111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35468226)
1. The added influence of genomics and post-MRI confirmatory biopsy results to MRI results alone on medical decision making for men with favorable risk prostate cancer being considered for active surveillance.
Wang M; Qi J; George AK; Semerjian A; Linsell SM; Montie JE; Cher ML; Ginsburg KB;
Prostate; 2022 Jun; 82(10):1068-1074. PubMed ID: 35468226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging with or without Biopsy Impacts Decision Making in Newly Diagnosed Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer.
Ginsburg KB; Arcot R; Qi J; Linsell SM; Kaye DR; George AK; Cher ML;
J Urol; 2019 May; 201(5):923-928. PubMed ID: 30694939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Randomized Study of Systematic Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted and Systematic Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance (ASIST): 2-year Postbiopsy Follow-up.
Klotz L; Pond G; Loblaw A; Sugar L; Moussa M; Berman D; Van der Kwast T; Vesprini D; Milot L; Kebabdjian M; Fleshner N; Ghai S; Chin J; Haider M
Eur Urol; 2020 Mar; 77(3):311-317. PubMed ID: 31708295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Upgrading on Per Protocol versus For Cause surveillance prostate biopsies: An opportunity to decreasing the burden of active surveillance.
Wang M; Lange A; Perlman D; Qi J; George AK; Ferrante S; Semerjian A; Sarle R; Cher ML; Ginsburg KB;
Prostate; 2023 Sep; 83(12):1141-1149. PubMed ID: 37173808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Combined MRI-targeted Plus Systematic Confirmatory Biopsy Improves Risk Stratification for Patients Enrolling on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.
O'Connor LP; Wang AZ; Yerram NK; Lebastchi AH; Ahdoot M; Gurram S; Zeng J; Mehralivand S; Harmon S; Merino MJ; Parnes HL; Choyke PL; Turkbey B; Wood BJ; Pinto PA
Urology; 2020 Oct; 144():164-170. PubMed ID: 32679272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Impact of Early Confirmatory Tests on Upgrading and Conversion to Treatment in Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance.
Ginsburg KB; Jacobs JC; Qi J; Kaye DR; Eggly SS; Linsell SM; Auffenberg GB; George AK; Montie JE; Cher ML;
Urology; 2021 Jan; 147():213-222. PubMed ID: 32946908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reporting Using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion with Transperineal Saturation Biopsy to Select Men on Active Surveillance.
Dieffenbacher S; Nyarangi-Dix J; Giganti F; Bonekamp D; Kesch C; Müller-Wolf MB; Schütz V; Gasch C; Hatiboglu G; Hauffe M; Stenzinger A; Duensing S; Schlemmer HP; Moore CM; Hohenfellner M; Radtke JP
Eur Urol Focus; 2021 Jan; 7(1):102-110. PubMed ID: 30878348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Strategies for Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.
Sathianathen NJ; Konety BR; Alarid-Escudero F; Lawrentschuk N; Bolton DM; Kuntz KM
Eur Urol; 2019 Jun; 75(6):910-917. PubMed ID: 30425010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance.
Pessoa RR; Viana PC; Mattedi RL; Guglielmetti GB; Cordeiro MD; Coelho RF; Nahas WC; Srougi M
BJU Int; 2017 Apr; 119(4):535-542. PubMed ID: 27500389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
Alberts AR; Roobol MJ; Drost FH; van Leenders GJ; Bokhorst LP; Bangma CH; Schoots IG
BJU Int; 2017 Oct; 120(4):511-519. PubMed ID: 28267899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Schoots IG; Nieboer D; Giganti F; Moore CM; Bangma CH; Roobol MJ
BJU Int; 2018 Dec; 122(6):946-958. PubMed ID: 29679430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.
Tran GN; Leapman MS; Nguyen HG; Cowan JE; Shinohara K; Westphalen AC; Carroll PR
Eur Urol; 2017 Aug; 72(2):275-281. PubMed ID: 27595378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Association Between Early Confirmatory Testing and the Adoption of Active Surveillance for Men With Favorable-risk Prostate Cancer.
Kaye DR; Qi J; Morgan TM; Linsell S; Lane BR; Montie JE; Cher ML; Miller DC;
Urology; 2018 Aug; 118():127-133. PubMed ID: 29792972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial.
Klotz L; Loblaw A; Sugar L; Moussa M; Berman DM; Van der Kwast T; Vesprini D; Milot L; Kebabdjian M; Fleshner N; Ghai S; Chin J; Pond GR; Haider M
Eur Urol; 2019 Feb; 75(2):300-309. PubMed ID: 30017404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance.
Kaye DR; Qi J; Morgan TM; Linsell S; Ginsburg KB; Lane BR; Montie JE; Cher ML; Miller DC;
BJU Int; 2019 May; 123(5):846-853. PubMed ID: 30248225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.
Bloom JB; Hale GR; Gold SA; Rayn KN; Smith C; Mehralivand S; Czarniecki M; Valera V; Wood BJ; Merino MJ; Choyke PL; Parnes HL; Turkbey B; Pinto PA
J Urol; 2019 Jan; 201(1):84-90. PubMed ID: 30577395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy in Active Surveillance.
Ma TM; Tosoian JJ; Schaeffer EM; Landis P; Wolf S; Macura KJ; Epstein JI; Mamawala M; Carter HB
Eur Urol; 2017 Feb; 71(2):174-180. PubMed ID: 27236496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier Relates More Strongly to Gleason Grade Group Than Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies.
Martin DT; Ghabili K; Levi A; Humphrey PA; Sprenkle PC
Urology; 2019 Mar; 125():64-72. PubMed ID: 30552940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. MRI-Based Prostate-Specific Antigen Density Predicts Gleason Score Upgrade in an Active Surveillance Cohort.
Washington SL; Baskin AS; Ameli N; Nguyen HG; Westphalen AC; Shinohara K; Carroll PR
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Mar; 214(3):574-578. PubMed ID: 31913068
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
