathway to systematic biopsy, we found a pooled detection ratio of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.23; 25 studies). We found pooled detection ratios of 1.44 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.75; 10 studies) in prior-negative biopsy men and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.16; 20 studies) in biopsy-naïve men. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among the diagnostic strategies considered, the MRI pathway has the most favourable diagnostic accuracy in clinically significant prostate cancer detection. Compared to systematic biopsy, it increases the number of significant cancer detected while reducing the number of insignificant cancer diagnosed. The certainty in our findings was reduced by study limitations, specifically issues surrounding selection bias, as well as inconsistency. Based on these findings, further improvement of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways should be pursued.

Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) appears to provide excellent long-term PCa-specific and overall survival. The choice for AS as initial treatment is mainly based on avoiding side effects from invasive treatment; but AS entails regular check-ups and the possibility of still having to switch or deciding to switch to invasive treatment. Here, we assessed the long-term follow-up data from AS in real life clinical practices. METHODS: Data from the first 500 men, enrolled in PRIAS before July 2008 by 30 centers across 8 countries, were analyzed to provide long-term follow-up results. Men were advised to be regularly examined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, digital rectal examinations, and prostate biopsies. Men were advised to switch to invasive treatment if they had disease reclassification [Gleason score (GS) ≥3+4 on biopsy, more than two positive biopsy cores, a stage higher than cT2] or a PSA-doubling time of 0-3 years. We assessed time on AS, outcomes and reasons for discontinuing AS, and rates of potential unnecessary biopsies and treatments. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 6.5 years. During this period, 325 (65%) men discontinued after a median of 2.3 years and 121 (24%) men had no recent (>1 year) data-update after a median of 7.3 years. The remaining 54 (11%) men were confirmed to be still on AS. Most men discontinued based on protocol advice; 38% had other reasons. During follow-up, 838 biopsy sessions were performed of which 79% to 90% did not lead to reclassification, depending on the criteria. Of the 325 discontinued men, 112 subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), 126 underwent radiotherapy, 57 switched to watchful waiting (WW) or died, and 30 had another or unknown treatment. RP results were available of 99 men: 34% to 68%, depending on definition, had favorable outcomes; 50% of unfavorable the outcomes occurred in the first 2 years. Of the 30 (6%) men who died, 1 man died due to PCa. CONCLUSIONS: These data, reflecting real life clinical practice, show that more than half of men switched to invasive treatment within 2.3 years, indicating limitations to the extent in which AS is able to reduce the adverse effects of overdiagnosis. Therefore, despite guidelines stating that PCa diagnosis must be uncoupled from treatment, it remains important to avoid overdiagnosing PCa as much as possible.

Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease.

BACKGROUND: The fear of undergrading prostate cancer (PCa) in men on active surveillance (AS) have led to strict criteria for monitoring, which have resulted in good long-term cancer-specific survival, proving the safety of this approach. Reducing undergrading, MRI-targeted biopsies are increasingly used in men with low-risk disease despite their undefined role yet. The objective of this study is to investigate the rate of upgrading using MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk disease on AS, stratified on the basis of PI-RADS and PSA-density, with the aim to reduce potential unnecessary repeat biopsy procedures. METHODS: A total of 331 men were prospectively enrolled following the MRI-PRIAS protocol. MR imaging was according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) guidelines. Suspicious MRI lesions (PI-RADS 3-5) were additionally targeted by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies. Outcome measure was upgrading to Gleason score (GS) ≥3+4 with MRI-targeted biopsies, stratified for PI-RADS and PSA-density. RESULTS: In total, 25% (82/331) of men on AS showed upgrading from GS 3+3. Only 3% (11/331) was upgraded to GS ≥8. In 60% (198/331) a suspicious MRI lesion was identified, but in only 41% (82/198) of men upgrading was confirmed. PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 categorized index lesions, showed upgrading in 30%, 34% and 66% of men, respectively. Stratification to PI-RADS 4-5, instead of PI-RADS 3-5, would have missed a small number of high volume Gleason 4 PCa in PI-RADS 3 category. However, further stratification into PI-RADS 3 lesions and PSA-density <0.15 ng/mL2 could result in a safe targeted biopsy reduction of 36% in this category, without missing any upgrades. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification with the combination of PI-RADS and PSA-density may reduce unnecessary additional MRI biopsy testing. Overall, the high rate of detected upgrading in men on AS may result in an unintended tightening of continuing in AS. Since patients, included under current AS criteria showed extremely favorable outcome, there might be no need to further restrict continuing on AS with MRI and targeted biopsies.

