MpMRI is increasingly used to improve the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer. Different studies have provided further evidence to support a larger use of mpMRI due to more accurate detection and characterization of suspicious lesions, especially in biopsy-naïve patients, reducing, moreover, the number of unnecessary biopsies [
19,
20]. The PROMIS study proposed and tested mpMRI as a “triage test” to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies and reduce diagnoses of non-clinically significant PCa, which represent, respectively, 27% and 5% of cases. Anyway, suspicious lesions detected at mpMRI still needs to be confirmed at biopsy before any further therapeutic decision, due to the possibility of incurring in false positives [
21‐
23]. Despite fusion targeted biopsy is able to detect PCa with higher GS and/or upgrade cancers previously detected compared to standard biopsy [
24], a small fraction of patients with clinically significant PCa are still missed by target biopsy, due to the failure in the identification of lesion at mpMRI, technical limitations and intralesional GS heterogenicity [
25,
26]. However, the aid of mpMRI before biopsy could further enhance the detection rate also for systematic biopsy, as shown by the PRECISION trial [
27] and reduce the risk of upgrading GS on radical prostatectomy [
28‐
30]. Due to these findings, we utilized in our study a biopsy protocol that comprehended a combined approach of systematic and fusion targeted biopsy, in order to obtain the highest possible accuracy. Kam et al. [
31], evaluating the accuracy of mpMRI in detecting PCa and tumor staging, reported, on 235 patients, an overall index lesion location concordance between mpMRI and RP histologic report of 75% with a sensitivity that reached 91% in the detection of clinically significant PCa (GS ≥ 7). In a previous study [
32], the same authors reported, on 121 patients, a concordance rate for GS between combined biopsy (fusion plus standard) and final histologic report of 58%. However, both studies presented limitations and bias regarding blinding methods and randomization which could have increased sensitivity and concordance rates. Baco et al. [
33], similarly, reported on 128 patients, a concordance rate for GS between fusion biopsy and RP histologic report of 69.5%. Borkowetz et al. [
34] reported a concordance rate for GS between targeted, systematic and combined biopsy of 63%, 54% and 75%, respectively. The same study also reported a concordance rate for index lesion location between mpMRI and RP histologic report of 87% with, in addition, detection of clinically significant PCa in 54%, 88% and 96% of cases for, respectively, PIRADS 3, 4 and 5. Those higher rates could, however, be explained by the absence of blinding methods in the evaluation of mpMRI which were retrospectively re-evaluated by a single radiologist, leading, as reported also by the authors, to a detection bias in favor of an overdetection of tumor-suspicious lesions. Finally, a recent study by Diamand et al. [
35], compared the accuracy in the detection of clinically significant PCa between standard and fusion biopsy, reporting concordance rates of 49.4%, 51.2% and 63.2% for, respectively, standard biopsy, fusion biopsy and both at the final histologic report of the postoperative specimen. Our data are consistent with the previously reported studies, and despite we obtained lower concordance rates for lesion locations (which could be in part explained by the absence of a dimensional cut point), our concordance rates regarding GS, between biopsy and RP histologic report, and detection of clinically significant PCa at mpMRI are even higher with 73.6% for GS concordance and 92.4% for detection of clinically significant cancer at mpMRI. Our results could, therefore, suggest, in our opinion, an extended use of mpMRI as a safe and efficient diagnostic exam for PCa, reducing the number of men to submit to biopsy. Despite those considerations, prostate biopsy remains essential for the diagnosis of PCa, with last guidelines that underline the need to perform both targeted and systematic biopsies to improve the sensitivity of biopsy itself [
36]. However, there are several limitations in our study. First, our manuscript is based on retrospective analysis and even though comparable studies do not rely on larger sample sizes, our study is limited to a cohort of 115 patients. Second, despite mpMRI was executed by expert genitourinary radiologists, interpretation agreement between them was not assessed. Third, a potential bias is represented by the unavoidable discrepancies between biopsy and definitive histologic due to the multifocality of PCa. Finally, nine patients did not perform radical prostatectomy and despite this is a small fraction of total patients enrolled, this could lead to a potential selection bias.