REFERENCES
1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229-63.
2. Cornford P, Tilki D, van den Bergh RCN, et al. Prostate cancer. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office; 2026. ISBN: 978-94-92671-32-5. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer [Last accessed on 21 Sep 2026].
3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2319-29.
4. Czarnogórski MC, Settaf-Cherif L, Koper K, et al. Nerve-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy - anatomical approach. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2024;21:1101-10.
5. Carbin DD, Shah A, Kusuma VRM. Artificial intelligence in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: where do we stand today? J Robot Surg. 2024;18:404.
6. Della Corte M, Quarà A, De Cillis S, et al. 3D virtual models and augmented reality for radical prostatectomy: a narrative review. Chin Clin Oncol. 2024;13:56.
7. Sarhan K, Khan N, Prezzi D, et al. Reduction of surgical complications via 3D models during robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: review of current evidence and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:304.
8. Suartz CV, Costa MSS, Matalani CFA, et al. Comparative functional, perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2026; Epub ahead of print.
9. Stolzenburg JU, Holze S, Neuhaus P, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from the first multicentre, randomised, patient-blinded controlled trial in radical prostatectomy (LAP-01). Eur Urol. 2021;79:750-9.
10. Stolzenburg J, Holze S, Arthanareeswaran V, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 12-month outcomes of the multicentre randomised controlled LAP-01 trial. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:1583-90.
11. Pina AJ, Melo VC, Carlos VW, et al. Erectile function after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Urol. 2025;12:281-9.
12. Guimarães GC, de Oliveira RAR, Santana TBM, et al. Comparative analysis of functional outcomes between two different techniques after 1088 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in a high-volume cancer center: a clipless approach. J Endourol. 2019;33:1017-24.
13. Görgen ARH, Burttet LM, Cachoeira ET, et al. Association of nerve-sparing grading in robotic radical prostatectomy and trifecta outcome. World J Urol. 2022;40:2925-30.
14. Soeterik TFW, van Melick HHE, Dijksman LM, Stomps S, Witjes JA, van Basten JPA. Nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy increases the risk of ipsilateral positive surgical margins. J Urol. 2020;204:91-5.
15. Dinneen E, Almeida-Magana R, Al-Hammouri T, et al. Effect of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP versus standard RARP on erectile function and urinary continence in patients with localised prostate cancer (NeuroSAFE PROOF): a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2025;26:447-58.
16. Ditonno F, Bologna E, Licari LC, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025;28:623-31.
17. Xiao X, Wang M, Liu Y, et al. Perioperative efficiency and clinical outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an updated meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2025;19:492.
18. Soputro NA, Mikesell CD, Younis SK, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of single-port transvesical versus standard multiport robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2026;9:45-54.
19. Wagaskar VG, Mittal A, Sobotka S, et al. Hood technique for robotic radical prostatectomy - preserving periurethral anatomical structures in the space of Retzius and sparing the pouch of Douglas, enabling early return of continence without compromising surgical margin rates. Eur Urol. 2021;80:213-21.
20. Pirzada FM, Seth A, Nayyar R, Nayak B, Kumar R. Anterior versus posterior first approach for robot assisted radical prostatectomy-perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes. Prostate Int. 2025;13:137-41.
21. Chung DY, Jung HD, Kim DK, et al. Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0268182.
22. Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, De Angelis M, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2187-96.
23. Rodríguez Socarrás M, Gómez Rivas J, Reinoso Elbers J, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy by lateral approach: technique, reproducibility and outcomes. Cancers. 2023;15:5442.
24. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, Satyanarayana R, Siva S, Agarwal PK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56:89-96.
25. Uy M, Cassim R, Kim J, Hoogenes J, Shayegan B, Matsumoto ED. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2022;16:257-64.
26. Lenfant L, Garisto J, Sawczyn G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using single-port perineal approach: technique and single-surgeon matched-paired comparative outcomes. Eur Urol. 2021;79:384-92.
27. Mangano MS, De Gobbi A, Beniamin F, Lamon C, Ciaccia M, Maccatrozzo L. Robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using near-infrared fluorescence technology and indocyanine green: initial experience. Urologia. 2018;85:29-31.
