114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27666618)
1. Mean diffusivity discriminates between prostate cancer with grade group 1&2 and grade groups equal to or greater than 3.
Nezzo M; Di Trani MG; Caporale A; Miano R; Mauriello A; Bove P; Capuani S; Manenti G
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 85(10):1794-1801. PubMed ID: 27666618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Versus Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Discriminating Between Benign Tissue, Low and High Gleason Grade Prostate Cancer.
Di Trani MG; Nezzo M; Caporale AS; De Feo R; Miano R; Mauriello A; Bove P; Manenti G; Capuani S
Acad Radiol; 2019 Oct; 26(10):1328-1337. PubMed ID: 30545680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Using the Ratio of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Measures.
Onay A; Ertas G; Vural M; Acar O; Saglican Y; Coskun B; Akpek S
Contrast Media Mol Imaging; 2017; 2017():5678350. PubMed ID: 29097929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detection of high GS risk group prostate tumors by diffusion tensor imaging and logistic regression modelling.
Ertas G
Magn Reson Imaging; 2018 Jul; 50():125-133. PubMed ID: 29649574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Correlation of gleason scores with magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in peripheral zone prostate cancer.
Li L; Margolis DJ; Deng M; Cai J; Yuan L; Feng Z; Min X; Hu Z; Hu D; Liu J; Wang L
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2015 Aug; 42(2):460-7. PubMed ID: 25469909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Diffusion tensor imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy assessment of cancellous bone quality in femoral neck of healthy, osteopenic and osteoporotic subjects at 3T: Preliminary experience.
Manenti G; Capuani S; Fanucci E; Assako EP; Masala S; Sorge R; Iundusi R; Tarantino U; Simonetti G
Bone; 2013 Jul; 55(1):7-15. PubMed ID: 23507402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the diagnostic performances of diffusion parameters in diffusion weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging of breast lesions.
Cakir O; Arslan A; Inan N; Anık Y; Sarısoy T; Gumustas S; Akansel G
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Dec; 82(12):e801-6. PubMed ID: 24099642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Characterization of prostate cancer using diffusion tensor imaging: A new perspective.
Gholizadeh N; Greer PB; Simpson J; Denham J; Lau P; Dowling J; Hondermarck H; Ramadan S
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 110():112-120. PubMed ID: 30599846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Differences in Gaussian diffusion tensor imaging and non-Gaussian diffusion kurtosis imaging model-based estimates of diffusion tensor invariants in the human brain.
Lanzafame S; Giannelli M; Garaci F; Floris R; Duggento A; Guerrisi M; Toschi N
Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2464. PubMed ID: 27147357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Diffusion-tensor imaging for glioma grading at 3-T magnetic resonance imaging: analysis of fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity.
Lee HY; Na DG; Song IC; Lee DH; Seo HS; Kim JH; Chang KH
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2008; 32(2):298-303. PubMed ID: 18379322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic performance of diffusion tensor imaging parameters in breast cancer and correlation with the prognostic factors.
Onaygil C; Kaya H; Ugurlu MU; Aribal E
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2017 Mar; 45(3):660-672. PubMed ID: 27661775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Time-Dependent Diffusion in Prostate Cancer.
Lemberskiy G; Rosenkrantz AB; Veraart J; Taneja SS; Novikov DS; Fieremans E
Invest Radiol; 2017 Jul; 52(7):405-411. PubMed ID: 28187006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Correlation of diffusion tensor imaging parameters and Gleason scores of prostate cancer.
Tian W; Zhang J; Tian F; Shen J; Niu T; He G; Yu H
Exp Ther Med; 2018 Jan; 15(1):351-356. PubMed ID: 29250155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The role of diffusion tensor imaging and fractional anisotropy in the evaluation of patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a literature review.
Siasios I; Kapsalaki EZ; Fountas KN; Fotiadou A; Dorsch A; Vakharia K; Pollina J; Dimopoulos V
Neurosurg Focus; 2016 Sep; 41(3):E12. PubMed ID: 27581308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Differentiation of high-grade-astrocytomas from solitary-brain-metastases: Comparing diffusion kurtosis imaging and diffusion tensor imaging.
Tan Y; Wang XC; Zhang H; Wang J; Qin JB; Wu XF; Zhang L; Wang L
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Dec; 84(12):2618-24. PubMed ID: 26482747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Versus Standard Diffusion Imaging for Detection and Grading of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer.
Roethke MC; Kuder TA; Kuru TH; Fenchel M; Hadaschik BA; Laun FB; Schlemmer HP; Stieltjes B
Invest Radiol; 2015 Aug; 50(8):483-9. PubMed ID: 25867657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of diffusion tensor imaging metrics for gliomas grading at 3 T.
Server A; Graff BA; Josefsen R; Orheim TE; Schellhorn T; Nordhøy W; Nakstad PH
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Mar; 83(3):e156-65. PubMed ID: 24457139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: associations between diffusion metrics and histological prognostic factors.
Kim JY; Kim JJ; Kim S; Choo KS; Kim A; Kang T; Park H
Eur Radiol; 2018 Aug; 28(8):3185-3193. PubMed ID: 29713771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer.
Boesen L
Dan Med J; 2017 Feb; 64(2):. PubMed ID: 28157066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prostate cancer: correlation of intravoxel incoherent motion MR parameters with Gleason score.
Yang DM; Kim HC; Kim SW; Jahng GH; Won KY; Lim SJ; Oh JH
Clin Imaging; 2016; 40(3):445-50. PubMed ID: 27133684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
