H. A. Rouvière and . Humaine, Descriptive et Topographique. 6ème édition, pp.1018-1022, 1948.

O. S. Lowsley, The prostate gland in old age, Ann Surg. déc, vol.62, issue.6, pp.716-753, 1915.

J. E. Mcneal, The zonal anatomy of the prostate. The Prostate, vol.2, pp.35-49, 1981.

S. Gil-vernet and . Pathologia-urogenital, , 1953.

J. Langman and T. Saldler, Embryologie médicale. 13ème. Pradel

K. Jéhannin-ligier, E. Dantony, N. Bossard, F. Molinié, G. Defossez et al., Projection de l'incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France métropolitaine en 2017. Rapport technique, vol.53, 2017.

F. Rozet, C. Hennequin, J. Beauval, P. Beuzeboc, L. Cormier et al.,

, Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol, vol.27, issue.1, pp.95-143, 2016.

P. Grosclaude, L. Remontet, L. Daubisse-marliac, M. Velten, Z. Uhry et al., Le cancer de la prostate : incidence, survie et mortalité en France, Bull Epidémiol Hebd, pp.693-702, 2016.

G. L. Andriole, E. D. Crawford, R. L. Grubb, S. S. Buys, D. Chia et al., Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up, J Natl Cancer Inst, vol.104, issue.2, pp.125-157, 2012.

F. H. Schröder, J. Hugosson, M. J. Roobol, T. Tammela, M. Zappa et al., Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up, Lancet Lond Engl. 6 déc, vol.384, issue.9959, pp.2027-2062, 2014.

J. Hugosson, S. Carlsson, G. Aus, S. Bergdahl, A. Khatami et al., Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial, Lancet Oncol. août, vol.11, issue.8, pp.725-757, 2010.

M. C. Wang, L. A. Valenzuela, G. P. Murphy, and T. M. Chu, Purification of a human prostate specific antigen, Invest Urol. sept, vol.17, issue.2, pp.159-63, 1979.

A. Ouzzane, P. Coloby, J. Mignard, A. Soulie, M. Rebillard et al.,

, Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol. janv, vol.21, issue.1, pp.18-28, 2011.

B. Djavan, Biopsie prostatique : techniques et indications, Techniques chirurgicales -Urologie, pp.41-265, 2010.

B. J. Moran, M. H. Braccioforte, and D. J. Conterato, Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic transperineal technique, J Urol, vol.176, issue.4, pp.1376-81, 2006.

J. Xue, Z. Qin, H. Cai, C. Zhang, X. Li et al., Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis, Oncotarget. 4 avr, vol.8, issue.14, pp.23322-23358, 2017.

D. F. Gleason, Classification of prostatic carcinomas, Cancer Chemother Rep. mars, vol.50, issue.3, pp.125-133, 1966.

V. Molinié, Gleason's score: update in, 2008.

, Ann Pathol, vol.28, issue.5, pp.350-353, 2008.

G. Badin, Synthèse des guidelines de l'EAU face aux particularités francaises. Cancer de prostate

J. I. Epstein, W. C. Allsbrook, M. B. Amin, and L. L. Egevad, ISUP Grading Committee, The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma, vol.29, pp.1228-1270, 2005.

J. I. Epstein, L. Egevad, M. B. Amin, B. Delahunt, J. R. Srigley et al., Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of, vol.40, pp.244-52, 2014.

L. H. Sobin, M. Gospodariwicz, and C. Wittekind, UICC International Union Against Cancer, pp.243-248, 2009.

A. V. D'amico, R. Whittington, S. B. Malkowicz, D. Schultz, K. Blank et al., Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer, JAMA. 16 sept, vol.280, issue.11, pp.969-74, 1998.

K. K. Hodge, J. E. Mcneal, M. K. Terris, and T. A. Stamey, Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate, J Urol. juill, vol.142, issue.1, pp.71-75, 1989.

