219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31175458)
1. Effects of the addition of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient data on the diagnostic performance of the PI-RADS v2 scoring system to detect clinically significant prostate cancer.
Moraes MO; Roman DHH; Copetti J; de S Santos F; Agra A; Noronha JAP; Carvalhal G; Neto EJD; Zanon M; Baldisserotto M; Hochhegger B
World J Urol; 2020 Apr; 38(4):981-991. PubMed ID: 31175458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient parameters with prostate imaging reporting and data system V2 assessment for detection of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer.
Hassanzadeh E; Alessandrino F; Olubiyi OI; Glazer DI; Mulkern RV; Fedorov A; Tempany CM; Fennessy FM
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2018 May; 43(5):1237-1244. PubMed ID: 28840280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prospective PI-RADS v2.1 Atypical Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Nodules With Marked Restricted Diffusion: Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multiparametric MRI.
Costa DN; Jia L; Subramanian N; Xi Y; Rofsky NM; Recchimuzzi DZ; de Leon AD; Arraj P; Pedrosa I
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Aug; 217(2):395-403. PubMed ID: 32876473
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. PI-RADS version 2: quantitative analysis aids reliable interpretation of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer.
Park SY; Shin SJ; Jung DC; Cho NH; Choi YD; Rha KH; Hong SJ; Oh YT
Eur Radiol; 2017 Jul; 27(7):2776-2783. PubMed ID: 27957637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Contribution of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Diffusion MRI to PI-RADS for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Tavakoli AA; Hielscher T; Badura P; Görtz M; Kuder TA; Gnirs R; Schwab C; Hohenfellner M; Schlemmer HP; Bonekamp D
Radiology; 2023 Jan; 306(1):186-199. PubMed ID: 35972360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Can Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values Assist PI-RADS Version 2 DWI Scoring? A Correlation Study Using the PI-RADSv2 and International Society of Urological Pathology Systems.
Gaur S; Harmon S; Rosenblum L; Greer MD; Mehralivand S; Coskun M; Merino MJ; Wood BJ; Shih JH; Pinto PA; Choyke PL; Turkbey B
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jul; 211(1):W33-W41. PubMed ID: 29733695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer.
Nougaret S; Robertson N; Golia Pernicka J; Molinari N; Hötker AM; Ehdaie B; Sala E; Hricak H; Vargas HA
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2017 Jul; 42(7):1968-1974. PubMed ID: 28258355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Xu L; Zhang G; Shi B; Liu Y; Zou T; Yan W; Xiao Y; Xue H; Feng F; Lei J; Jin Z; Sun H
Cancer Imaging; 2019 Dec; 19(1):90. PubMed ID: 31864408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 3-T Multiparametric MRI Followed by In-Bore MR-Guided Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer After Prior Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy.
Hosseiny M; Shakeri S; Felker ER; Lu D; Sayre J; Ahuja P; Raman SS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Sep; 215(3):660-666. PubMed ID: 32755166
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. [The diagnostic value of version 2.1 prostate imaging reporting and data system for prostate transitional zone lesions].
Yang S; Zhang CY; Zhang YY; Tan SX; Wei CG; Shen XH; Shen JK
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2020 Dec; 100(45):3609-3613. PubMed ID: 33333685
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2 and combination with apparent diffusion coefficient as a predictor of biopsy outcome.
Ryznarová Z; Keller J; Záleský M; Zachoval R; Čapek V; Malikova H
Neuro Endocrinol Lett; 2019 Mar; 40(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 31184822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinically insignificant prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active surveillance criteria: Utility of PI-RADS v2.
Yim JH; Kim CK; Kim JH
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2018 Apr; 47(4):1072-1079. PubMed ID: 28901655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Impact of mandated prospectively reported apparent diffusion coefficient values on the rates of positivity for clinically significant prostate cancer by PI-RADS score.
Shaish H; Casals R; Ahmed F; Makkar J; Wenske S
Acta Radiol; 2021 Jan; 62(1):139-144. PubMed ID: 32312102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system
with the apparent diffusion coefficient map for the diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer].
Feng Z; Yan Z; Luo M; Liao Y; Rong P; Wang W
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2019 Mar; 44(3):277-284. PubMed ID: 30971520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance between Version 2.0 and 2.1 for Prostatic Peripheral Zone.
Kim HS; Kwon GY; Kim MJ; Park SY
Korean J Radiol; 2021 Jul; 22(7):1100-1109. PubMed ID: 33938643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of observation size and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in PI-RADS v2.1 assessment category 4 and 5 observations compared to adverse pathological outcomes.
Abreu-Gomez J; Walker D; Alotaibi T; McInnes MDF; Flood TA; Schieda N
Eur Radiol; 2020 Aug; 30(8):4251-4261. PubMed ID: 32211965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. PI-RADS Version 2 Is an Excellent Screening Tool for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer as Designated by the Validated International Society of Urological Pathology Criteria: A Retrospective Analysis.
Daun M; Fardin S; Ushinsky A; Batra S; Nguyentat M; Lee T; Uchio E; Lall C; Houshyar R
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2020; 49(6):407-411. PubMed ID: 31350101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prospective comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and qualitative in-house categorization system in detection of prostate cancer.
Gaur S; Harmon S; Mehralivand S; Bednarova S; Calio BP; Sugano D; Sidana A; Merino MJ; Pinto PA; Wood BJ; Shih JH; Choyke PL; Turkbey B
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2018 Nov; 48(5):1326-1335. PubMed ID: 29603833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the Detection of Peripheral Zone Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers.
Krishna S; McInnes M; Lim C; Lim R; Hakim SW; Flood TA; Schieda N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Dec; 209(6):W365-W373. PubMed ID: 28981356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
