113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35583821)
1. Impact of enema prep on the false-negative rate of a PI-RADS 1 MRI of the prostate for clinically significant prostate cancer.
Patel H; Ahmed F; Luk L; Navot B; Shaish H
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2022 Jul; 47(7):2494-2499. PubMed ID: 35583821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Analysis of PI-RADS 4 cases: Management recommendations for negatively biopsied patients.
Ullrich T; Arsov C; Quentin M; Laqua N; Klingebiel M; Martin O; Hiester A; Blondin D; Rabenalt R; Albers P; Antoch G; Schimmöller L
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Apr; 113():1-6. PubMed ID: 30927932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Can the addition of clinical information improve the accuracy of PI-RADS version 2 for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in positive MRI?
Polanec SH; Bickel H; Wengert GJ; Arnoldner M; Clauser P; Susani M; Shariat SF; Pinker K; Helbich TH; Baltzer PAT
Clin Radiol; 2020 Feb; 75(2):157.e1-157.e7. PubMed ID: 31690449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Association of Patient and Imaging-Related Factors With False Negative MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsies of Suspicious PI-RADS 4 and 5 Lesions.
Movassaghi M; Ahmed F; Patel H; Luk L; Hyams E; Wenske S; Shaish H
Urology; 2022 Sep; 167():165-170. PubMed ID: 35533767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Who can safely evade a magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy (MRIFTB) for prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 3 lesion?
Kim M; Ryu H; Lee HJ; Hwang SI; Choe G; Hong SK
World J Urol; 2021 May; 39(5):1463-1471. PubMed ID: 32696126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score.
Martorana E; Pirola GM; Scialpi M; Micali S; Iseppi A; Bonetti LR; Kaleci S; Torricelli P; Bianchi G
BJU Int; 2017 Jul; 120(1):92-103. PubMed ID: 27608292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of histological findings obtained combining US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsies with systematic US biopsies: mp-MRI role in prostate cancer detection and false negative.
Faiella E; Santucci D; Greco F; Frauenfelder G; Giacobbe V; Muto G; Zobel BB; Grasso RF
Radiol Med; 2018 Feb; 123(2):143-152. PubMed ID: 29019021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. The Negative Predictive Value of a PI-RADS Version 2 Score of 1 on Prostate MRI and the Factors Associated With a False-Negative MRI Study.
Ma HY; Ahmed FS; Luk L; Martina LAP; Wenske S; Shaish H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Sep; 215(3):667-672. PubMed ID: 32755155
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Do patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion identified on magnetic resonance imaging require systematic biopsy in addition to targeted biopsy?
Drobish JN; Bevill MD; Tracy CR; Sexton SM; Rajput M; Metz CM; Gellhaus PT
Urol Oncol; 2021 Apr; 39(4):235.e1-235.e4. PubMed ID: 33451935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated With Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI.
Sheridan AD; Nath SK; Syed JS; Aneja S; Sprenkle PC; Weinreb JC; Spektor M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Feb; 210(2):347-357. PubMed ID: 29112469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