28. Amara N, Al Youssef T, Massa J, et al. Intraoperative angiography of the neurovascular bundle using indocyanine green and near-infrared fluorescence improves anatomical dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial clinical experience. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:687-94.
29. Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Lodi S, et al. Real-time augmented reality three-dimensional guided robotic radical prostatectomy: preliminary experience and evaluation of the impact on surgical planning. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1260-7.
30. Shirk JD, Reiter RE, Wallen EM, et al. Trifecta outcomes after use of 3-dimensional digital models for planning of robotic prostatectomy: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7:e2434143.
31. Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Volpi G, et al. Artificial intelligence 3D augmented reality-guided robotic prostatectomy versus cognitive MRI intervention: results of the prospective randomized RIDERS trial. Eur Urol. 2026;89:233-43.
32. Eastham JA, Barocas DA, Chu CE, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline amendment (2026). J Urol. 2026;216:2-11.
33. Tay KJ, Polascik TJ. Focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol. 2016;69:317-26.
34. Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, et al. A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;74:422-9.
35. Guang ZLP, Kristensen G, Røder A, Brasso K. Oncological and functional outcomes of whole-gland HIFU as the primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2024;22:102101.
36. Fainberg J, Lee T, Vertosick EA, et al. Targeted ablation using ultrasound-guided irreversible electroporation of index tumors (TARGET study): prospective development study evaluating safety, patient-reported outcomes, and oncologic efficacy. Urol Pract. 2024;11:983-90.
37. Scheltema MJ, Geboers B, Blazevski A, et al. Median 5-year outcomes of primary focal irreversible electroporation for localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2023;131:6-13.
38. George AK, Miocinovic R, Patel AR, et al. Irreversible electroporation for prostate tissue ablation in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results from the PRESERVE trial. Eur Urol. 2026;89:57-68.
39. Dora C, Clarke GM, Frey G, Sella D. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2022;36:841-54.
40. Bushati Y, Guo AA, Muston BT, et al. Focal laser ablation in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2026;137:251-9.
41. Marcelin C, Klein C, Robert G, Bladou F, Grenier N, Jambon E. Percutaneous magnetic resonance imaging-guided focal laser ablation (MRI-FLA) of prostate tumors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Pers Med. 2024;14:1146.
42. Azzouzi AR, Vincendeau S, Barret E, et al. Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:181-91.
43. Shah TT, Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, et al. Early-medium-term outcomes of primary focal cryotherapy to treat nonmetastatic clinically significant prostate cancer from a prospective multicentre registry. Eur Urol. 2019;76:98-105.
44. Shah TT, Peters M, Miah S, et al. Assessment of return to baseline urinary and sexual function following primary focal cryotherapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:301-8.
45. Rischmann P, Gelet A, Riche B, et al. Focal high intensity focused ultrasound of unilateral localized prostate cancer: a prospective multicentric hemiablation study of 111 patients. Eur Urol. 2017;71:267-73.
46. Shoji S, Naruse J, Ohno S, et al. Focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound with intraoperative prostate compression for patients with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center prospective study with 7 year experience. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025;28:782-8.
47. Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, et al. Oncological and quality-of-life outcomes following focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a biopsy-monitored prospective cohort. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:283-90.
48. Nair SM, Hatiboglu G, Relle J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation in patients with localised prostate cancer: 3-year outcomes of a prospective Phase I study. BJU Int. 2021;127:544-52.
49. Klotz L, Pavlovich CP, Chin J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2021;205:769-79.
50. Eggener SE, Yousuf A, Watson S, Wang S, Oto A. Phase II evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;196:1670-5.
51. Walser E, Nance A, Ynalvez L, et al. Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: results in 120 patients with low- to intermediate-risk disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30:401-409.e2.
52. Chao B, Lepor H. 5-Year outcomes following focal laser ablation of prostate cancer. Urology. 2021;155:124-9.
53. Taneja SS, Bennett J, Coleman J, et al. Final results of a phase I/II multicenter trial of WST11 vascular targeted photodynamic therapy for hemi-ablation of the prostate in men with unilateral low risk prostate cancer performed in the United States. J Urol. 2016;196:1096-104.