M. A. Levine, M. Ittman, J. Melamed, and H. Lepor, Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer, J Urol. févr, vol.159, issue.2, pp.475-476, 1998.

V. Ravery, L. Goldblatt, B. Royer, E. Blanc, M. Toublanc et al., Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer, J Urol. août, vol.164, issue.2, pp.393-399, 2000.

M. Norberg, L. Egevad, L. Holmberg, P. Sparén, B. J. Norlén et al., The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer, Urology, vol.50, issue.4, pp.562-568, 1997.

M. Peyromaure, V. Ravery, A. Messas, M. Toublanc, L. Boccon-gibod et al., Pain and morbidity of an extensive prostate 10-biopsy protocol: a prospective study in 289 patients, J Urol. janv, vol.167, issue.1, pp.218-239, 2002.

V. Scattoni, C. Maccagnano, U. Capitanio, A. Gallina, A. Briganti et al., Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?, World J Urol. août, vol.32, issue.4, pp.859-69, 2014.

A. De-la-taille, P. Antiphon, L. Salomon, M. Cherfan, R. Porcher et al., Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate, Urology. juin, vol.61, issue.6, pp.1181-1187, 2003.

L. M. Boccon-gibod, N. B. De-longchamps, M. Toublanc, L. A. Boccon-gibod, and V. Ravery, Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer, J Urol. sept, vol.176, issue.3, pp.963-964, 2006.

N. B. Delongchamps, G. De-la-roza, R. Jones, M. Jumbelic, and G. P. Haas, Saturation biopsies on autopsied prostates for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer, BJU Int. janv, vol.103, issue.1, pp.49-54, 2009.

P. Pepe and F. Aragona, Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation, Urology. déc, vol.70, issue.6, pp.1131-1136, 2007.

G. Ploussard, L. Bastien, A. Descazeaud, G. Robert, Y. Allory et al., Extended biopsy protocol decreases prostate cancer incidence and risk of aggressive disease on repeated biopsies compared with initial standard procedure, Urol Int, vol.84, issue.2, pp.147-52, 2010.

J. Campos-fernandes, L. Bastien, N. Nicolaiew, G. Robert, S. Terry et al., Prostate cancer detection rate in patients with repeated extended 21-sample needle biopsy, Eur Urol. mars, vol.55, issue.3, pp.600-606, 2009.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00300206

G. Guichard, S. Larré, A. Gallina, A. Lazar, H. Faucon et al., Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients, Eur Urol. août, vol.52, issue.2, pp.430-435, 2007.

G. Ploussard, N. Nicolaiew, C. Marchand, S. Terry, F. Vacherot et al., Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy, Eur Urol. janv, vol.65, issue.1, pp.154-61, 2014.

F. Rodríguez-covarrubias, A. González-ramírez, B. Aguilar-davidov, R. Castillejos-molina, M. Sotomayor et al., Extended sampling at first biopsy improves cancer detection rate: results of a prospective, randomized trial comparing 12 versus 18-core prostate biopsy, J Urol. juin, vol.185, issue.6, pp.2132-2138, 2011.

X. Jiang, S. Zhu, G. Feng, Z. Zhang, C. Li et al., Is an initial saturation prostate biopsy scheme better than an extended scheme for detection of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur Urol. juin, vol.63, issue.6, pp.1031-1040, 2013.

J. Irani, P. Blanchet, L. Salomon, P. Coloby, J. Hubert et al., Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial, J Urol. juill, vol.190, issue.1, pp.77-83, 2013.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01718067

K. Eichler, S. Hempel, J. Wilby, L. Myers, L. M. Bachmann et al., Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review, J Urol. mai, vol.175, issue.5, pp.1605-1617, 2006.

B. Turkbey, H. Mani, V. Shah, A. R. Rastinehad, M. Bernardo et al., Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds, J Urol, vol.186, issue.5, pp.1818-1842, 2011.

