1152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29804315)
21. Which clinical and radiological characteristics can predict clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions? A retrospective study in a high-volume academic center.
Hermie I; Van Besien J; De Visschere P; Lumen N; Decaestecker K
Eur J Radiol; 2019 May; 114():92-98. PubMed ID: 31005183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy.
Mannaerts CK; Gayet M; Verbeek JF; Engelbrecht MRW; Savci-Heijink CD; Jager GJ; Gielens MPM; van der Linden H; Beerlage HP; de Reijke TM; Wijkstra H; Roobol MJ
Eur Urol Oncol; 2018 Jun; 1(2):109-117. PubMed ID: 31100233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. How to optimize follow-up in patients with a suspicious multiparametric MRI and a subsequent negative targeted prostate biopsy. Results from a large, single-institution series.
Barletta F; Stabile A; Mazzone E; Brembilla G; Sorce G; Pellegrino F; Scuderi S; Cannoletta D; Cirulli GO; Cucchiara V; Gandaglia G; De Cobelli F; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Urol Oncol; 2022 Mar; 40(3):103.e17-103.e24. PubMed ID: 34688534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion Targeted Biopsy: Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Pepe P; Garufi A; Priolo G; Pennisi M
Clin Genitourin Cancer; 2017 Feb; 15(1):e33-e36. PubMed ID: 27530436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?
Zhang Y; Zeng N; Zhang F; Huang Y; Tian Y
Int J Clin Oncol; 2020 Jan; 25(1):175-186. PubMed ID: 31473884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.
Pepe P; Cimino S; Garufi A; Priolo G; Russo GI; Giardina R; Reale G; Pennisi M; Morgia G
Scand J Urol; 2017 Aug; 51(4):260-263. PubMed ID: 28513296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Sathianathen NJ; Omer A; Harriss E; Davies L; Kasivisvanathan V; Punwani S; Moore CM; Kastner C; Barrett T; Van Den Bergh RC; Eddy BA; Gleeson F; Macpherson R; Bryant RJ; Catto JWF; Murphy DG; Hamdy FC; Ahmed HU; Lamb AD
Eur Urol; 2020 Sep; 78(3):402-414. PubMed ID: 32444265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Mazzone E; Stabile A; Pellegrino F; Basile G; Cignoli D; Cirulli GO; Sorce G; Barletta F; Scuderi S; Bravi CA; Cucchiara V; Fossati N; Gandaglia G; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol Oncol; 2021 Oct; 4(5):697-713. PubMed ID: 33358543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Multiparametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing repeat biopsy: a prospective comparison with clinical findings and histopathology.
Boesen L; Nørgaard N; Løgager V; Balslev I; Thomsen HS
Acta Radiol; 2018 Mar; 59(3):371-380. PubMed ID: 28679325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer.
Porpiglia F; Manfredi M; Mele F; Cossu M; Bollito E; Veltri A; Cirillo S; Regge D; Faletti R; Passera R; Fiori C; De Luca S
Eur Urol; 2017 Aug; 72(2):282-288. PubMed ID: 27574821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Does previous prostate surgery affect multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer? Results from a single institution series.
Pellegrino F; Stabile A; Mazzone E; Sorce G; Barletta F; De Angelis M; Brembilla G; Gandaglia G; De Cobelli F; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Prostate; 2022 Sep; 82(12):1170-1175. PubMed ID: 35538401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Structured approach to resolving discordance between PI-RADS v2.1 score and targeted prostate biopsy results: an opportunity for quality improvement.
Arcot R; Sekar S; Kotamarti S; Krischak M; Michael ZD; Foo WC; Huang J; Polascik TJ; Gupta RT
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2022 Aug; 47(8):2917-2927. PubMed ID: 35674785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The Additive Diagnostic Value of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography to Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Triage in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PRIMARY): A Prospective Multicentre Study.
Emmett L; Buteau J; Papa N; Moon D; Thompson J; Roberts MJ; Rasiah K; Pattison DA; Yaxley J; Thomas P; Hutton AC; Agrawal S; Amin A; Blazevski A; Chalasani V; Ho B; Nguyen A; Liu V; Lee J; Sheehan-Dare G; Kooner R; Coughlin G; Chan L; Cusick T; Namdarian B; Kapoor J; Alghazo O; Woo HH; Lawrentschuk N; Murphy D; Hofman MS; Stricker P
Eur Urol; 2021 Dec; 80(6):682-689. PubMed ID: 34465492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Reproducibility and Accuracy of the PRIMARY Score on PSMA PET and of PI-RADS on Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Within a Real-World Database.
Emmett L; Papa N; Counter W; Calais J; Barbato F; Burger I; Eiber M; Roberts MJ; Agrawal S; Franklin A; Xue A; Rasiah K; John N; Moon D; Frydenberg M; Yaxley J; Stricker P; Wong K; Coughlin G; Gianduzzo T; Kua B; Ho B; Nguyen A; Liu V; Lee J; Hsiao E; Sutherland T; Perry E; Fendler WP; Hope TA
J Nucl Med; 2024 Jan; 65(1):94-99. PubMed ID: 38050155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting.
Grey AD; Chana MS; Popert R; Wolfe K; Liyanage SH; Acher PL
BJU Int; 2015 May; 115(5):728-35. PubMed ID: 25041307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study.
Thompson JE; Moses D; Shnier R; Brenner P; Delprado W; Ponsky L; Pulbrook M; Böhm M; Haynes AM; Hayen A; Stricker PD
J Urol; 2014 Jul; 192(1):67-74. PubMed ID: 24518762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Targeted multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound-guided (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy versus systematic random prostate biopsy: A comparative real-life study.
Pham THN; Schulze-Hagen MF; Rahnama'i MS
Cancer Rep (Hoboken); 2024 Feb; 7(2):e1962. PubMed ID: 38217298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer using targeted biopsy with 6-core systematic biopsy for patients with PI-RADS 5].
Liu Y; Yuan CW; Wu JY; Shen Q; Xiao JX; Zhao Z; Wang XY; Li XS; He ZS; Zhou LQ
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2023 Oct; 55(5):812-817. PubMed ID: 37807733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A Prospective Comparison of Transrectal Standard, Cognitive, Transperineal Fusion, and Mapping Prostate Biopsy for Cancer Detection.
Petov V; Bazarkin A; Morozov A; Taratkin M; Ganzha T; Danilov S; Chernov Y; Chinenov D; Rzayev R; Suvorov A; Amosov A; Fajkovic H; Enikeev D; Krupinov G
J Endourol; 2023 Aug; 37(8):940-947. PubMed ID: 37294206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