Characteristics of Prostate Cancer Found at Fifth Screening in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam: Can We Selectively Detect High-grade Prostate Cancer with Upfront Multivariable Risk Stratification and Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

BACKGROUND: The harm of screening (unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis) generally outweighs the benefit of reducing prostate cancer (PCa) mortality in men aged ≥70 yr. Patient selection for biopsy using risk stratification and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may improve this benefit-to-harm ratio. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential of a risk-based strategy including MRI to selectively identify men aged ≥70 yr with high-grade PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and thirty-seven men with prostate-specific antigen ≥3.0 ng/ml at a fifth screening (71-75 yr) in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam were biopsied. One hundred and seventy-nine men received six-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy (TRUS-Bx), while 158 men received MRI, 12-core TRUS-Bx, and fusion TBx in case of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System ≥3 lesions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the overall, low-grade (Gleason Score 3+3) and high-grade (Gleason Score ≥ 3+4) PCa rate. Secondary outcome was the low- and high-grade PCa rate detected by six-core TRUS-Bx, 12-core TRUS-Bx, and MRI ± TBx. Tertiary outcome was the reduction of biopsies and low-grade PCa detection by upfront risk stratification with the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 4. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifty-five percent of men were previously biopsied. The overall, low-grade, and high-grade PCa rates in biopsy naïve men were 48%, 27%, and 22%, respectively. In previously biopsied men these PCa rates were 25%, 20%, and 5%. Sextant TRUS-Bx, 12-core TRUS-Bx, and MRI ± TBx had a similar high-grade PCa rate (11%, 12%, and 11%) but a significantly different low-grade PCa rate (17%, 28%, and 7%). Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 4-based stratification combined with 12-core TRUS-Bx ± MRI-TBx would have avoided 65% of biopsies and 68% of low-grade PCa while detecting an equal percentage of high-grade PCa (83%) compared with a TRUS-Bx all men approach (79%). CONCLUSIONS: After four repeated screens and ≥1 previous biopsies in half of men, a significant proportion of men aged ≥70 yr still harbor high-grade PCa. Upfront risk stratification and the combination of MRI and TRUS-Bx would have avoided two-thirds of biopsies and low-grade PCa diagnoses in our cohort, while maintaining the high-grade PCa detection of a TRUS-Bx all men approach. Further studies are needed to verify these results. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer screening reduces mortality but is accompanied by unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of nonaggressive tumors, especially in repeatedly screened elderly men. To tackle these drawbacks screening should consist of an upfront risk-assessment followed by magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy.

Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific antigen density (PSA-D) in reducing unnecessary biopsies without missing Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in men on active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 210 men on AS with Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer received a first MRI and if indicated [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3] targeted biopsy (TBx) using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion. The MRI was performed 3 months after diagnosis (group A: n = 97), at confirmatory biopsy (group B: n = 39) or at surveillance biopsy after one or more repeat TRUS-guided systematic biopsies (TRUS-Bx) (group C: n = 74). The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason score ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer based on MRI ± TBx in groups A, B and C. Biopsy outcomes were stratified for the overall PI-RADS score and PSA-D to identify a subgroup of men in whom a biopsy could have been avoided as no Gleason score upgrading was detected. RESULTS: In all, 134/210 (64%) men had a positive MRI and 51/210 (24%) men had Gleason score upgrading based on MRI-TBx. The percentage of Gleason score upgrading based on MRI-TBx was 23% (22/97), 23% (9/39) and 27% (20/74) in respectively groups A, B and C. Additional Gleason score upgrading detected by TRUS-Bx occurred in 8% (3/39) of men in group B and 6% (1/17) of men who received TRUS-Bx in group C. No Gleason score upgrading was detected by MRI-TBx in men with a PI-RADS score of 3 and a PSA-D of <0.15 ng/mL2 (n = 15), nor by TRUS-Bx in men with a PI-RADS score of 1-3 and a PSA-D of <0.15 ng/mL2 (n = 15). CONCLUSION: At least one out of five men on AS with Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer at diagnostic TRUS-Bx show Gleason score upgrading based on first MRI ± TBx at baseline, confirmatory or surveillance biopsy. Men with a PI-RADS score of 1-3 and PSA-D of <0.15 ng/mL2 did not show Gleason score upgrading at MRI ± TBx or TRUS-Bx at each time point of surveillance. Thus risk-stratification based on PI-RADS and PSA-D may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on AS.