54. Tay KJ, Fong KY, Stabile A, et al. Established focal therapy - HIFU, IRE, or cryotherapy - where are we now? - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025;28:693-706.
55. Stanzione A, Ponsiglione A, Alessandrino F, Brembilla G, Imbriaco M. Beyond diagnosis: is there a role for radiomics in prostate cancer management? Eur Radiol Exp. 2023;7:13.
56. Zhao LT, Liu ZY, Xie WF, et al. What benefit can be obtained from magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis with artificial intelligence in prostate cancer compared with clinical assessments? Mil Med Res. 2023;10:29.
57. Liu Y, Zhao L, Liu J, Wang L. Artificial intelligence-based personalized clinical decision-making for patients with localized prostate cancer: surgery versus radiotherapy. Oncologist. 2024;29:e1692-700.
58. Tang S, Zhang H, Liang J, et al. Prostate cancer treatment recommendation study based on machine learning and SHAP interpreter. Cancer Sci. 2024;115:3755-66.
59. Rho MJ, Park J, Moon HW, et al. Dr. Answer AI for prostate cancer: clinical outcome prediction model and service. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0236553.
60. Canellas R, Kohli MD, Westphalen AC. The evidence for using artificial intelligence to enhance prostate cancer MR imaging. Curr Oncol Rep. 2023;25:243-50.
61. Bhattacharya I, Khandwala YS, Vesal S, et al. A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging. Ther Adv Urol. 2022;14:17562872221128791.
62. Arita Y, Roest C, Kwee TC, et al. Advancements in artificial intelligence for prostate cancer: Optimizing diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic assessment. Asian J Urol. 2025;12:434-44.
63. Koehler D, Shenas F, Sauer M, et al. PSMA PET evaluation with a deep learning platform compared with a standard image viewer and histopathology. J Nucl Med. 2025;66:2014-9.
64. Hung AJ, Chen J, Ghodoussipour S, et al. A deep-learning model using automated performance metrics and clinical features to predict urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2019;124:487-95.
65. Nakamura W, Sumitomo M, Zennami K, et al. Combination of deep learning and ensemble machine learning using intraoperative video images strongly predicts recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Cancer Rep. 2023;6:e1861.
66. Saikali S, Reddy S, Gokaraju M, et al. Development and assessment of an AI-based machine learning model for predicting urinary continence and erectile function recovery after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: insights from a prostate cancer referral center. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2025;259:108522.
67. Parker CTA, Mendes L, Liu VYT, et al. External validation of a digital pathology-based multimodal artificial intelligence-derived prognostic model in patients with advanced prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy: a post-hoc ancillary biomarker study of four phase 3 randomised controlled trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol. Lancet Digit Health. 2025;7:100885.
68. Markowski MC, Ren Y, Tierney M, et al. Digital pathology-based artificial intelligence biomarker validation in metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025;8:755-62.
69. Marinkovic M, Popovic M, Stojanovic-rundic S, et al. Comparison of different machine learning models in prediction of postirradiation recurrence in prostate carcinoma patients. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:7943609.
70. Marletta S, Eccher A, Martelli FM, et al. Artificial intelligence-based algorithms for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Am J Clin Pathol. 2024;161:526-34.
71. Ciccone V, Garofano M, Del Sorbo R, et al. Improving early prostate cancer detection through artificial intelligence: evidence from a systematic review. Cancers. 2025;17:3503.
72. Tun HM, Naing L, Malik OA, Rahman HA. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2026;29:488-502.
73. Saha A, Bosma JS, Twilt JJ, et al. Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25:879-87.
74. Satturwar S, Parwani AV. Artificial intelligence-enabled prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis: current state and future implications. Adv Anat Pathol. 2024;31:136-44.
75. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. DEN200080: Paige Prostate De Novo classification request. September 21, 2021. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/DEN200080.pdf. [Last accessed on 21 Sep 2026].
76. Wang X, Zhong S, Fang K, Du Y, Huang J. Application and prospect of artificial intelligence in diagnostic imaging of prostate cancer. NPJ Digit Med. 2026;9:168.
77. Oszwald A, Wasinger G, Pradere B, Shariat SF, Compérat EM. Artificial intelligence in prostate histopathology: where are we in 2021? Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31:430-5.
