30 148
preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit
the manuscript for publication. Mark Emberton receives research
support from the United Kingdom
’
s National Institute of Health Research
(NIHR) UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre. He holds NIHR Senior
Investigator status (2015 to date). This work was supported by the
Medical Research Council grant reference MC_UU_12023/28.
Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to thank Sarah Willis for
useful discussions and sharing of information about the cost-effective-
ness modelling in prostate cancer. The authors would also like to thank
every man who agreed to take part in the PROMIS.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2017.08.018 .References
[1]
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline. London, UK: NICE; 2014.[2]
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology; 2015.[3]
Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically signi fi cant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic reso- nance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68:1045 – 53.
[4] Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. PROMIS
—
a validat-
ed con
fi
rmatory study assessing diagnostic accuracy of multi-
parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer. Lancet.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
[5]
Thompson J, van Leeuwen P, Moses D, et al. The diagnostic perfor- mance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect signi fi cant prostate cancer. J Urol 2016;195:1428 – 35.
[6]
Bosaily AE-S, Parker C, Brown L, et al. PROMIS — prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi- parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;42:26 – 40.
[7]
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. London, UK: NICE; 2014.[8]
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203 – 13.
[9]
James ND, Spears MR, Clarke NW, et al. Survival with newly diag- nosed metastatic prostate cancer in the “ Docetaxel Era ” : data from 917 patients in the control arm of the STAMPEDE trial (MRC PR08, CRUK/06/019). Eur Urol 2015;67:1028 – 38.
[10]
Essink-Bot M-L, de Koning HJ, Nijs HG, Kirkels WJ, van der Maas PJ, Schröder FH. Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:925 – 31.[11]
Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate speci fi c anti- gen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 2012;344: d7894.
[12]
Pepe P, Aragona F. Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology 2013;81:1142 – 6.[13]
Torvinen S, Färkkilä N, Sintonen H, Saarto T, Roine RP, Taari K. Health-related quality of life in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2013;52:1094 – 101.[14]
Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13:509 – 18.
[15]
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effective- ness threshold. Health Technol Assess 2015;19:1 – 503.[16]
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MM. Magnetic resonance imaging – targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of signi fi cant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;68:438 – 50.
[17]
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging- – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16 – 40.
[18]
Cerantola Y, Dragomir A, Tanguay S, Bladou F, Aprikian A, Kassouf W. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2016;34:119, e1 – e9.[19]
Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and en- hanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the loca- lisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013;17:306.
[20]
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370:932 – 42.
[21]
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1415 – 24.[22]
Roehl KA, Antenor JAV, Catalona WJ. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2002;167:2435 – 9.[23]
Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;188:762 – 8.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 3 ( 2 0 18 ) 2 3
–
3 0
30