117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37145695)
1. IsoPSA
Scovell JM; Hettel D; Abouassaly R; Almassi N; Berglund R; Breaux T; Weight C; Isac W; Zampini A; Stark E; Rochelle R; Kestranek A; Stovsky M; Klein EA
Urol Pract; 2022 Mar; 9(2):173-180. PubMed ID: 37145695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical validation of IsoPSA, a single parameter, structure-focused assay for improved detection of prostate cancer: A prospective, multicenter study.
Klein EA; Partin A; Lotan Y; Baniel J; Dineen M; Hafron J; Manickam K; Pliskin M; Wagner M; Kestranek A; Stovsky M
Urol Oncol; 2022 Sep; 40(9):408.e9-408.e18. PubMed ID: 35840465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Single-parameter, Structure-based IsoPSA Assay Demonstrates Improved Diagnostic Accuracy for Detection of Any Prostate Cancer and High-grade Prostate Cancer Compared to a Concentration-based Assay of Total Prostate-specific Antigen: A Preliminary Report.
Klein EA; Chait A; Hafron JM; Kernen KM; Manickam K; Stephenson AJ; Wagner M; Zhu H; Kestranek A; Zaslavsky B; Stovsky M
Eur Urol; 2017 Dec; 72(6):942-949. PubMed ID: 28396176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Elevated IsoPSA Selects for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Without a Preference for Any Particular Adverse Histopathologic or Radiographic Feature.
Benidir T; Hofmann M; Lone Z; Nguyen JK; Purysko AS; Stovsky M; Klein EA; Weight CJ
Urology; 2022 Oct; 168():150-155. PubMed ID: 35680047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Decision Analysis Model Comparing Cost of IsoPSA™ vs Repeat Biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men with Previous Negative Findings on Biopsy.
Lotan Y; Stovsky M; Rochelle R; Klein E
Urol Pract; 2021 Jan; 8(1):40-46. PubMed ID: 37145424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. IsoPSA Performance Characteristics are Unaffected by 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitors or Alpha-Blockers: Results From the IsoPSA Validation Study.
Scovell JM; Stovsky M; Partin A; Lotan Y; Baniel J; Dineen M; Hafron J; Manickam K; Pliskin M; Wagner M; Kestranek A; Klein EA
Urology; 2023 May; 175():132-136. PubMed ID: 36804443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An Evaluation of Screening Pathways Using a Combination of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Antigen: Results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study.
Eldred-Evans D; Tam H; Sokhi H; Padhani AR; Connor M; Price D; Gammon M; Klimowska-Nassar N; Burak P; Day E; Winkler M; Fiorentino F; Ahmed HU
Eur Urol Oncol; 2023 Jun; 6(3):295-302. PubMed ID: 37080821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical Validation of IsoPSA™, a Single Parameter, Structure Based Assay for Improved Detection of High Grade Prostate Cancer.
Stovsky M; Klein EA; Chait A; Manickam K; Stephenson AJ; Wagner M; Dineen M; Lotan Y; Partin A; Baniel J; Kestranek A; Gawande P; Boris Zaslavsky
J Urol; 2019 Jun; 201(6):1115-1120. PubMed ID: 30810464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Prostate cancer screening practices in a large, integrated health system: 2007-2014.
Misra-Hebert AD; Hu B; Klein EA; Stephenson A; Taksler GB; Kattan MW; Rothberg MB
BJU Int; 2017 Aug; 120(2):257-264. PubMed ID: 28139034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator.
van Vugt HA; Roobol MJ; Busstra M; Kil P; Oomens EH; de Jong IJ; Bangma CH; Steyerberg EW; Korfage I
BJU Int; 2012 May; 109(10):1480-8. PubMed ID: 21933335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical utility of the Prostate Health Index (phi) for biopsy decision management in a large group urology practice setting.
White J; Shenoy BV; Tutrone RF; Karsh LI; Saltzstein DR; Harmon WJ; Broyles DL; Roddy TE; Lofaro LR; Paoli CJ; Denham D; Reynolds MA
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2018 Apr; 21(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 29158509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
Mowatt G; Scotland G; Boachie C; Cruickshank M; Ford JA; Fraser C; Kurban L; Lam TB; Padhani AR; Royle J; Scheenen TW; Tassie E
Health Technol Assess; 2013 May; 17(20):vii-xix, 1-281. PubMed ID: 23697373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Repeated Prostate Cancer Screening Using Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Secondary Analysis of the STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.
Nordström T; Annerstedt M; Glaessgen A; Carlsson S; Clements M; Abbadi A; Grönberg H; Jäderling F; Eklund M; Discacciati A
JAMA Netw Open; 2024 Feb; 7(2):e2354577. PubMed ID: 38324313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study.
van Vugt HA; Roobol MJ; van der Poel HG; van Muilekom EH; Busstra M; Kil P; Oomens EH; Leliveld A; Bangma CH; Korfage I; Steyerberg EW
BJU Int; 2012 Jul; 110(2):180-7. PubMed ID: 22112199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Using decision curve analysis to benchmark performance of a magnetic resonance imaging-based deep learning model for prostate cancer risk assessment.
Deniffel D; Abraham N; Namdar K; Dong X; Salinas E; Milot L; Khalvati F; Haider MA
Eur Radiol; 2020 Dec; 30(12):6867-6876. PubMed ID: 32591889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prebiopsy Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined with Prostate-specific Antigen Density in Detecting and Ruling out Gleason 7-10 Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men.
Boesen L; Nørgaard N; Løgager V; Balslev I; Bisbjerg R; Thestrup KC; Jakobsen H; Thomsen HS
Eur Urol Oncol; 2019 May; 2(3):311-319. PubMed ID: 31200846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Real-world use of MRI for risk stratification prior to prostate biopsy.
Siddiqui MR; Ansbro B; Shah PV; Aguiar JA; Li EV; Rich JM; Mahenthiran AK; Moataz SAS; Keeter MK; Mai Q; Mi X; Schaeffer EM; Ross AE
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2023 Jun; 26(2):353-359. PubMed ID: 35551235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Early detection of prostate cancer in Germany: a study using digital rectal examination and 4.0 ng/ml prostate-specific antigen as cutoff.
Luboldt HJ; Bex A; Swoboda A; Hüsing J; Rübben H;
Eur Urol; 2001 Feb; 39(2):131-7. PubMed ID: 11223671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The impact of different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing intervals on Gleason score at diagnosis and the risk of experiencing false-positive biopsy recommendations: a population-based cohort study.
Palsdottir T; Nordstrom T; Karlsson A; Grönberg H; Clements M; Eklund M
BMJ Open; 2019 Mar; 9(3):e027958. PubMed ID: 30928965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
