166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38648061)
21. Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study Within the Göteborg Randomised Screening Trial.
Grenabo Bergdahl A; Wilderäng U; Aus G; Carlsson S; Damber JE; Frånlund M; Geterud K; Khatami A; Socratous A; Stranne J; Hellström M; Hugosson J
Eur Urol; 2016 Oct; 70(4):566-573. PubMed ID: 26724840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Results from the PRIMA Trial: Comparison of the STHLM3 Test and Prostate-specific Antigen in General Practice for Detection of Prostate Cancer in a Biopsy-naïve Population.
Fredsøe J; Sandahl M; Vedsted P; Jensen JB; Ulhøi BP; Borre M; Sørensen KD; Pedersen BG;
Eur Urol Oncol; 2023 Oct; 6(5):484-492. PubMed ID: 37537016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography Biopsy for Biopsy-Naive Men at Risk for Prostate Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Klotz L; Chin J; Black PC; Finelli A; Anidjar M; Bladou F; Mercado A; Levental M; Ghai S; Chang SD; Milot L; Patel C; Kassam Z; Moore C; Kasivisvanathan V; Loblaw A; Kebabdjian M; Earle CC; Pond GR; Haider MA
JAMA Oncol; 2021 Apr; 7(4):534-542. PubMed ID: 33538782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The Stockholm-3 Model for Prostate Cancer Detection: Algorithm Update, Biomarker Contribution, and Reflex Test Potential.
Ström P; Nordström T; Aly M; Egevad L; Grönberg H; Eklund M
Eur Urol; 2018 Aug; 74(2):204-210. PubMed ID: 29331214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. The GÖTEBORG prostate cancer screening 2 trial: a prospective, randomised, population-based prostate cancer screening trial with prostate-specific antigen testing followed by magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate.
Kohestani K; Månsson M; Arnsrud Godtman R; Stranne J; Wallström J; Carlsson S; Hellström M; Hugosson J
Scand J Urol; 2021 Apr; 55(2):116-124. PubMed ID: 33612068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The Capio Prostate Cancer Center Model for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Real-world Evidence from 2018 to 2022.
Palsdottir T; Söderbäck H; Jäderling F; Bergman M; Vigneswaran H; Grönberg H
Eur Urol Open Sci; 2024 Mar; 61():29-36. PubMed ID: 38384438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Identifying Prostate Cancer Among Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.
Nordström T; Engel JC; Bergman M; Egevad L; Aly M; Eklund M; Palsdottir T; Grönberg H
Eur Urol Open Sci; 2021 Feb; 24():11-16. PubMed ID: 34337490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study.
Elkhoury FF; Felker ER; Kwan L; Sisk AE; Delfin M; Natarajan S; Marks LS
JAMA Surg; 2019 Sep; 154(9):811-818. PubMed ID: 31188412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50 to 69 years (STHLM3): A prospective population-based diagnostic study. Grönberg H, Adolfsson J, Aly M, Nordström T, Wiklund P, Brandberg Y, Thompson J, Wiklund F, Lindberg J, Clements M, Egevad L, Eklund M.Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1667-76. [Epub 2015 Nov 10]. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00361-7.
Scott E; Adolfsson J; Aly M; Nordström T; Wiklund P; Brandberg Y; Thompson J; Wiklund F; Lindberg J; Clements M; Egevad L; Eklund M
Urol Oncol; 2017 Mar; 35(3):120. PubMed ID: 28215847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Population-based randomized trial of screening for clinically significant prostate cancer ProScreen: a pilot study.
Rannikko A; Leht M; Mirtti T; Kenttämies A; Tolonen T; Rinta-Kiikka I; Kilpeläinen TP; Natunen K; Lilja H; Lehtimäki T; Raitanen J; Kujala P; Ronkainen J; Matikainen M; Petas A; Taari K; Tammela T; Auvinen A
BJU Int; 2022 Aug; 130(2):193-199. PubMed ID: 34958531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [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]
38. Using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Scores to Select an Optimal Prostate Biopsy Method: A Secondary Analysis of the Trio Study.
Ahdoot M; Lebastchi AH; Long L; Wilbur AR; Gomella PT; Mehralivand S; Daneshvar MA; Yerram NK; O'Connor LP; Wang AZ; Gurram S; Bloom J; Siddiqui MM; Linehan WM; Merino M; Choyke PL; Pinsky P; Parnes H; Shih JH; Turkbey B; Wood BJ; Pinto PA;
Eur Urol Oncol; 2022 Apr; 5(2):176-186. PubMed ID: 33846112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Incorporating Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biomarkers in Active Surveillance Protocols - Results From the Prospective Stockholm3 Active Surveillance Trial (STHLM3AS).
Olsson H; Nordström T; Jäderling F; Egevad L; Vigneswaran HT; Annerstedt M; Grönberg H; Eklund M; Lantz A
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2021 May; 113(5):632-640. PubMed ID: 32866231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
