285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21933336)
1. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.
Shukla-Dave A; Hricak H; Akin O; Yu C; Zakian KL; Udo K; Scardino PT; Eastham J; Kattan MW
BJU Int; 2012 May; 109(9):1315-22. PubMed ID: 21933336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis.
Shukla-Dave A; Hricak H; Kattan MW; Pucar D; Kuroiwa K; Chen HN; Spector J; Koutcher JA; Zakian KL; Scardino PT
BJU Int; 2007 Apr; 99(4):786-93. PubMed ID: 17223922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk Among Men Undergoing Combined MRI-targeted and Systematic Biopsy Using Novel Pre-biopsy Nomograms That Incorporate MRI Findings.
Bjurlin MA; Rosenkrantz AB; Sarkar S; Lepor H; Huang WC; Huang R; Venkataraman R; Taneja SS
Urology; 2018 Feb; 112():112-120. PubMed ID: 29155186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Novel Nomogram to Identify Candidates for Focal Therapy Among Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer Diagnosed via Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted and Systematic Biopsies: A European Multicenter Study.
Mjaess G; Peltier A; Roche JB; Lievore E; Lacetera V; Chiacchio G; Beatrici V; Mastroianni R; Simone G; Windisch O; Benamran D; Fourcade A; Nguyen TA; Fournier G; Fiard G; Ploussard G; Roumeguère T; Albisinni S; Diamand R
Eur Urol Focus; 2023 Nov; 9(6):992-999. PubMed ID: 37147167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Toward an MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of transperineal prostate biopsy outcome: A physician and patient decision tool.
Lee SM; Liyanage SH; Wulaningsih W; Wolfe K; Carr T; Younis C; Van Hemelrijck M; Popert R; Acher P
Urol Oncol; 2017 Nov; 35(11):664.e11-664.e18. PubMed ID: 28801025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for active surveillance amongst patients with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) 1 or ISUP GG2 prostate cancer, according to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings.
Luzzago S; de Cobelli O; Cozzi G; Peveri G; Bagnardi V; Catellani M; Di Trapani E; Mistretta FA; Pricolo P; Conti A; Alessi S; Marvaso G; Ferro M; Matei DV; Renne G; Jereczek-Fossa BA; Petralia G; Musi G
BJU Int; 2020 Jul; 126(1):104-113. PubMed ID: 32150328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Could Magnetic Resonance Imaging Help to Identify the Presence of Prostate Cancer Before Initial Biopsy? The Development of Nomogram Predicting the Outcomes of Prostate Biopsy in the Chinese Population.
Fang D; Zhao C; Ren D; Yu W; Wang R; Wang H; Li X; Yin W; Yu X; Yang K; Liu P; Shan G; Li S; He Q; Wang X; Xin Z; Zhou L
Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 23(13):4284-4292. PubMed ID: 27464612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Are prostate biopsies necessary for all patients 75years and older?
Chen Y; Fan Y; Yang Y; Jin J; Zhou L; He Z; Zhao Z; He Q; Wang X; Yu W; Wu S
J Geriatr Oncol; 2018 Mar; 9(2):124-129. PubMed ID: 28939384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A Novel Nomogram to Identify Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection Among Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Diagnosed with Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Biopsies.
Gandaglia G; Ploussard G; Valerio M; Mattei A; Fiori C; Fossati N; Stabile A; Beauval JB; Malavaud B; Roumiguié M; Robesti D; Dell'Oglio P; Moschini M; Zamboni S; Rakauskas A; De Cobelli F; Porpiglia F; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol; 2019 Mar; 75(3):506-514. PubMed ID: 30342844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Extended biopsy based criteria incorporating cumulative cancer length for predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer.
Komai Y; Kawakami S; Numao N; Fujii Y; Saito K; Kubo Y; Koga F; Kumagai J; Yamamoto S; Yonese J; Ishikawa Y; Fukui I; Kihara K
BJU Int; 2012 Dec; 110(11 Pt B):E564-9. PubMed ID: 22757686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. PI-RADS v2 and periprostatic fat measured on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can predict upgrading in radical prostatectomy pathology amongst patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer.
Zhai L; Fan Y; Sun S; Wang H; Meng Y; Hu S; Wang X; Yu W; Jin J
Scand J Urol; 2018; 52(5-6):333-339. PubMed ID: 30895901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Combined multiple clinical characteristics for prediction of discordance in grade and stage in prostate cancer patients undergoing systematic biopsy and radical prostatectomy.
Liu H; Tang K; Xia D; Peng E; Wang L; Chen Z
Pathol Res Pract; 2020 Nov; 216(11):153235. PubMed ID: 33035728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A proposal of a new nomogram for predicting upstaging in contemporary D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer patients.
Leyh-Bannurah SR; Dell'Oglio P; Tian Z; Schiffmann J; Shariat SF; Suardi N; Francesco M; Alberto B; Heinzer H; Huland H; Graefen M; Budäus L; Karakiewicz PI
World J Urol; 2017 Feb; 35(2):189-197. PubMed ID: 27289238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimizing detection of clinically significant prostate cancer through nomograms incorporating mri, clinical features, and advanced serum biomarkers in biopsy naïve men.
Siddiqui MR; Li EV; Kumar SKSR; Busza A; Lin JS; Mahenthiran AK; Aguiar JA; Shah PV; Ansbro B; Rich JM; Moataz SAS; Keeter MK; Mai Q; Mi X; Tosoian JJ; Schaeffer EM; Patel HD; Ross AE
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2023 Sep; 26(3):588-595. PubMed ID: 36973367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Fütterer JJ; Briganti A; De Visschere P; Emberton M; Giannarini G; Kirkham A; Taneja SS; Thoeny H; Villeirs G; Villers A
Eur Urol; 2015 Dec; 68(6):1045-53. PubMed ID: 25656808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms.
Wang L; Hricak H; Kattan MW; Chen HN; Scardino PT; Kuroiwa K
Radiology; 2006 Feb; 238(2):597-603. PubMed ID: 16344335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men.
Chun FK; Haese A; Ahyai SA; Walz J; Suardi N; Capitanio U; Graefen M; Erbersdobler A; Huland H; Karakiewicz PI
Cancer; 2008 Aug; 113(4):701-9. PubMed ID: 18553365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy.
Truong M; Wang B; Gordetsky JB; Nix JW; Frye TP; Messing EM; Thomas JV; Feng C; Rais-Bahrami S
Cancer; 2018 Jan; 124(2):278-285. PubMed ID: 28976544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. More advantages in detecting bone and soft tissue metastases from prostate cancer using
Pianou NK; Stavrou PZ; Vlontzou E; Rondogianni P; Exarhos DN; Datseris IE
Hell J Nucl Med; 2019; 22(1):6-9. PubMed ID: 30843003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