J. D. Le, N. Tan, E. Shkolyar, D. Y. Lu, L. Kwan et al., Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with wholemount histopathology, Eur Urol. mars, vol.67, issue.3, pp.569-76, 2015.

F. Bratan, E. Niaf, C. Melodelima, A. L. Chesnais, R. Souchon et al., Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study, Eur Radiol. juill, vol.23, issue.7, pp.2019-2048, 2013.

L. Wang, M. Mullerad, H. Chen, S. C. Eberhardt, M. W. Kattan et al., Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension, Radiology. juill, vol.232, issue.1, pp.133-142, 2004.

A. V. D'amico, R. Whittington, B. Malkowicz, M. Schnall, D. Schultz et al., Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer, J Urol. sept, vol.164, issue.3, pp.759-63, 2000.

M. R. Engelbrecht, G. J. Jager, and J. L. Severens, Patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer, Eur Urol. sept, vol.40, issue.3, pp.300-307, 2001.

N. Mottet, J. Bellmunt, E. Briers, M. Bolla, L. Bourke et al., Wiegel T.; members of the EAU -ESTRO -ESUR -SIOG Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. EAU -ESTRO -ESUR -SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen, 2018.

A. Van-hove, P. Savoie, C. Maurin, S. Brunelle, G. Gravis et al., Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies, World J Urol. août, vol.32, issue.4, pp.847-58, 2014.

I. G. Schoots, M. J. Roobol, D. Nieboer, C. H. Bangma, E. W. Steyerberg et al., Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur Urol. sept, vol.68, issue.3, pp.438-50, 2015.

E. Baco, E. Rud, L. M. Eri, G. Moen, L. Vlatkovic et al., A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy, Eur Urol. janv, vol.69, issue.1, pp.149-56, 2016.

J. Defontaines, L. Salomon, C. Champy, I. Cholley, M. Chiaradia et al.,

, Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol. déc, vol.27, issue.16, pp.1023-1053, 2017.

G. Ploussard, E. Xylinas, X. Durand, I. Ouzaïd, Y. Allory et al., Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme, BJU Int. août, vol.108, issue.4, pp.513-520, 2011.

L. Klotz, L. Zhang, A. Lam, R. Nam, A. Mamedov et al., Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer, J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1 janv, vol.28, issue.1, pp.126-157, 2010.

R. A. Godtman, E. Holmberg, A. Khatami, C. Pihl, J. Stranne et al., Long-term Results of Active Surveillance in the Göteborg Randomized, Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial, Eur Urol, vol.70, issue.5, pp.760-766, 2016.

M. A. Dall'era, B. R. Konety, J. E. Cowan, K. Shinohara, F. Stauf et al., Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort, Cancer. 15 juin, vol.112, issue.12, pp.2664-70, 2008.

J. C. Forde, P. J. Daly, S. White, M. Morrin, G. P. Smyth et al., A single centre experience of active surveillance as management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer in Ireland, Ir J Med Sci. sept, vol.183, issue.3, pp.377-82, 2014.

M. S. Soloway, C. T. Soloway, A. Eldefrawy, K. Acosta, B. Kava et al., Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment, Eur Urol. déc, vol.58, issue.6, pp.831-836, 2010.

E. D. Selvadurai, M. Singhera, K. Thomas, K. Mohammed, R. Woode-amissah et al., Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer, Eur Urol. déc, vol.64, issue.6, pp.981-988, 2013.

E. Xylinas, X. Durand, A. Campeggi, G. Ploussard, Y. Allory et al., Pathological findings after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inserm-00453763

, Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol. avr, vol.21, issue.4, pp.264-273, 2011.

M. Bul, X. Zhu, R. Valdagni, T. Pickles, Y. Kakehi et al., Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study, Eur Urol. avr, vol.63, issue.4, pp.597-603, 2013.

