125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35169895)
21. Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a case series.
Murciano-Goroff YR; Wolfsberger LD; Parekh A; Fennessy FM; Tuncali K; Orio PF; Niedermayr TR; Suh WW; Devlin PM; Tempany CM; Sugar EH; O'Farrell DA; Steele G; O'Leary M; Buzurovic I; Damato AL; Cormack RA; Fedorov AY; Nguyen PL
Radiat Oncol; 2014 Sep; 9():200. PubMed ID: 25205146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Is the Ellipsoid Formula the New Standard for 3-Tesla MRI Prostate Volume Calculation without Endorectal Coil?
Haas M; Günzel K; Miller K; Hamm B; Cash H; Asbach P
Urol Int; 2017; 98(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 27627060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Deep Learning Network for Segmentation of the Prostate Gland With Median Lobe Enlargement in T2-weighted MR Images: Comparison With Manual Segmentation Method.
Salvaggio G; Comelli A; Portoghese M; Cutaia G; Cannella R; Vernuccio F; Stefano A; Dispensa N; La Tona G; Salvaggio L; Calamia M; Gagliardo C; Lagalla R; Midiri M
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2022; 51(3):328-333. PubMed ID: 34315623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Interreader variability in prostate MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1.
Brembilla G; Dell'Oglio P; Stabile A; Damascelli A; Brunetti L; Ravelli S; Cristel G; Schiani E; Venturini E; Grippaldi D; Mendola V; Rancoita PMV; Esposito A; Briganti A; Montorsi F; Del Maschio A; De Cobelli F
Eur Radiol; 2020 Jun; 30(6):3383-3392. PubMed ID: 32052171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of prostate volume measured by endorectal coil MRI to prostate specimen volume and mass after radical prostatectomy.
Mazaheri Y; Goldman DA; Di Paolo PL; Akin O; Hricak H
Acad Radiol; 2015 May; 22(5):556-62. PubMed ID: 25708867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Intermediate versus low or high prostate-specific antigen density level: comparison of cancer detection rate between 12- and 18-core prostate biopsy.
Park HK; Lee KY; Kim KH; Jung H; Yoon SJ; Kim TB
Scand J Urol Nephrol; 2010 Dec; 44(6):391-8. PubMed ID: 20695726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Development and Evaluation of a Semi-automated Segmentation Tool and a Modified Ellipsoid Formula for Volumetric Analysis of the Kidney in Non-contrast T2-Weighted MR Images.
Seuss H; Janka R; Prümmer M; Cavallaro A; Hammon R; Theis R; Sandmair M; Amann K; Bäuerle T; Uder M; Hammon M
J Digit Imaging; 2017 Apr; 30(2):244-254. PubMed ID: 28025731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Preliminary applicability evaluation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 diagnostic score in 3.0T multi-parameters magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate specific antigen density for prostate cancer].
Zuo MZ; Zhao WL; Wei CG; Zhang CY; Wen R; Gu YF; Li MJ; Zhang YY; Wu JF; Li X; Shen JK
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2017 Dec; 97(47):3693-3698. PubMed ID: 29325321
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Reference standard for the evaluation of automatic segmentation algorithms: Quantification of inter observer variability of manual delineation of prostate contour on MRI.
Molière S; Hamzaoui D; Granger B; Montagne S; Allera A; Ezziane M; Luzurier A; Quint R; Kalai M; Ayache N; Delingette H; Renard-Penna R
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2024 Feb; 105(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 37822196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Spatially varying accuracy and reproducibility of prostate segmentation in magnetic resonance images using manual and semiautomated methods.
Shahedi M; Cool DW; Romagnoli C; Bauman GS; Bastian-Jordan M; Gibson E; Rodrigues G; Ahmad B; Lock M; Fenster A; Ward AD
Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 41(11):113503. PubMed ID: 25370674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Accuracy Validation of an Automated Method for Prostate Segmentation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Shahedi M; Cool DW; Bauman GS; Bastian-Jordan M; Fenster A; Ward AD
J Digit Imaging; 2017 Dec; 30(6):782-795. PubMed ID: 28342043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Prostate gland volume estimation: anteroposterior diameters measured on axial versus sagittal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance images.
Youn SY; Choi MH; Lee YJ; Grimm R; von Busch H; Han D; Son Y; Lou B; Kamen A
Ultrasonography; 2023 Jan; 42(1):154-164. PubMed ID: 36475357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison of T2-Weighted Imaging, DWI, and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Calculation of Prostate Cancer Index Lesion Volume: Correlation With Whole-Mount Pathology.
Sun C; Chatterjee A; Yousuf A; Antic T; Eggener S; Karczmar GS; Oto A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Feb; 212(2):351-356. PubMed ID: 30540213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of intra-observer variation in prostate volume measurement on prostate-specific antigen density calculations among prostate cancer active surveillance participants.
Ko JS; Landis P; Carter HB; Partin AW
BJU Int; 2011 Dec; 108(11):1739-42. PubMed ID: 21736692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Developing a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer to reduce unnecessary biopsies within the prostate-specific antigen gray zone.
Niu XK; Li J; Das SK; Xiong Y; Yang CB; Peng T
BMC Med Imaging; 2017 Feb; 17(1):11. PubMed ID: 28143433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Are pancreatic IPMN volumes measured on MRI images more reproducible than diameters? An assessment in a large single-institution cohort.
Pandey P; Pandey A; Varzaneh FN; Ghasabeh MA; Fouladi D; Khoshpouri P; Shao N; Zarghampour M; Hruban RH; Canto M; O'Broin-Lennon AM; Kamel IR
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jul; 28(7):2790-2800. PubMed ID: 29404774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Prostate volume on computed tomography correlates well with magnetic resonance imaging measurements and is reproducible across rater training levels.
Iorga M; Useva A; Regan B; Pinkhasov A; Byler T; Wiener S
Int Urol Nephrol; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38776056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy.
Jeong CW; Park HK; Hong SK; Byun SS; Lee HJ; Lee SE
Urol Int; 2008; 81(2):179-85. PubMed ID: 18758216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluation of prostate volume in mpMRI: comparison of the recommendations of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v2.1.
Gündoğdu E; Emekli E
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2021 Jan; 27(1):15-19. PubMed ID: 33252339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
