118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38629205)
21. Diagnostic value of combining PI-RADS v2.1 with PSAD in clinically significant prostate cancer.
Wei X; Xu J; Zhong S; Zou J; Cheng Z; Ding Z; Zhou X
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2022 Oct; 47(10):3574-3582. PubMed ID: 35788882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy after Multiparametric Prostate MRI with VERDICT Analysis: The INNOVATE Study.
Singh S; Rogers H; Kanber B; Clemente J; Pye H; Johnston EW; Parry T; Grey A; Dinneen E; Shaw G; Heavey S; Stopka-Farooqui U; Haider A; Freeman A; Giganti F; Atkinson D; Moore CM; Whitaker HC; Alexander DC; Panagiotaki E; Punwani S
Radiology; 2022 Dec; 305(3):623-630. PubMed ID: 35916679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Mazzone E; Stabile A; Pellegrino F; Basile G; Cignoli D; Cirulli GO; Sorce G; Barletta F; Scuderi S; Bravi CA; Cucchiara V; Fossati N; Gandaglia G; Montorsi F; Briganti A
Eur Urol Oncol; 2021 Oct; 4(5):697-713. PubMed ID: 33358543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Contribution of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Diffusion MRI to PI-RADS for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Tavakoli AA; Hielscher T; Badura P; Görtz M; Kuder TA; Gnirs R; Schwab C; Hohenfellner M; Schlemmer HP; Bonekamp D
Radiology; 2023 Jan; 306(1):186-199. PubMed ID: 35972360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Optimal PSA density threshold and predictive factors for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in patient with a PI-RADS 3 lesion on MRI.
Nguyen TA; Fourcade A; Zambon A; Saout K; Deruelle C; Joulin V; Tissot V; Doucet L; Rozet F; Fournier G; Valeri A
Urol Oncol; 2023 Aug; 41(8):354.e11-354.e18. PubMed ID: 37391283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Haj-Mirzaian A; Burk KS; Lacson R; Glazer DI; Saini S; Kibel AS; Khorasani R
JAMA Netw Open; 2024 Mar; 7(3):e244258. PubMed ID: 38551559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The role of prostate-specific antigen density and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer for biopsy-naïve men: clinical outcomes from a high-volume center in China.
Zhang CC; Tu X; Lin TH; Cai DM; Yang L; Nie L; Qiu S; Liu ZH; Jin K; Li JK; Xiong XY; Yang L; Wei Q
Asian J Androl; 2022; 24(6):615-619. PubMed ID: 35532555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer using targeted biopsy with 6-core systematic biopsy for patients with PI-RADS 5].
Liu Y; Yuan CW; Wu JY; Shen Q; Xiao JX; Zhao Z; Wang XY; Li XS; He ZS; Zhou LQ
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2023 Oct; 55(5):812-817. PubMed ID: 37807733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Why Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Miss Clinically Significant Cancer?
Williams C; Ahdoot M; Daneshvar MA; Hague C; Wilbur AR; Gomella PT; Shih J; Khondakar N; Yerram N; Mehralivand S; Gurram S; Siddiqui M; Pinsky P; Parnes H; Merino M; Wood B; Turkbey B; Pinto PA
J Urol; 2022 Jan; 207(1):95-107. PubMed ID: 34433302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Systematic versus Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy among Men with Visible Lesions.
Patel HD; Koehne EL; Shea SM; Fang AM; Gorbonos A; Quek ML; Flanigan RC; Goldberg A; Rais-Bahrami S; Gupta GN
J Urol; 2022 Jan; 207(1):108-117. PubMed ID: 34428091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.
van der Leest M; Cornel E; Israël B; Hendriks R; Padhani AR; Hoogenboom M; Zamecnik P; Bakker D; Setiasti AY; Veltman J; van den Hout H; van der Lelij H; van Oort I; Klaver S; Debruyne F; Sedelaar M; Hannink G; Rovers M; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C; Barentsz JO
Eur Urol; 2019 Apr; 75(4):570-578. PubMed ID: 30477981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Risk-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway outperforms non-risk-based pathways in suspected prostate cancer biopsy-naïve men: a large cohort validation study.
Bittencourt LK; Guricova K; Zucker I; Durieux JC; Schoots IG
Eur Radiol; 2022 Apr; 32(4):2330-2339. PubMed ID: 35028750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The impact of the relationship between lesion diameter and total core length on the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer for PI-RADS 3 lesions.
Yakut E
World J Urol; 2024 Mar; 42(1):162. PubMed ID: 38488892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The potential of a nomogram combined PI-RADS v2.1 and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to reduce unnecessary biopsies in prostate cancer diagnostics.
Liu Y; Wang S; Xiang LH; Xu G; Dong L; Sun Y; Ye B; Zhang Y; Xu H
Br J Radiol; 2022 Sep; 95(1138):20220209. PubMed ID: 35877385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
