Cornford P, Van Den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van Den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2024;86:148–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027.
Google Scholar
Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol. 2020;77:38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005.
Google Scholar
Frantzi M, Heidegger I, Roesch MC, Gomez-Gomez E, Steiner E, Vlahou A, et al. Validation of diagnostic nomograms based on CE-MS urinary biomarkers to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2022;40:2195–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04077-1.
Google Scholar
Israël B, Hannink G, Barentsz JO, Van Der Leest MMG. Implications of the European Association of Urology Recommended Risk Assessment Algorithm for Early Prostate Cancer Detection. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;43:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.06.006.
Google Scholar
Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;319:1914–31. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3712.
Google Scholar
Naji L, Randhawa H, Sohani Z, Dennis B, Lautenbach D, Kavanagh O, et al. Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2018;16:149–54. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2205.
Google Scholar
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
Google Scholar
Drost FJH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Urology Group, ed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
Giganti F, Ng A, Asif A, Chan VWS, Rossiter M, Nathan A, et al. Global variation in magnetic resonance imaging quality of the prostate. Radiology. 2023;309:e231130. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.231130.
Google Scholar
Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:592–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010.
Google Scholar
Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, Arora S, Barashi NS, Barentsz JO, et al. Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. Radiology. 2020;296:76–84. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020190646.
Google Scholar
Farha MW, Salami SS. Biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and risk stratification. Ther Adv Urol. 2022;14:17562872221103988. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221103988.
Google Scholar
Frantzi M, Gomez Gomez E, Blanca Pedregosa A, Valero Rosa J, Latosinska A, Culig Z, et al. CE-MS-based urinary biomarkers to distinguish non-significant from significant prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2019;120:1120–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0472-z.
Google Scholar
Hayes DF, Sauerbrei W, McShane LM. REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history. Br J Cancer. 2023;128:443–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-02046-4.
Google Scholar
Mischak H, Allmaier G, Apweiler R, Attwood T, Baumann M, Benigni A, et al. Recommendations for biomarker identification and qualification in clinical proteomics. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2:46ps42. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001249.
Google Scholar
Aminsharifi A, Howard L, Wu Y, De Hoedt A, Bailey C, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate specific antigen density as a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer when the prostate specific antigen is in the diagnostic gray zone: defining the optimum cutoff point stratified by race and Body Mass Index. J Urol. 2018;200:758–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.016.
Google Scholar
Liu J, Dong B, Qu W, Wang J, Xu Y, Yu S, et al. Using clinical parameters to predict prostate cancer and reduce the unnecessary biopsy among patients with PSA in the gray zone. Sci Rep. 2020;10:5157. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62015-w.
Google Scholar
van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, Evans AJ, Kristiansen G, Kweldam CF, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87–e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497.
Google Scholar
Frantzi M, Morillo AC, Lendínez G, Blanca A, López Ruiz D, Parada J, et al. Validation of a urine-based proteomics test to predict clinically significant prostate cancer: complementing mpMRI Pathway. Pathobiol J Immunopathol Mol Cell Biol. Published online November, 2024:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000542465
Mischak H, Vlahou A, Ioannidis JPA. Technical aspects and inter-laboratory variability in native peptide profiling: the CE-MS experience. Clin Biochem. 2013;46:432–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.09.025.
Google Scholar
Latosinska A, Siwy J, Mischak H, Frantzi M. Peptidomics and proteomics based on CE-MS as a robust tool in clinical application: The past, the present, and the future. Electrophoresis. 2019;40:2294–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201900091.
Google Scholar
Mavrogeorgis E, Mischak H, Latosinska A, Siwy J, Jankowski V, Jankowski J. Reproducibility evaluation of urinary peptide detection using CE-MS. Molecules. 2021;26:7260. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26237260.
Google Scholar
Frantzi M, Metzger J, Banks RE, Husi H, Klein J, Dakna M, et al. Discovery and validation of urinary biomarkers for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J Proteom. 2014;98:44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2013.12.010.
Google Scholar
Siwy J, Mullen W, Golovko I, Franke J, Zürbig P. Human urinary peptide database for multiple disease biomarker discovery. Proteom Clin Appl. 2011;5:367–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/prca.201000155.
Google Scholar
Vickers AJ, Holland F. Decision curve analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of prediction models. Spine J J North Am Spine Soc. 2021;21:1643–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.024.
Google Scholar
Arvendell M, Phillips L, Delilovic S, Enelius MB, Olsson K, Bolejko A, et al. Men’s attitudes towards participation in organised prostate cancer testing: an abductive thematic analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025;71:156–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.12.007.
Google Scholar
Roobol, De Vos II MJ, Månsson M, Godtman RA, Talala KM, Den Hond E, et al. European Study of Prostate Cancer Screening — 23-Year Follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2025;393:1669–80. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2503223.
Google Scholar
Wen J, Liu W, Shen X, Hu W. PI-RADS v2.1 and PSAD for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer among patients with PSA levels of 4–10 ng/ml. Sci Rep. 2024;14:6570. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57337-y.
Google Scholar
Lendínez-Cano G, Ojeda-Claro AV, Gómez-Gómez E, Morales Jimenez P, Flores Martin J, Dominguez JF, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy in the detection of high-grade prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent the Select MDx test. Prostate. 2021;81:857–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24182.
Google Scholar
Oderda M, Marquis A, Bertero L, Calleris G, Faletti R, Gatti M, et al. Histopathologic features and transcriptomic signatures do not solve the issue of magnetic resonance imaging-invisible prostate cancers: a matched-pair analysis. Prostate. 2025;85:374–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24838.
Google Scholar
Parry MA, Srivastava S, Ali A, Cannistraci A, Antonello J, Barros-Silva JD, et al. Genomic evaluation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-visible and -nonvisible lesions in clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.005.
Google Scholar
Groen L, Schalken J. Liquid biopsy for prostate and bladder cancer: progress and pitfalls. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:904–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.08.013.
Google Scholar
Heidegger I, Frantzi M, Salcher S, Tymoszuk P, Martowicz A, Gomez-Gomez E, et al. Prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer by a specific collagen-related transcriptome, proteome, and urinome signature. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025;8:652–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.05.014.
Google Scholar
Frantzi M, Tymoszuk P, Salcher S, Gómez-Gómez E, Morillo AC, Melchior F, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy by collagen models using multiomic profiles. Eur Urol Oncol. Published online April, 2025:S2588-9311:00094-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.03.016