J. J. Tosoian, B. J. Trock, P. Landis, Z. Feng, J. I. Epstein et al., Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience, J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1 juin, vol.29, issue.16, pp.2185-90, 2011.

R. C. Chen, R. B. Rumble, D. A. Loblaw, A. Finelli, B. Ehdaie et al., Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement, J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol, vol.20, issue.18, pp.2182-90, 2016.

L. W. Dean, M. Assel, D. D. Sjoberg, A. J. Vickers, H. A. Al-ahmadie et al., Clinical utility of total length Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy in men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer, J Urol. 1 août, 2018.

H. B. Musunuru, T. Yamamoto, L. Klotz, G. Ghanem, A. Mamedov et al., Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes in the Sunnybrook Experience, J Urol. déc, vol.196, issue.6, pp.1651-1659, 2016.

J. S. Jones, A. Patel, L. Schoenfield, J. C. Rabets, C. D. Zippe et al., Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy, J Urol. févr, vol.175, issue.2, pp.485-493, 2006.

M. C. Lee, A. S. Moussa, O. Zaytoun, C. Yu, and J. S. Jones, Using a saturation biopsy scheme increases cancer detection during repeat biopsy in men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, Urology, vol.78, issue.5, pp.1115-1124, 2011.

L. M. Wong, G. Trottier, A. Toi, N. Lawrentschuk, T. H. Van-der-kwast et al., Should follow-up biopsies for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer be restricted to limited templates?, Urology. août, vol.82, issue.2, pp.405-414, 2013.

A. E. Ross, S. Loeb, P. Landis, A. W. Partin, J. I. Epstein et al., Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program, J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 10 juin, vol.28, issue.17, pp.2810-2816, 2010.

T. J. Wilt, M. K. Brawer, K. M. Jones, M. J. Barry, W. J. Aronson et al., Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer, N Engl J Med, vol.367, issue.3, pp.203-216, 2012.

A. Bill-axelson, L. Holmberg, H. Garmo, J. R. Rider, K. Taari et al., Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer, N Engl J Med. 6 mars, vol.370, issue.10, pp.932-974, 2014.

F. C. Hamdy, J. L. Donovan, J. A. Lane, M. Mason, C. Metcalfe et al., 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer, N Engl J Med, vol.375, issue.15, pp.1415-1439, 2016.

A. W. Partin, L. A. Mangold, D. M. Lamm, P. C. Walsh, J. I. Epstein et al., Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium, Urology. déc, vol.58, issue.6, pp.843-851, 2001.

A. W. Partin, M. W. Kattan, E. N. Subong, P. C. Walsh, K. J. Wojno et al., Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update, JAMA. 14 mai, vol.277, issue.18, pp.1445-51, 1997.

G. J. Nason, E. M. O'connor, D. Macmahon, B. Moss, S. W. Considine et al., Comparison of nomograms predicting lymph node invasion in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, Ir J Med Sci. févr, vol.187, issue.1, pp.33-40, 2018.

. Leyh-bannurah-s-r, S. Gazdovich, L. Budäus, E. Zaffuto, P. Dell'oglio et al., Population-Based External Validation of the Updated 2012 Partin Tables in Contemporary North American Prostate Cancer Patients. The Prostate, vol.77, pp.105-118, 2017.

M. R. Cooperberg, J. F. Hilton, and P. R. Carroll, The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy, Cancer, vol.15, issue.22, pp.5039-5085, 2011.

V. Stavrinides, F. Giganti, M. Emberton, and C. M. Moore, MRI in active surveillance: a critical review, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 16 août, 2018.

I. G. Schoots, C. M. Moore, and O. Rouvière, Role of MRI in low-risk prostate cancer: finding the wolf in sheep's clothing or the sheep in wolf's clothing?, Curr Opin Urol. mai, vol.27, issue.3, pp.238-283, 2017.

