249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37036248)
1. Prostate Health Index Density Outperforms Prostate-specific Antigen Density in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: A Multicenter Evaluation.
Chiu PK; Leow JJ; Chiang CH; Mok A; Zhang K; Hsieh PF; Zhu Y; Lam W; Tsang WC; Fan YH; Lin TP; Chan TY; Leung CH; Teoh JY; Chu PS; Zhu G; Ye DW; Wu HC; Tan TW; Tsu JH; Ng CF; Chiong E; Huang CY
J Urol; 2023 Jul; 210(1):88-98. PubMed ID: 37036248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Predictors of prostate cancer detection in MRI PI-RADS 3 lesions - Reality of a tertiary center.
Araújo D; Gromicho A; Dias J; Bastos S; Maciel RM; Sabença A; Xambre L
Arch Ital Urol Androl; 2023 Dec; 95(4):11830. PubMed ID: 38117217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies in men with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/ml?
Xu N; Wu YP; Chen DN; Ke ZB; Cai H; Wei Y; Zheng QS; Huang JB; Li XD; Xue XY
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 2018 May; 144(5):987-995. PubMed ID: 29504080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients.
Washino S; Okochi T; Saito K; Konishi T; Hirai M; Kobayashi Y; Miyagawa T
BJU Int; 2017 Feb; 119(2):225-233. PubMed ID: 26935594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Risk of prostate cancer for men with prior negative biopsies undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy-naive men: A prospective evaluation of the PLUM cohort.
Patel HD; Koehne EL; Shea SM; Bhanji Y; Gerena M; Gorbonos A; Quek ML; Flanigan RC; Goldberg A; Gupta GN
Cancer; 2022 Jan; 128(1):75-84. PubMed ID: 34427930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies.
Radtke JP; Wiesenfarth M; Kesch C; Freitag MT; Alt CD; Celik K; Distler F; Roth W; Wieczorek K; Stock C; Duensing S; Roethke MC; Teber D; Schlemmer HP; Hohenfellner M; Bonekamp D; Hadaschik BA
Eur Urol; 2017 Dec; 72(6):888-896. PubMed ID: 28400169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. [Analysis of the relationship between PI-RADS scores and the pathological results of targeted biopsy based on MRI].
Wang YM; Shang JW; Dong L; Liang LH; Zhao RZ; Liang C; Wang SQ; Xia W; Cheng G; Hua LX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2023 Nov; 45(11):942-947. PubMed ID: 37968079
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Druskin SC; Tosoian JJ; Young A; Collica S; Srivastava A; Ghabili K; Macura KJ; Carter HB; Partin AW; Sokoll LJ; Ross AE; Pavlovich CP
BJU Int; 2018 Apr; 121(4):619-626. PubMed ID: 29232037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Prostate biopsy in the era of MRI-targeting: towards a judicious use of additional systematic biopsy.
Deniffel D; Perlis N; Ghai S; Girgis S; Healy GM; Fleshner N; Hamilton R; Kulkarni G; Toi A; van der Kwast T; Zlotta A; Finelli A; Haider MA
Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7544-7554. PubMed ID: 35507051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening at the Age of 45 Years: Results from the First Screening Round of the PROBASE Trial.
Boschheidgen M; Albers P; Schlemmer HP; Hellms S; Bonekamp D; Sauter A; Hadaschik B; Krilaviciute A; Radtke JP; Seibold P; Lakes J; Arsov C; Gschwend JE; Herkommer K; Makowski M; Kuczyk MA; Wacker F; Harke N; Debus J; Körber SA; Benner A; Kristiansen G; Giesel FL; Antoch G; Kaaks R; Becker N; Schimmöller L
Eur Urol; 2024 Feb; 85(2):105-111. PubMed ID: 37863727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Which men with non-malignant pathology at magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy and persistent PI-RADS 3-5 lesions should repeat biopsy?
Castellani D; Pace G; Cecchini S; Franzese C; Cicconofri A; Romagnoli D; Del Rosso A; Possanzini M; Paci E; Dellabella M; Pierangeli T
Urol Oncol; 2022 Oct; 40(10):452.e9-452.e16. PubMed ID: 35871992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system version 2 in combination with clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection: a single center experience.
Wang L; Luo Y; Liu T; Deng M; Huang X
Int Urol Nephrol; 2023 Jul; 55(7):1659-1664. PubMed ID: 37171702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Multi-institutional analysis of clinical and imaging risk factors for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions.
Fang AM; Shumaker LA; Martin KD; Jackson JC; Fan RE; Khajir G; Patel HD; Soodana-Prakash N; Vourganti S; Filson CP; Sonn GA; Sprenkle PC; Gupta GN; Punnen S; Rais-Bahrami S
Cancer; 2022 Sep; 128(18):3287-3296. PubMed ID: 35819253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Deniffel D; Healy GM; Dong X; Ghai S; Salinas-Miranda E; Fleshner N; Hamilton R; Kulkarni G; Toi A; van der Kwast T; Zlotta A; Finelli A; Perlis N; Haider MA
Radiology; 2021 Aug; 300(2):369-379. PubMed ID: 34032510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Can we omit systematic biopsies in patients undergoing MRI fusion-targeted prostate biopsies?
Leow JJ; Koh SH; Chow MW; Loke W; Salada R; Hong SK; Yeow Y; Lee CH; Tan CH; Tan TW
Asian J Androl; 2023; 25(1):43-49. PubMed ID: 35488666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The use of
Yang J; Tang Y; Zhou C; Zhou M; Li J; Hu S
Prostate; 2023 Apr; 83(5):430-439. PubMed ID: 36544382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Development of a nomogram combining multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PSA-related parameters to enhance the detection of clinically significant cancer across different region.
Zhou Z; Liang Z; Zuo Y; Zhou Y; Yan W; Wu X; Ji Z; Li H; Hu M; Ma L
Prostate; 2022 Apr; 82(5):556-565. PubMed ID: 35098557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
