180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19221059)
1. Uterine cervical carcinoma: preoperative staging with 3.0-T MR imaging--comparison with 1.5-T MR imaging.
Hori M; Kim T; Murakami T; Imaoka I; Onishi H; Tomoda K; Tsutsui T; Enomoto T; Kimura T; Nakamura H
Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):96-104. PubMed ID: 19221059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. MR imaging of endometrial carcinoma for preoperative staging at 3.0 T: comparison with imaging at 1.5 T.
Hori M; Kim T; Murakami T; Imaoka I; Onishi H; Nakamoto A; Nakaya Y; Tomoda K; Tsutsui T; Enomoto T; Kimura T; Nakamura H
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2009 Sep; 30(3):621-30. PubMed ID: 19711413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation - ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability.
Hricak H; Gatsonis C; Coakley FV; Snyder B; Reinhold C; Schwartz LH; Woodward PJ; Pannu HK; Amendola M; Mitchell DG
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 17940305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted 3.0-T MR imaging--initial experience.
Lin G; Ng KK; Chang CJ; Wang JJ; Ho KC; Yen TC; Wu TI; Wang CC; Chen YR; Huang YT; Ng SH; Jung SM; Chang TC; Lai CH
Radiology; 2009 Mar; 250(3):784-92. PubMed ID: 19244045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Uterine tumors: comparison of 3D versus 2D T2-weighted turbo spin-echo MR imaging at 3.0 T--initial experience.
Hori M; Kim T; Onishi H; Ueguchi T; Tatsumi M; Nakamoto A; Tsuboyama T; Tomoda K; Tomiyama N
Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):154-63. PubMed ID: 21045182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Preoperative staging of cervical carcinoma: phased array coil fast spin-echo versus body coil spin-echo T2-weighted MR imaging.
Yu KK; Hricak H; Subak LL; Zaloudek CJ; Powell CB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Sep; 171(3):707-11. PubMed ID: 9725301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning.
Manfredi R; Mirk P; Maresca G; Margariti PA; Testa A; Zannoni GF; Giordano D; Scambia G; Marano P
Radiology; 2004 May; 231(2):372-8. PubMed ID: 15031434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the use of the transrectal surface coil and the pelvic phased-array coil in MR imaging for preoperative evaluation of uterine cervical carcinoma.
Kim MJ; Chung JJ; Lee YH; Lee JT; Yoo HS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 May; 168(5):1215-21. PubMed ID: 9129414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rectal cancer: comparison of accuracy of local-regional staging with two- and three-dimensional preoperative 3-T MR imaging.
Kim H; Lim JS; Choi JY; Park J; Chung YE; Kim MJ; Choi E; Kim NK; Kim KW
Radiology; 2010 Feb; 254(2):485-92. PubMed ID: 20093520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Nodal metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: accuracy of 3.0-T MR imaging.
Kim HY; Yi CA; Lee KS; Chung MJ; Kim YK; Choi BK; Kim H; Kwon OJ
Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):596-604. PubMed ID: 18056854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Gadobutrol-enhanced, three-dimensional, dynamic MR imaging with MR cholangiography for the preoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer.
Ryoo I; Lee JM; Chung YE; Park HS; Kim SH; Han JK; Choi BI
Invest Radiol; 2010 Apr; 45(4):217-24. PubMed ID: 20195160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cervical cancer: value of an endovaginal coil magnetic resonance imaging technique in detecting small volume disease and assessing parametrial extension.
deSouza NM; Dina R; McIndoe GA; Soutter WP
Gynecol Oncol; 2006 Jul; 102(1):80-5. PubMed ID: 16427688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience.
Fütterer JJ; Heijmink SW; Scheenen TW; Jager GJ; Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA; Witjes JA; Barentsz JO
Radiology; 2006 Jan; 238(1):184-91. PubMed ID: 16304091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Locally advanced rectal cancer: MR imaging for restaging after neoadjuvant radiation therapy with concomitant chemotherapy. Part II. What are the criteria to predict involved lymph nodes?
Lahaye MJ; Beets GL; Engelen SM; Kessels AG; de Bruïne AP; Kwee HW; van Engelshoven JM; van de Velde CJ; Beets-Tan RG
Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):81-91. PubMed ID: 19403848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Parametrial invasion in cervical carcinoma: evaluation of detection at MR imaging with fat suppression.
Scheidler J; Heuck AF; Steinborn M; Kimmig R; Reiser MF
Radiology; 1998 Jan; 206(1):125-9. PubMed ID: 9423661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.
Beddy P; Moyle P; Kataoka M; Yamamoto AK; Joubert I; Lomas D; Crawford R; Sala E
Radiology; 2012 Feb; 262(2):530-7. PubMed ID: 22114239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance.
Heijmink SW; Fütterer JJ; Hambrock T; Takahashi S; Scheenen TW; Huisman HJ; Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA; Knipscheer BC; Kiemeney LA; Witjes JA; Barentsz JO
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):184-95. PubMed ID: 17495178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is dynamic gadolinium enhancement needed in MR imaging for the preoperative assessment of scaphoidal viability in patients with scaphoid nonunion?
Donati OF; Zanetti M; Nagy L; Bode B; Schweizer A; Pfirrmann CW
Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):808-16. PubMed ID: 21712471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Non-small cell lung cancer staging: efficacy comparison of integrated PET/CT versus 3.0-T whole-body MR imaging.
Yi CA; Shin KM; Lee KS; Kim BT; Kim H; Kwon OJ; Choi JY; Chung MJ
Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):632-42. PubMed ID: 18552311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of international federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage IB cervical cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T.
Lin Y; Chen Z; Kuang F; Li H; Zhong Q; Ma M
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2013; 37(6):989-94. PubMed ID: 24270123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
