118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38476030)
21. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.
Brown LC; Ahmed HU; Faria R; El-Shater Bosaily A; Gabe R; Kaplan RS; Parmar M; Collaco-Moraes Y; Ward K; Hindley RG; Freeman A; Kirkham A; Oldroyd R; Parker C; Bott S; Burns-Cox N; Dudderidge T; Ghei M; Henderson A; Persad R; Rosario DJ; Shergill I; Winkler M; Soares M; Spackman E; Sculpher M; Emberton M
Health Technol Assess; 2018 Jul; 22(39):1-176. PubMed ID: 30040065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Integration and Diagnostic Accuracy of 3T Nonendorectal coil Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Context of Active Surveillance.
Curci NE; Lane BR; Shankar PR; Noyes SL; Moriarity AK; Kubat A; Brede C; Montgomery JS; Auffenberg GB; Miller DC; Montie JE; George AK; Davenport MS
Urology; 2018 Jun; 116():137-143. PubMed ID: 29653121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy.
Gordetsky JB; Saylor B; Bae S; Nix JW; Rais-Bahrami S
Urol Oncol; 2018 May; 36(5):241.e7-241.e13. PubMed ID: 29526599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Prospective comparison of restriction spectrum imaging and non-invasive biomarkers to predict upgrading on active surveillance prostate biopsy.
Eng SE; Basasie B; Lam A; John Semmes O; Troyer DA; Clarke GD; Sunnapwar AG; Leach RJ; Johnson-Pais TL; Sokoll LJ; Chan DW; Tosoian JJ; Siddiqui J; Chinnaiyan AM; Thompson IM; Boutros PC; Liss MA
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2024 Mar; 27(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 36097168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness.
Kang SK; Mali RD; Prabhu V; Ferket BS; Loeb S
Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):594-604. PubMed ID: 34254851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology?
Abd-Alazeez M; Ahmed HU; Arya M; Allen C; Dikaios N; Freeman A; Emberton M; Kirkham A
Urol Oncol; 2014 Aug; 32(6):741-7. PubMed ID: 24981993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance.
Mamawala MK; Meyer AR; Landis PK; Macura KJ; Epstein JI; Partin AW; Carter BH; Gorin MA
BJU Int; 2020 Jun; 125(6):861-866. PubMed ID: 32039537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration is positively associated with rate of disease reclassification on subsequent active surveillance prostate biopsy in men with low PSA density.
Umbehr MH; Platz EA; Peskoe SB; Bhavsar NA; Epstein JI; Landis P; Partin AW; Carter HB
BJU Int; 2014 Apr; 113(4):561-7. PubMed ID: 23746233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Refined Analysis of Prostate-specific Antigen Kinetics to Predict Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Outcomes.
Cooperberg MR; Brooks JD; Faino AV; Newcomb LF; Kearns JT; Carroll PR; Dash A; Etzioni R; Fabrizio MD; Gleave ME; Morgan TM; Nelson PS; Thompson IM; Wagner AA; Lin DW; Zheng Y
Eur Urol; 2018 Aug; 74(2):211-217. PubMed ID: 29433975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort.
Tosoian JJ; Mamawala M; Epstein JI; Landis P; Macura KJ; Simopoulos DN; Carter HB; Gorin MA
Eur Urol; 2020 Jun; 77(6):675-682. PubMed ID: 31918957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard systematic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active surveillance.
Shapiro DD; Gregg JR; Lim AH; Nogueras-González GM; Choi H; Kang HC; Inguillo IA; Chapin BF; Davis JW; Ward JF
BJU Int; 2021 Mar; 127(3):340-348. PubMed ID: 32357283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Prostate Health Index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict prostate cancer grade reclassification in active surveillance.
Schwen ZR; Mamawala M; Tosoian JJ; Druskin SC; Ross AE; Sokoll LJ; Epstein JI; Carter HB; Gorin MA; Pavlovich CP
BJU Int; 2020 Sep; 126(3):373-378. PubMed ID: 32367635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Validating the total cancer location density metric for stratifying patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer at higher risk of grade group reclassification while on active surveillance.
Tan GH; Deniffel D; Finelli A; Wettstein M; Ahmad A; Zlotta A; Fleshner N; Hamilton R; Kulkarni G; Nason G; Ajib K; Herrera-Caceres J; Chandrasekar T; Perlis N
Urol Oncol; 2023 Mar; 41(3):146.e23-146.e28. PubMed ID: 36639336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Stability of a 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score in Serial Testing of Men on Active Surveillance for Early Stage Prostate Cancer.
Cedars BE; Washington SL; Cowan JE; Leapman M; Tenggara I; Chan JM; Cooperberg MR; Carroll PR
J Urol; 2019 Oct; 202(4):696-701. PubMed ID: 30958742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
