777 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32755166)
1. 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]
2. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.
van der Leest M; Cornel E; Israël B; Hendriks R; Padhani AR; Hoogenboom M; Zamecnik P; Bakker D; Setiasti AY; Veltman J; van den Hout H; van der Lelij H; van Oort I; Klaver S; Debruyne F; Sedelaar M; Hannink G; Rovers M; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C; Barentsz JO
Eur Urol; 2019 Apr; 75(4):570-578. PubMed ID: 30477981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Efficacy of 3T Multiparametric MR Imaging followed by 3T in-Bore MR-Guided Biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Based on PIRADSv2.1 Score.
Hosseiny M; Felker ER; Azadikhah A; Suvannarerg V; Sayre J; Ponzini D; Ahuja P; Lu D; Raman SS
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2020 Oct; 31(10):1619-1626. PubMed ID: 32921565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer.
Venderink W; van der Leest M; van Luijtelaar A; van de Ven WJM; Fütterer JJ; Sedelaar JPM; Huisman HJ
World J Urol; 2017 Dec; 35(12):1849-1855. PubMed ID: 28871396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Prostate cancer detection rate in men undergoing transperineal template-guided saturation and targeted prostate biopsy.
Kaufmann B; Saba K; Schmidli TS; Stutz S; Bissig L; Britschgi AJ; Schaeren E; Gu A; Langenegger N; Sulser T; Eberli D; Keller EX; Hermanns T; Poyet C
Prostate; 2022 Feb; 82(3):388-396. PubMed ID: 34914121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Yield of Repeat Targeted Direct in-Bore Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Biopsy (MRGB) of the Same Lesions in Men Having a Prior Negative Targeted MRGB.
Venderink W; Jenniskens SF; Michiel Sedelaar JP; Tamada T; Fütterer JJ
Korean J Radiol; 2018; 19(4):733-741. PubMed ID: 29962879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Stabile A; Dell'Oglio P; Gandaglia G; Fossati N; Brembilla G; Cristel G; Dehò F; Scattoni V; Maga T; Losa A; Gaboardi F; Cardone G; Esposito A; De Cobelli F; Del Maschio A; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol Oncol; 2018 Jun; 1(2):120-128. PubMed ID: 31100235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of different thresholds of PSA density for risk stratification of PI-RADSv2.1 categories on prostate MRI.
Girometti R; Giannarini G; Panebianco V; Maresca S; Cereser L; De Martino M; Pizzolitto S; Pecoraro M; Ficarra V; Zuiani C; Valotto C
Br J Radiol; 2022 Mar; 95(1131):20210886. PubMed ID: 34762506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prevalence of Prostate Cancer in PI-RADS Version 2.1 Transition Zone Atypical Nodules Upgraded by Abnormal DWI: Correlation With MRI-Directed TRUS-Guided Targeted Biopsy.
Lim CS; Abreu-Gomez J; Carrion I; Schieda N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Mar; 216(3):683-690. PubMed ID: 32755208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, Assessment Categories and Pathologic Outcomes in Patients With Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Prostate Cancer Diagnosed at Biopsy.
Lim CS; McInnes MDF; Flood TA; Breau RH; Morash C; Thornhill RE; Schieda N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 May; 208(5):1037-1044. PubMed ID: 28267359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. One-Stop MRI and MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: an expedited pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.
Tafuri A; Ashrafi AN; Palmer S; Shakir A; Cacciamani GE; Iwata A; Iwata T; Cai J; Sali A; Gupta C; Medina LG; Stern MC; Duddalwar V; Aron M; Gill IS; Abreu A
World J Urol; 2020 Apr; 38(4):949-956. PubMed ID: 31175460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Kim JK; Lee HJ; Hwang SI; Choe G; Hong SK
Biomed Res Int; 2020; 2020():2819701. PubMed ID: 32337234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers.
Hoeks CM; Schouten MG; Bomers JG; Hoogendoorn SP; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA; Hambrock T; Vergunst H; Sedelaar JP; Fütterer JJ; Barentsz JO
Eur Urol; 2012 Nov; 62(5):902-9. PubMed ID: 22325447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection.
Mertan FV; Greer MD; Shih JH; George AK; Kongnyuy M; Muthigi A; Merino MJ; Wood BJ; Pinto PA; Choyke PL; Turkbey B
J Urol; 2016 Sep; 196(3):690-6. PubMed ID: 27101772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Venderink W; van Luijtelaar A; Bomers JGR; van der Leest M; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C; Barentsz JO; Sedelaar JPM; Fütterer JJ
Eur Urol; 2018 Mar; 73(3):353-360. PubMed ID: 28258784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Comparison of Cancer Detection Rates Between TRUS-Guided Biopsy and MRI-Targeted Biopsy According to PSA Level in Biopsy-Naive Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Choi YH; Kang MY; Sung HH; Jeon HG; Chang Jeong B; Seo SI; Jeon SS; Kim CK; Park BK; Lee HM
Clin Genitourin Cancer; 2019 Feb; 17(1):e19-e25. PubMed ID: 30415878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies.
Wegelin O; Exterkate L; van der Leest M; Kummer JA; Vreuls W; de Bruin PC; Bosch JLHR; Barentsz JO; Somford DM; van Melick HHE
Eur Urol; 2019 Apr; 75(4):582-590. PubMed ID: 30522912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
