301 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17495490)
1. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens.
Lee JS; Chung BH
Urol Int; 2007; 78(4):323-7. PubMed ID: 17495490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy.
Jeong CW; Park HK; Hong SK; Byun SS; Lee HJ; Lee SE
Urol Int; 2008; 81(2):179-85. PubMed ID: 18758216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance?
Weiss BE; Wein AJ; Malkowicz SB; Guzzo TJ
Urol Oncol; 2013 Nov; 31(8):1436-40. PubMed ID: 22503576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Tewari A; Indudhara R; Shinohara K; Schalow E; Woods M; Lee R; Anderson C; Narayan P
J Clin Ultrasound; 1996 May; 24(4):169-74. PubMed ID: 8727414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Localising prostate cancer: comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and 3D-MR spectroscopic imaging with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy.
Goris Gbenou MC; Peltier A; Addla SK; Lemort M; Bollens R; Larsimont D; Roumeguère T; Schulman CC; van Velthoven R
Urol Int; 2012; 88(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 22004874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound prostate volume estimation: clinical correlations.
Matthews GJ; Motta J; Fracehia JA
J Clin Ultrasound; 1996; 24(9):501-5. PubMed ID: 8906481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Comparison of Imaging and Clinical Methods to Estimate Prostate Volume: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study.
Massanova M; Robertson S; Barone B; Dutto L; Caputo VF; Bhatt JR; Ahmad I; Bada M; Obeidallah A; Crocetto F
Urol Int; 2021; 105(9-10):804-810. PubMed ID: 34247169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessment of in vivo calculation with ultrasonography compared to physical sections in vitro: a stereological study of prostate volumes.
Acer N; Sofikerim M; Ertekin T; Unur E; Çay M; Öztürk F
Anat Sci Int; 2011 Jun; 86(2):78-85. PubMed ID: 20734181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Determination of prostate gland volume by transrectal ultrasound: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.
Myschetzky PS; Suburu RE; Kelly BS; Wilson ML; Chen SC; Lee F
Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl; 1991; 137():107-11. PubMed ID: 1947827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Determination of Prostate Volume: A Comparison of Contemporary Methods.
Bezinque A; Moriarity A; Farrell C; Peabody H; Noyes SL; Lane BR
Acad Radiol; 2018 Dec; 25(12):1582-1587. PubMed ID: 29609953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prostate cancer volume estimations based on transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in order to predict clinically significant prostate cancer.
Konyalioglu E; Tarhan H; Cakmak O; Pala EE; Zorlu F
Int Braz J Urol; 2015; 41(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 26200537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prostate weight is the preferred measure of prostate size in radical prostatectomy cohorts.
Hong MK; Yao HH; Rzetelski-West K; Namdarian B; Pedersen J; Peters JS; Hovens CM; Corcoran NM
BJU Int; 2012 Apr; 109 Suppl 3():57-63. PubMed ID: 22458496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens.
Paterson NR; Lavallée LT; Nguyen LN; Witiuk K; Ross J; Mallick R; Shabana W; MacDonald B; Scheida N; Fergusson D; Momoli F; Cnossen S; Morash C; Cagiannos I; Breau RH
Can Urol Assoc J; 2016 Aug; 10(7-8):264-268. PubMed ID: 27878049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Accuracy of in-vivo assessment of prostatic volume by MRI and transrectal ultrasonography.
Rahmouni A; Yang A; Tempany CM; Frenkel T; Epstein J; Walsh P; Leichner PK; Ricci C; Zerhouni E
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1992; 16(6):935-40. PubMed ID: 1385499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography, and multicoil magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer.
Sanchez-Chapado M; Angulo JC; Ibarburen C; Aguado F; Ruiz A; Viaño J; García-Segura JM; Gonzalez-Esteban J; Rodriquez-Vallejo JM
Eur Urol; 1997; 32(2):140-9. PubMed ID: 9286643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prostate volume measured preoperatively predicts for organ-confined disease in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Bianco FJ; Mallah KN; Korets R; Hricak H; Scardino PT; Kattan MW
Urology; 2007 Feb; 69(2):343-6. PubMed ID: 17320675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Early localization of recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy by endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging.
Linder BJ; Kawashima A; Woodrum DA; Tollefson MK; Karnes J; Davis BJ; Rangel LJ; King BF; Mynderse LA
Can J Urol; 2014 Jun; 21(3):7283-9. PubMed ID: 24978358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prostate volume measurement by TRUS using heights obtained by transaxial and midsagittal scanning: comparison with specimen volume following radical prostatectomy.
Park SB; Kim JK; Choi SH; Noh HN; Ji EK; Cho KS
Korean J Radiol; 2000; 1(2):110-3. PubMed ID: 11752939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of ultrasound in estimation of prostate weight: comparison of urologists and radiologists.
Nunez-Nateras R; Andrews JR; Martin GL; Andrews PE; Humphreys MR; Ferrigni RG; Eversman WG; Castle EP
Can J Urol; 2010 Feb; 17(1):4985-8. PubMed ID: 20156377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CE-TRUS) with cadence-contrast pulse sequence (CPS) technology for the identification of prostate cancer.
Seitz M; Gratzke C; Schlenker B; Buchner A; Karl A; Roosen A; Singer BB; Bastian PJ; Ergün S; Stief CG; Reich O; Tilki D
Urol Oncol; 2011; 29(3):295-301. PubMed ID: 19523857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