R. Renard-penna, M. Roupret, E. Compérat, F. Rozet, B. Granger et al., Relationship between non-suspicious MRI and insignificant prostate cancer: results from a monocentric study, World J Urol. mai, vol.34, issue.5, pp.673-681, 2016.

B. Nahar, A. Katims, M. P. Barboza, S. Prakash, N. Venkatramani et al., Reclassification Rates of Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance After the Addition of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy: An Analysis of 7 Widely Used Eligibility Criteria, Urology. déc, vol.110, pp.134-143, 2017.

M. R. Da-rosa, L. Milot, L. Sugar, D. Vesprini, H. Chung 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 JMRI. janv, vol.41, issue.1, pp.220-225, 2015.

R. R. Pessoa, P. C. Viana, R. L. Mattedi, G. B. Guglielmetti, M. D. Cordeiro et al., Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance, BJU Int, vol.119, issue.4, pp.535-577, 2017.

G. Ploussard, H. Borgmann, A. Briganti, P. De-visschere, J. J. Fütterer et al., Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies?, World J Urol. 2 juill, 2018.

J. B. Bloom, G. Hale, S. A. Gold, K. Rayn, C. Smith et al., Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: The Role of a Negative Confirmatory MRI-US Fusion Biopsy, J Urol. 28 juill, 2018.

H. U. Ahmed, . El-shater, A. Bosaily, L. C. Brown, R. Gabe et al., Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study, Lancet Lond Engl, vol.25, pp.815-837, 2017.

I. G. Schoots, N. Petrides, F. Giganti, L. P. Bokhorst, A. Rannikko et al., Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review, Eur Urol. avr, vol.67, issue.4, pp.627-663, 2015.

R. J. Bryant, D. D. Sjoberg, A. J. Vickers, M. C. Robinson, R. Kumar et al., Predicting high-grade cancer at ten-core prostate biopsy using four kallikrein markers measured in blood in the ProtecT study, J Natl Cancer Inst. juill, issue.7, p.107, 2015.

A. De-la-taille, J. Irani, M. Graefen, F. Chun, T. De-reijke et al., Clinical evaluation of the PCA3 assay in guiding initial biopsy decisions, J Urol. juin, vol.185, issue.6, pp.2119-2144, 2011.

J. T. Wei, Z. Feng, A. W. Partin, E. Brown, I. Thompson et al., Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer?, J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 20 déc, vol.32, issue.36, pp.4066-72, 2014.

G. Ploussard, X. Durand, E. Xylinas, S. Moutereau, C. Radulescu et al., Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance, Eur Urol. mars, vol.59, issue.3, pp.422-431, 2011.

J. J. Tosoian, S. Loeb, A. Kettermann, P. Landis, D. J. Elliot et al., Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program, J Urol. févr, vol.183, issue.2, pp.534-542, 2010.

J. J. Tosoian, H. D. Patel, M. Mamawala, P. Landis, S. Wolf et al., Longitudinal assessment of urinary PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer grade reclassification in favorable-risk men during active surveillance, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, vol.20, issue.3, pp.339-381, 2017.

D. W. Lin, L. F. Newcomb, E. C. Brown, J. D. Brooks, P. R. Carroll et al., Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study, Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 1 mai, vol.19, issue.9, pp.2442-50, 2013.

V. Fradet, P. Toren, M. Nguile-makao, M. Lodde, J. Lévesque et al., Prognostic value of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) during active surveillance of patients with low-risk prostate cancer receiving 5?-reductase inhibitors, BJU Int, vol.121, issue.3, pp.399-404, 2018.

P. Lamy, Y. Allory, A. Gauchez, B. Asselain, P. Beuzeboc et al., Prognostic Biomarkers Used for Localised Prostate Cancer Management: A Systematic Review, Eur Urol Focus. 7 mars, 2017.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02355786

F. Rozet, C. Bastide, P. Beuzeboc, L. Cormier, G. Fromont et al.,

, Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol. janv, vol.25, issue.1, pp.1-10, 2015.

