Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: A prospective comparison study of image quality.

[1]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[2]  S. Taneja.  Re: Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-Guided In-Bore Biopsy to MRI-Ultrasound Fusion and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[3]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[4]  N. Lumen,et al.  What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? , 2016, European Radiology.

[5]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. , 2015, European urology.

[6]  P. Albers,et al.  The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy , 2015, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[7]  M. Knopp,et al.  Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[8]  P. Albers,et al.  Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[9]  P. Albers,et al.  Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[10]  D. Moses,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[11]  P. Albers,et al.  MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy , 2014, European Radiology.

[12]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Image quality and cancer visibility of T2-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the prostate at 7 Tesla , 2014, European Radiology.

[13]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Role of high‐field MR in studies of localized prostate cancer , 2014, NMR in biomedicine.

[14]  M. Haider,et al.  The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer. , 2013, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  H. Hricak,et al.  Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[16]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Interscanner Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Prostate Cancer: 1.5 Versus 3 T MRI , 2013, Investigative radiology.

[17]  P. Albers,et al.  Increased signal intensity of prostate lesions on high b-value diffusion-weighted images as a predictive sign of malignancy , 2013, European Radiology.

[18]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[19]  R. Semelka,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 tesla MRI in patients with chronic liver diseases , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[20]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges. , 2007, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[21]  E. Merkle,et al.  A review of MR physics: 3T versus 1.5T. , 2007, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[22]  B. K. Park,et al.  Comparison of Phased-Array 3.0-T and Endorectal 1.5-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Local Staging Accuracy for Prostate Cancer , 2007, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[23]  D. Beyersdorff,et al.  MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[25]  F. Coakley,et al.  MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. , 2004, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[26]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.