A European Model for an Organised Risk-stratified Early Detection Programme for Prostate Cancer.
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] S. Maier,et al. Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial , 2021, European Radiology.
[2] D. Comaniciu,et al. A Novel Deep Learning Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis System Improves the Accuracy and Efficiency of Radiologists in Reading Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Images of the Prostate , 2021, Investigative radiology.
[3] A. Abreu,et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy , 2021, Cancers.
[4] C. Earle,et al. 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. , 2021, JAMA oncology.
[5] A. Jemal,et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.
[6] U. Nagele,et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review. , 2021, European urology oncology.
[7] P. Albers,et al. Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in 2020 and Beyond: Facts and Recommendations for the European Union and the European Commission. , 2020, European urology.
[8] M. Roobol,et al. Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study (EUPROMS): Descriptive Statistics of a Prostate Cancer Survey from Patients for Patients. , 2020, European urology focus.
[9] A. Padhani,et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk , 2020, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.
[10] Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes: selecting candidate performance indicators , 2020, BMC Cancer.
[11] D. Margolis,et al. PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy Naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review. , 2020, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[12] Yuhong Yuan,et al. Non-antibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2020, The Journal of urology.
[13] V. Margulis,et al. Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes. , 2020, Clinical genitourinary cancer.
[14] M. Eklund,et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Conventional, and Image- and Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. , 2020, European urology focus.
[15] A. Jemal,et al. Prostate Cancer Incidence 5 Years After US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations Against Screening. , 2020, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[16] P. Choyke,et al. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.
[17] H. Payne,et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population‐based study , 2020, BJU international.
[18] A. Villers,et al. Predictive Factors of Missed Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers in Men with Negative MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2020, The Journal of urology.
[19] M. Kattan,et al. Association of Baseline Prostate-Specific Antigen Level With Long-term Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Among Patients Aged 55 to 60 Years , 2020, JAMA network open.
[20] M. Haider,et al. Comparison of MRI- and TRUS-Informed Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-Naive Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2020, The Journal of urology.
[21] J. Barentsz,et al. Is There Still a Need for Repeated Systematic Biopsies in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies of the Prostate? , 2020, European urology oncology.
[22] L. Kiemeney,et al. Interim Results from the IMPACT Study: Evidence for Prostate-specific Antigen Screening in BRCA2 Mutation Carriers , 2019, European urology.
[23] M. Rovers,et al. High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility. , 2019, European urology.
[24] Y. Bao,et al. Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy May Perform Better Than Transrectal Route in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2019, Clinical genitourinary cancer.
[25] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. , 2019, European urology.
[26] J. Fütterer,et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and follow‐up to avoid prostate biopsy in 4259 men , 2019, BJU international.
[27] Ewout W Steyerberg,et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. , 2019, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
[28] M. Roobol,et al. Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Stratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis , 2019, International journal of molecular sciences.
[29] J. Barentsz,et al. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. , 2019, European urology.
[30] Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa,et al. 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. , 2019, European urology.
[31] H. Grönberg,et al. The impact of different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing intervals on Gleason score at diagnosis and the risk of experiencing false-positive biopsy recommendations: a population-based cohort study , 2019, BMJ Open.
[32] P. Albers,et al. Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators. , 2019, European urology.
[33] Laurent Lemaitre,et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.
[34] C. Catalano,et al. Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What's Next? , 2018, European urology.
[35] C. D. Savci-Heijink,et al. Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy. , 2018, European urology oncology.
[36] D. Margolis,et al. MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.
[37] J. Sterne,et al. Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial , 2018, JAMA.
[38] Frank Chen,et al. Application of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS v2): Interobserver Agreement and Positive Predictive Value for Localization of Intermediate- and High-Grade Prostate Cancers on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. , 2017, Academic radiology.
[39] H. G. van der Poel,et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. , 2017, European urology.
[40] M. Parmar,et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .
[41] T. Miyagawa,et al. 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 , 2017, BJU international.
[42] P. Albers,et al. Risk stratification of ‘ equivocal ’ PI-RADS lesions in mp-MRI of the prostate , 2017 .
[43] Geert Trooskens,et al. Detection of High-grade Prostate Cancer Using a Urinary Molecular Biomarker-Based Risk Score. , 2016, European urology.
[44] P. Scardino,et al. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening. , 2016, Urology.
[45] R. Gardiner,et al. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy , 2015, Epidemiology and Infection.
[46] J. Hugosson,et al. Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Göteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. , 2015, European urology.
[47] P. Sasieni,et al. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
[48] Lori J Sokoll,et al. Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. , 2014, Urology.
[49] A. Vickers,et al. Influence of blood prostate specific antigen levels at age 60 on benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: population based cohort study , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[50] P. Scardino,et al. Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[51] E. Steyerberg,et al. A Calculator for Prostate Cancer Risk 4 Years After an Initially Negative Screen: Findings from ERSPC Rotterdam. , 2013, European urology.
[52] Anssi Auvinen,et al. Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). , 2012, European urology.
[53] M. Roobol,et al. Towards an optimal interval for prostate cancer screening. , 2012, European urology.
[54] P. Scardino,et al. Prostate specific antigen concentration at age 60 and death or metastasis from prostate cancer: case-control study , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[55] Ewout W Steyerberg,et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. , 2010, European urology.
[56] K. Hemminki,et al. Age at diagnosis and age at death in familial prostate cancer. , 2009, The oncologist.
[57] J. Hugosson,et al. Individualized screening interval for prostate cancer based on prostate-specific antigen level: results of a prospective, randomized, population-based study. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.
[58] T. H. van der Kwast,et al. 4-year prostate specific antigen progression and diagnosis of prostate cancer in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, section Rotterdam. , 2005, The Journal of urology.
[59] E. van Limbergen,et al. Comparison of early performance indicators for screening projects within the European Breast Cancer Network: 1989–2000 , 2005, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.
[60] M. Roobol,et al. Is additional testing necessary in men with prostate-specific antigen levels of 1.0 ng/mL or less in a population-based screening setting? (ERSPC, section Rotterdam). , 2005, Urology.
[61] Kazuto Ito,et al. Cumulative probability of PSA increase above 4.0 NG/ML in population‐based screening for prostate cancer , 2004, International journal of cancer.
[62] R. Thomson,et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
[63] J. Shaeffer,et al. Incidence of prostatic carcinoma in the elderly. , 1975, Urology.