45 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38307559)
1. Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-guided Target Biopsy in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Kurokawa G; Mori K; Sasaki H; Nakano J; Takahashi Y; Iwatani K; Urabe F; Tsuzuki S; Koike Y; Sato S; Takahashi H; Miki K; Kimura T
Anticancer Res; 2024 Feb; 44(2):679-686. PubMed ID: 38307559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Targeted multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound-guided (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy versus systematic random prostate biopsy: A comparative real-life study.
Pham THN; Schulze-Hagen MF; Rahnama'i MS
Cancer Rep (Hoboken); 2024 Feb; 7(2):e1962. PubMed ID: 38217298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy.
Hansen NL; Kesch C; Barrett T; Koo B; Radtke JP; Bonekamp D; Schlemmer HP; Warren AY; Wieczorek K; Hohenfellner M; Kastner C; Hadaschik B
BJU Int; 2017 Nov; 120(5):631-638. PubMed ID: 27862869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. MRI in-bore biopsy following MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in patients with persistent suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Quentin M; Boschheidgen M; Radtke JP; Spohn F; Ullrich T; Drewes L; Valentin B; Lakes J; Al-Monajjed ; Arsov C; Esposito I; Albers P; Antoch G; Schimmöller L
Eur J Radiol; 2024 Jun; 175():111436. PubMed ID: 38522396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of MRI-ultrasound fusion-guided and systematic biopsy of the prostate.
In de Braekt T; van Rooij SBT; Daniels-Gooszen AW; Scheepens WA; de Jongh R; Bosch SL; Nederend J
Br J Radiol; 2024 May; 97(1158):1132-1138. PubMed ID: 38627253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer.
Hansen NL; Barrett T; Kesch C; Pepdjonovic L; Bonekamp D; O'Sullivan R; Distler F; Warren A; Samel C; Hadaschik B; Grummet J; Kastner C
BJU Int; 2018 Jul; 122(1):40-49. PubMed ID: 29024425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A combined MRI-PSAD risk stratification system for prioritizing prostate biopsies.
Bar-Yaakov N; Savin Z; Fahoum I; Barnes S; Bar-Yosef Y; Yossepowitch O; Keren-Paz G; Mano R
Can J Urol; 2024 Feb; 31(1):11793-11801. PubMed ID: 38401259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Clinical study of artificial intelligence-guided image fusion assisted transperineal prostate biopsy].
Hu J; Zhao XD; Zhou YL; Dong N; Ma MF; Chen YH; Sheng ZC; Dong J; He CQ; Xu S
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2023 Aug; 29(8):729-735. PubMed ID: 38619521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. PI-RADS upgrading as the strongest predictor for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with initial PI-RADS-3 lesions.
Kwe J; Baunacke M; Boehm K; Platzek I; Thomas C; Borkowetz A
World J Urol; 2024 Feb; 42(1):84. PubMed ID: 38363332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Value of perilesional biopsies in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in detection of prostate cancer: results of a prospective, non-randomized, surgeon-blinded study.
Duwe G; Schmitteckert M; Haack M; Sparwasser P; Dotzauer R; Thomas A; Tsaur I; Brandt MP; Kurosch M; Mager R; Haferkamp A; Boehm K; Höfner T
World J Urol; 2024 May; 42(1):297. PubMed ID: 38709326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Performance of standard systematic biopsy versus MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy using the Navigo® system in contemporary cohort.
Nativ O; Shefler A; Bejar J; Peschansky S; Lavi A; Michael C; Nativ O
Urol Oncol; 2024 May; 42(5):159.e1-159.e7. PubMed ID: 38431487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Annual mpMRI surveillance: PI-RADS upgrading and increasing trend correlated with patients who harbor clinically significant disease.
Greenberg JW; Koller CR; Lightfoot C; Brinkley GJ; Leinwand G; Wang J; Krane LS
Urol Oncol; 2024 May; 42(5):158.e11-158.e16. PubMed ID: 38365461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Magnetic resonance imaging /ultrasonography fusion transperineal prostate biopsy for prostate cancer: Initial experience at a Middle Eastern tertiary medical centre.
El-Achkar A; Al-Mousawy M; Abou Heidar N; Moukaddem H; Hussein H; Mouallem N; El-Hajj A; Bulbul M
Arab J Urol; 2021; 19(4):454-459. PubMed ID: 34881061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison in Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Between Microultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy (ExactVu) and Multiparametric Resonance Imaging-guided Prostate Biopsy (Koelis System).
García Rojo E; García Gómez B; Sopeña Sutil R; Vallejo Arzayus D; Justo Quintas J; García Barreras S; Brime Menéndez R; Peña Vallejo E; Calzas Montalvo C; López Curtis D; Bozzini G; Romero Otero J
Urology; 2024 Jan; 183():163-169. PubMed ID: 38167595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A novel nomogram to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in MR assisted lesion biopsies: Turkish urooncology association nomogram.
Şahin B; Çetin S; Sözen S; Aslan G; Çelik S; Türkeri L
Urol Oncol; 2024 Sep; 42(9):288.e17-288.e25. PubMed ID: 38782675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Intra-practice Urologist-level Variation in Targeted Fusion Biopsy Outcomes.
Dhir A; Ellimoottil CS; Qi J; Zhu A; Wang RS; Montgomery JS; Salami SS; Wei JT; Shankar PR; Davenport MS; Curci NE; Millet JD; Wu CY; Johnson A; Miller DC; George AK
Urology; 2023 Jul; 177():122-127. PubMed ID: 37121355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical and Radiological Factors for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Patients With PI-RADS 3 Lesions.
Zhang Z; Hu C; Lin Y; Song O; Gong D; Zhang X; Wang N
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2024; 23():15330338241246636. PubMed ID: 38629205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic performance of regional systematic biopsy for prostate cancer stratified by PI-RADS and histologic zones.
Sun Z; Liu Y; Yu W; Wang H; Shen Q; Zhang C
Insights Imaging; 2024 May; 15(1):118. PubMed ID: 38755502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reduction of false positives using zone-specific prostate-specific antigen density for prostate MRI-based biopsy decision strategies.
Hamm CA; Baumgärtner GL; Padhani AR; Froböse KP; Dräger F; Beetz NL; Savic LJ; Posch H; Lenk J; Schallenberg S; Maxeiner A; Cash H; Günzel K; Hamm B; Asbach P; Penzkofer T
Eur Radiol; 2024 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 38538841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection.
Walker SM; Mehralivand S; Harmon SA; Sanford T; Merino MJ; Wood BJ; Shih JH; Pinto PA; Choyke PL; Turkbey B
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Nov; 215(5):1098-1103. PubMed ID: 32877244
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
