2026 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28400169)
1. Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies.
Radtke JP; Wiesenfarth M; Kesch C; Freitag MT; Alt CD; Celik K; Distler F; Roth W; Wieczorek K; Stock C; Duensing S; Roethke MC; Teber D; Schlemmer HP; Hohenfellner M; Bonekamp D; Hadaschik BA
Eur Urol; 2017 Dec; 72(6):888-896. PubMed ID: 28400169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators.
Alberts AR; Roobol MJ; Verbeek JFM; Schoots IG; Chiu PK; Osses DF; Tijsterman JD; Beerlage HP; Mannaerts CK; Schimmöller L; Albers P; Arsov C
Eur Urol; 2019 Feb; 75(2):310-318. PubMed ID: 30082150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men: Validation of a novel risk model combining MRI and clinical parameters and comparison to an ERSPC risk calculator and PI-RADS.
Radtke JP; Giganti F; Wiesenfarth M; Stabile A; Marenco J; Orczyk C; Kasivisvanathan V; Nyarangi-Dix JN; Schütz V; Dieffenbacher S; Görtz M; Stenzinger A; Roth W; Freeman A; Punwani S; Bonekamp D; Schlemmer HP; Hohenfellner M; Emberton M; Moore CM
PLoS One; 2019; 14(8):e0221350. PubMed ID: 31450235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prediction of Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the ERSPC Risk Calculator in a Contemporary Dutch Clinical Cohort.
Gayet M; Mannaerts CK; Nieboer D; Beerlage HP; Wijkstra H; Mulders PFA; Roobol MJ
Eur Urol Focus; 2018 Mar; 4(2):228-234. PubMed ID: 28753781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Prediction of Extraprostatic Disease-A Risk Model for Patient-tailored Risk Stratification When Planning Radical Prostatectomy.
Nyarangi-Dix J; Wiesenfarth M; Bonekamp D; Hitthaler B; Schütz V; Dieffenbacher S; Mueller-Wolf M; Roth W; Stenzinger A; Duensing S; Roethke M; Teber D; Schlemmer HP; Hohenfellner M; Radtke JP
Eur Urol Focus; 2020 Nov; 6(6):1205-1212. PubMed ID: 30477971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Avoiding Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Biopsies: Negative and Positive Predictive Value of MRI According to Prostate-specific Antigen Density, 4Kscore and Risk Calculators.
Falagario UG; Martini A; Wajswol E; Treacy PJ; Ratnani P; Jambor I; Anastos H; Lewis S; Haines K; Cormio L; Carrieri G; Rastinehad AR; Wiklund P; Tewari A
Eur Urol Oncol; 2020 Oct; 3(5):700-704. PubMed ID: 31548130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk-based Patient Selection for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy after Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Random Biopsy Avoids Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans.
Alberts AR; Schoots IG; Bokhorst LP; van Leenders GJ; Bangma CH; Roobol MJ
Eur Urol; 2016 Jun; 69(6):1129-34. PubMed ID: 26651990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Deniffel D; Healy GM; Dong X; Ghai S; Salinas-Miranda E; Fleshner N; Hamilton R; Kulkarni G; Toi A; van der Kwast T; Zlotta A; Finelli A; Perlis N; Haider MA
Radiology; 2021 Aug; 300(2):369-379. PubMed ID: 34032510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients.
Washino S; Okochi T; Saito K; Konishi T; Hirai M; Kobayashi Y; Miyagawa T
BJU Int; 2017 Feb; 119(2):225-233. PubMed ID: 26935594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. External validation of novel magnetic resonance imaging-based models for prostate cancer prediction.
Püllen L; Radtke JP; Wiesenfarth M; Roobol MJ; Verbeek JFM; Wetter A; Guberina N; Pandey A; Hüttenbrink C; Tschirdewahn S; Pahernik S; Hadaschik BA; Distler FA
BJU Int; 2020 Mar; 125(3):407-416. PubMed ID: 31758738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort.
Poyet C; Nieboer D; Bhindi B; Kulkarni GS; Wiederkehr C; Wettstein MS; Largo R; Wild P; Sulser T; Hermanns T
BJU Int; 2016 Mar; 117(3):401-8. PubMed ID: 26332503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
Alberts AR; Roobol MJ; Drost FH; van Leenders GJ; Bokhorst LP; Bangma CH; Schoots IG
BJU Int; 2017 Oct; 120(4):511-519. PubMed ID: 28267899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men.
Vedder MM; de Bekker-Grob EW; Lilja HG; Vickers AJ; van Leenders GJ; Steyerberg EW; Roobol MJ
Eur Urol; 2014 Dec; 66(6):1109-15. PubMed ID: 25168616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth.
Roobol MJ; Verbeek JFM; van der Kwast T; Kümmerlin IP; Kweldam CF; van Leenders GJLH
Eur Urol; 2017 Jul; 72(1):45-51. PubMed ID: 28162815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Who Benefits from Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Suspicion of Prostate Cancer?
Morote J; Celma A; Roche S; de Torres IM; Mast R; Semedey ME; Regis L; Planas J
Eur Urol Oncol; 2019 Nov; 2(6):664-669. PubMed ID: 31411977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators.
Roobol MJ; van Vugt HA; Loeb S; Zhu X; Bul M; Bangma CH; van Leenders AG; Steyerberg EW; Schröder FH
Eur Urol; 2012 Mar; 61(3):577-83. PubMed ID: 22104592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of prostate cancer prediction models in men undergoing both magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal biopsy: Are the models still relevant?
Doan P; Graham P; Lahoud J; Remmers S; Roobol MJ; Kim L; Patel MI
BJU Int; 2021 Dec; 128 Suppl 3():36-44. PubMed ID: 34374190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Druskin SC; Tosoian JJ; Young A; Collica S; Srivastava A; Ghabili K; Macura KJ; Carter HB; Partin AW; Sokoll LJ; Ross AE; Pavlovich CP
BJU Int; 2018 Apr; 121(4):619-626. PubMed ID: 29232037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Association Between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Score for the Index Lesion and Multifocal, Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Stabile A; Dell'Oglio P; De Cobelli F; Esposito A; Gandaglia G; Fossati N; Brembilla G; Cristel G; Cardone G; Deho' F; Losa A; Suardi N; Gaboardi F; Del Maschio A; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol Oncol; 2018 May; 1(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 31100225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer.
Otti VC; Miller C; Powell RJ; Thomas RM; McGrath JS
BJU Int; 2019 Jan; 123(1):82-90. PubMed ID: 29804315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