T. A. Stamey, F. S. Freiha, J. E. Mcneal, E. A. Redwine, A. S. Whittemore et al., Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer, Cancer. 1 févr, vol.71, issue.3, pp.933-941, 1993.

J. I. Epstein, P. C. Walsh, M. Carmichael, and C. B. Brendler, Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer, JAMA. 2 févr, vol.271, issue.5, pp.368-74, 1994.

G. Ploussard, J. I. Epstein, R. Montironi, P. R. Carroll, M. Wirth et al., The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer, Eur Urol. août, vol.60, issue.2, pp.291-303, 2011.

P. J. Bastian, L. A. Mangold, J. I. Epstein, and A. W. Partin, Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer, vol.101, pp.2001-2006, 2004.

O. Hassan, M. Han, A. Zhou, A. Paulk, Y. Sun et al., Incidence of Extraprostatic Extension at Radical Prostatectomy with Pure Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Cancer: Implications for Whether Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer Should be Renamed « Not Cancer » and for Selection Criteria for Active Surveillance, J Urol. juin, vol.199, issue.6, pp.1482-1489, 2018.

O. N. Kryvenko and J. I. Epstein, Definition of Insignificant Tumor Volume of Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6 (Grade Group 1) Prostate Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy-Is it Time to Increase the Threshold?, J Urol. déc, vol.196, issue.6, pp.1664-1673, 2016.

K. J. Tay, R. T. Gupta, J. Holtz, R. K. Silverman, E. Tsivian et al., Does mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for active surveillance? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, vol.20, pp.323-330, 2017.

H. A. Vargas, O. Akin, A. Afaq, D. Goldman, J. Zheng et al., Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer, J Urol, vol.188, issue.5, pp.1732-1740, 2012.

P. Puech, E. Potiron, L. Lemaitre, X. Leroy, G. Haber et al., Dynamic contrastenhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens, Urology, vol.74, issue.5, pp.1094-1103, 2009.

N. Mottet and J. Irani, Place de la surveillance active dans le cancer de la prostate: présentation du protocole français, Prog En Urol, vol.18, issue.4, pp.12-18, 2008.

V. Scattoni, M. Raber, F. Abdollah, M. Roscigno, F. Dehò et al., Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy, Eur Urol. janv, vol.57, issue.1, pp.1-8, 2010.

P. Mortier, C. Bastide, E. Lechevallier, J. Walz, R. Fournier et al.,

, Progres En Urol J Assoc Francaise Urol Soc Francaise Urol. janv, vol.27, issue.1, pp.38-45, 2017.

G. I. Russo, T. Castelli, V. Favilla, G. Reale, D. Urzì et al., Performance of biopsy factors in predicting unfavorable disease in patients eligible for active surveillance according to the PRIAS criteria, Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. déc, vol.18, issue.4, pp.338-380, 2015.

F. Petrelli, I. Vavassori, M. Cabiddu, A. Coinu, M. Ghilardi et al., Predictive Factors for Reclassification and Relapse in Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Urology, vol.91, pp.136-178, 2016.

C. De-nunzio, R. Lombardo, G. Tema, H. Alkhatatbeh, G. Gandaglia et al., External validation of Chun, PCPT, ERSPC, Kawakami, and Karakiewicz nomograms in the prediction of prostate cancer: A single center cohort-study, Urol Oncol. août, vol.36, issue.8, pp.364-365, 2018.

M. Bandini, N. Fossati, and A. Briganti, Nomograms in urologic oncology, advantages and disadvantages, Curr Opin Urol. 7 août, 2018.

N. E. Fleshner, M. S. Lucia, B. Egerdie, L. Aaron, G. Eure et al., Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: the REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial, Lancet Lond Engl. 24 mars, vol.379, issue.9821, pp.1103-1114, 2012.