BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28602102)

  • 1. Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Masquerading as Jugular Foramen Paraganglioma: A Role for Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
    Thomas AJ; Wiggins RH; Gurgel RK
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2017 Aug; 126(8):606-610. PubMed ID: 28602102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparative review of multidetector CT angiography and MRI in the diagnosis of jugular foramen lesions.
    Christie A; Teasdale E
    Clin Radiol; 2010 Mar; 65(3):213-7. PubMed ID: 20152277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Diffusion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype.
    Goyal A; Sharma R; Bhalla AS; Gamanagatti S; Seth A; Iyer VK; Das P
    Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):349-58. PubMed ID: 22496427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Pseudotumours in chronic kidney disease: can diffusion-weighted MRI rule out malignancy.
    Goyal A; Sharma R; Bhalla AS; Gamanagatti S; Seth A
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 82(11):1870-6. PubMed ID: 23932396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Angiomatous type of jugular foramen meningioma with neck extension: differential diagnosis from paraganglioma and schwannoma.
    Chen ZC; Wang CP; Hsiao JK; Ko JY; Tseng HM; Yao YT
    Head Neck; 2007 Aug; 29(8):793-8. PubMed ID: 17252587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Characterization of small (<4cm) solid renal masses by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: Current evidence and further development.
    Schieda N; Lim RS; McInnes MDF; Thomassin I; Renard-Penna R; Tavolaro S; Cornelis FH
    Diagn Interv Imaging; 2018; 99(7-8):443-455. PubMed ID: 29606371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma simulating glomus jugulare tumor.
    Boileau MA; Grotta JC; Borit A; Van der Linden C; Nath A; Ostrow P; Kopaniky D
    J Surg Oncol; 1987 Jul; 35(3):201-3. PubMed ID: 3037197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.
    Yamamoto A; Tamada T; Ito K; Sone T; Kanki A; Tanimoto D; Noda Y
    Clin Imaging; 2017; 41():53-58. PubMed ID: 27816876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of utility of tumor size and apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation of low- and high-grade clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.
    Maruyama M; Yoshizako T; Uchida K; Araki H; Tamaki Y; Ishikawa N; Shiina H; Kitagaki H
    Acta Radiol; 2015 Feb; 56(2):250-6. PubMed ID: 24518687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Diagnostic Utility of Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Small Solid Renal Tumors (≤ 4 cm) at 3.0T Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
    Zhang HM; Wu YH; Gan Q; Lyu X; Zhu XL; Kuang M; Liu RB; Huang ZX; Yuan F; Liu XJ; Song B
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2015 Jun; 128(11):1444-9. PubMed ID: 26021498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T.
    Wang H; Cheng L; Zhang X; Wang D; Guo A; Gao Y; Ye H
    Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):135-43. PubMed ID: 20713607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Differentiating imaging findings in primary and secondary tumors of the jugular foramen.
    Löwenheim H; Koerbel A; Ebner FH; Kumagami H; Ernemann U; Tatagiba M
    Neurosurg Rev; 2006 Jan; 29(1):1-11; discussion 12-13. PubMed ID: 16283211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Subtype differentiation of renal cell carcinoma using diffusion-weighted and blood oxygenation level-dependent MRI.
    Choi YA; Kim CK; Park SY; Cho SW; Park BK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jul; 203(1):W78-84. PubMed ID: 24951231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of Utility of Histogram Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and R2* for Differentiation of Low-Grade From High-Grade Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.
    Zhang YD; Wu CJ; Wang Q; Zhang J; Wang XN; Liu XS; Shi HB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Aug; 205(2):W193-201. PubMed ID: 26204307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in renal cell carcinoma.
    Pedrosa I; Alsop DC; Rofsky NM
    Cancer; 2009 May; 115(10 Suppl):2334-45. PubMed ID: 19402070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Non-paraganglioma jugular foramen lesions masquerading as glomus jugulare tumors.
    Megerian CA; McKenna MJ; Nadol JB
    Am J Otol; 1995 Jan; 16(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 8579185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Non-paraganglioma tumors of the jugular foramen - Growth patterns, radiological presentation, differential diagnosis.
    Szymańska A; Szymański M; Czekajska-Chehab E; Szczerbo-Trojanowska M
    Neurol Neurochir Pol; 2015; 49(3):156-63. PubMed ID: 26048603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Utility of MRI features in differentiation of central renal cell carcinoma and renal pelvic urothelial carcinoma.
    Wehrli NE; Kim MJ; Matza BW; Melamed J; Taneja SS; Rosenkrantz AB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Dec; 201(6):1260-7. PubMed ID: 24261365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Correlation of radiographic renal cell carcinoma tumor volume utilizing computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging compared with pathological tumor volume.
    Jorns J; Thiel DD; Arnold ML; Diehl N; Cernigliaro JC; Wu KJ; Parker AS
    Scand J Urol; 2014 Oct; 48(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 24990768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Slow-flow phenomena in magnetic resonance imaging of the jugular bulb masquerading as skull base neoplasms.
    Widick MH; Haynes DS; Jackson CG; Patterson K; Glasscock ME; Macias JD
    Am J Otol; 1996 Jul; 17(4):648-52. PubMed ID: 8841716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.