Background: The widely-used National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk criteria for prostate cancer are impactful for patient and clinicians, particularly when assessing suitability for initial active surveillance. However, in the era of MRI-guided biopsy, fewer patients may meet stringent “very-low risk” criteria due to improved sampling, which may lead to over-treatment of non-lethal cancers. We evaluated the distribution of prostate cancer risk classification obtained using MRI-ultrasound fusion versus systematic 12 core biopsy. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent prostate MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy at a single institution from January 2017 to July 2021. The primary study objective was to characterize the proportion of patients meeting NCCN “very-low risk” designation within a contemporary biopsy cohort. We calculated NCCN risk classifications (very low, low, favorable intermediate, unfavorable intermediate, high, and very high) based on constituent components (PSA, PSA density, number of biopsy cores positive, greatest extent of core positivity). We conducted comparisons within patients based on findings obtained through MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy versus systematic biopsy only. Results: We identified 1,132 patients, including 1,014 (89.5%) and 118 (10.5%) who underwent first-time biopsy and surveillance biopsies. The median PSA was 7.15 (interquartile range: 5.2-10.8). Using data obtained through systematic biopsy alone, 123 (10.9%) and 242 (21.4%) were classified as very-low and low NCCN risk, respectively. Incorporating data from MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy, 86 (7.6%) and 255 (22.5%) were classified as very-low and low NCCN risk, respectively. Among patients initially electing active surveillance as management, 7.4%, 60.2%, 26.9% met very-low, low, and favorable-intermediate risk criteria, respectively. Conclusions: A small proportion of patients undergoing MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy will be classified as ‘very-low risk’ by the NCCN definition, and the majority of patients managed initially with active surveillance fall outside of this criteria. These findings imply a need to broaden support for active surveillance outside of “very-low risk” criteria to promote greater uptake.