212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27423684)
1. Impact of an endorectal coil for 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate at 3.0T in comparison to 1.5T: Do we need an endorectal coil?
Hoffner MK; Huebner F; Scholtz JE; Zangos S; Schulz B; Luboldt W; Vogl TJ; Bodelle B
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Aug; 85(8):1432-8. PubMed ID: 27423684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate at 3.0 T: comparison of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI and phased-array coil (PAC) MRI-The impact of SNR on ADC measurement.
Mazaheri Y; Vargas HA; Nyman G; Shukla-Dave A; Akin O; Hricak H
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):e515-20. PubMed ID: 23810189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prostate magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 1.5tesla with endorectal coil versus 3.0tesla without endorectal coil: comparison of spectral quality.
De Visschere P; Nezzo M; Pattyn E; Fonteyne V; Van Praet C; Villeirs G
Clin Imaging; 2015; 39(4):636-41. PubMed ID: 25735448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical comparison between a currently available single-loop and an investigational dual-channel endorectal receive coil for prostate magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study at 1.5 and 3 T.
Vos EK; Sambandamurthy S; Kamel M; McKenney R; van Uden MJ; Hoeks CM; Yakar D; Scheenen TW; Fütterer JJ
Invest Radiol; 2014 Jan; 49(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 24019020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. High-Quality 3-Dimensional 1H Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging of the Prostate Without Endorectal Receive Coil Using A Semi-LASER Sequence.
Tayari N; Steinseifer IK; Selnæs KM; Bathen TF; Maas MC; Heerschap A
Invest Radiol; 2017 Oct; 52(10):640-646. PubMed ID: 28632688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A multitransmit external body array combined with a
Philips BWJ; van Uden MJ; Rietsch SHG; Orzada S; Scheenen TWJ
Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3893-3905. PubMed ID: 31274201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mapping of the prostate in endorectal coil-based MRI/MRSI and CT: a deformable registration and validation study.
Lian J; Xing L; Hunjan S; Dumoulin C; Levin J; Lo A; Watkins R; Rohling K; Giaquinto R; Kim D; Spielman D; Daniel B
Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):3087-94. PubMed ID: 15587662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Development and evaluation of a multichannel endorectal RF coil for prostate MRI at 7T in combination with an external surface array.
Ertürk MA; Tian J; Van de Moortele PF; Adriany G; Metzger GJ
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2016 Jun; 43(6):1279-87. PubMed ID: 26584144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil.
O'Donohoe RL; Dunne RM; Kimbrell V; Tempany CM
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2019 Mar; 44(3):1062-1069. PubMed ID: 30324501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. MR imaging of the prostate at 3.0T with external phased array coil - preliminary results.
Morakkabati-Spitz N; Bastian PJ; Gieseke J; Träber F; Kuhl CK; Wattjes MP; Müller SC; Schild HH
Eur J Med Res; 2008 Jun; 13(6):287-91. PubMed ID: 18558555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A Novel Three-Channel Endorectal Coil for Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3T.
Mo Z; Zhang X; Liang H; Chen Q; Tie C; Xiao W; Cao Q; Liu C; Zou C; Wan L; Zhang X; Li Y
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2023 Dec; 70(12):3381-3388. PubMed ID: 37318962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.
Baur AD; Daqqaq T; Wagner M; Maxeiner A; Huppertz A; Renz D; Hamm B; Fischer T; Durmus T
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jun; 85(6):1075-84. PubMed ID: 27161055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Initial results of 3-dimensional 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in the localization of prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: should we use an endorectal coil?
Yakar D; Heijmink SW; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA; Huisman H; Barentsz JO; Fütterer JJ; Scheenen TW
Invest Radiol; 2011 May; 46(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 21217527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prostate MRI using a rigid two-channel phased-array endorectal coil: comparison with phased array coil acquisition at 3 T.
Lewis S; Ganti A; Argiriadi P; Rosen A; Hectors S; Semaan S; Song C; Peti S; Segall M; George K; Jaikaran V; Villa S; Kestenbaum D; Voutsinas N; Doucette J; Tewari A; Rastinehad AR; Taouli B
Cancer Imaging; 2022 Mar; 22(1):15. PubMed ID: 35296357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Fat Suppressed Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3T: Comparison of Image Quality Between Spectrally Adiabatic Iversion Recovery and the Multiecho Dixon Technique in Imaging of the Prostate.
Iyama Y; Nakaura T; Kidoh M; Katahira K; Namimoto T; Morishita S; Yamashita Y
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2017; 41(3):382-387. PubMed ID: 28505622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reproducibility of 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate at 1.5T.
Lagemaat MW; Zechmann CM; Fütterer JJ; Weiland E; Lu J; Villeirs GM; Holshouser BA; van Hecke P; Lemort M; Schlemmer HP; Barentsz JO; Roell SO; Heerschap A; Scheenen TW
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2012 Jan; 35(1):166-73. PubMed ID: 21960013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality.
Ullrich T; Quentin M; Oelers C; Dietzel F; Sawicki LM; Arsov C; Rabenalt R; Albers P; Antoch G; Blondin D; Wittsack HJ; Schimmöller L
Eur J Radiol; 2017 May; 90():192-197. PubMed ID: 28583633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A clinical comparison of rigid and inflatable endorectal-coil probes for MRI and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the prostate.
Noworolski SM; Crane JC; Vigneron DB; Kurhanewicz J
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2008 May; 27(5):1077-82. PubMed ID: 18407539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: A prospective, paired-patient study.
Costa DN; Yuan Q; Xi Y; Rofsky NM; Lenkinski RE; Lotan Y; Roehrborn CG; Francis F; Travalini D; Pedrosa I
Urol Oncol; 2016 Jun; 34(6):255.e7-255.e13. PubMed ID: 26971190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Supervised risk predictor of central gland lesions in prostate cancer using
Gholizadeh N; Greer PB; Simpson J; Fu C; Al-Iedani O; Lau P; Heerschap A; Ramadan S
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2019 Dec; 50(6):1926-1936. PubMed ID: 31132193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
