Identifying in vivo DCE MRI markers associated with microvessel architecture and gleason grades of prostate cancer

To identify computer extracted in vivo dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI markers associated with quantitative histomorphometric (QH) characteristics of microvessels and Gleason scores (GS) in prostate cancer.

[1]  B. Trock,et al.  Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. , 2014, Urology.

[2]  H. Huisman,et al.  Correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative histopathologic microvascular parameters in organ-confined prostate cancer , 2014, European Radiology.

[3]  Andrew Janowczyk,et al.  High-Throughput Biomarker Segmentation on Ovarian Cancer Tissue Microarrays via Hierarchical Normalized Cuts , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Cascaded discrimination of normal, abnormal, and confounder classes in histopathology: Gleason grading of prostate cancer , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[5]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Histostitcher™: An informatics software platform for reconstructing whole-mount prostate histology using the extensible imaging platform framework , 2014, Journal of pathology informatics.

[6]  Edward V R Dibella,et al.  The effect of temporal sampling on quantitative pharmacokinetic and three-time-point analysis of breast DCE-MRI. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[7]  Matthias Taupitz,et al.  Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters. , 2009, Radiology.

[8]  Milan Sonka,et al.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[9]  angesichts der Corona-Pandemie,et al.  UPDATE , 1973, The Lancet.

[10]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[11]  W. I. Tseng,et al.  Washout gradient in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI is associated with tumor aggressiveness of prostate cancer , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  C. von Bodman,et al.  Comprehensive report on prostate cancer misclassification by 16 currently used low‐risk and active surveillance criteria , 2012, BJU international.

[13]  R Novario,et al.  Microvessel density in prostate carcinoma , 2002, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[14]  Thorsten Schlomm,et al.  Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study , 2010, World Journal of Urology.

[15]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Microvessel density is not increased in prostate cancer: digital imaging of routine sections and tissue microarrays. , 2013, Human pathology.

[16]  Gyan Bhanot,et al.  Computerized Image-Based Detection and Grading of Lymphocytic Infiltration in HER2+ Breast Cancer Histopathology , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Jing Ma,et al.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Principal Warps: Thin-Plate Splines and the Decomposition of Deformations , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[19]  E D Crawford,et al.  Optimized microvessel density analysis improves prediction of cancer stage from prostate needle biopsies. , 1996, Urology.

[20]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  HistoStitcher©: An interactive program for accurate and rapid reconstruction of digitized whole histological sections from tissue fragments , 2011, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[21]  Ulf-Dietrich Braumann,et al.  Classifying prostate cancer malignancy by quantitative histomorphometry. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[22]  R. Shah,et al.  Current perspectives on the Gleason grading of prostate cancer. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[24]  V. Master,et al.  Recent Trends in Prostate Cancer Incidence by Age, Cancer Stage, and Grade, the United States, 2001–2007 , 2012, Prostate cancer.

[25]  Lawrence D. True,et al.  The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of D , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[26]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. , 2013, European urology.

[27]  Stacey A. Kenfield,et al.  Prospective study of prostate tumor angiogenesis and cancer-specific mortality in the health professionals follow-up study. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  P. Maté Mate [Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer]. , 2013, Revista clinica espanola.

[29]  P. Johnstone,et al.  Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. , 2012, Urology.

[30]  L. Salomon,et al.  [CCAFU Recommendations 2013: Prostate cancer]. , 2013, Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie.

[31]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Determining histology-MRI slice correspondences for defining MRI-based disease signatures of prostate cancer , 2011, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[32]  Y. Collan,et al.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer , 2006, Diagnostic pathology.

[33]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[34]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Prostate Cancer Mortality following Active Surveillance versus Immediate Radical Prostatectomy , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[35]  J. Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.

[36]  L. Klotz,et al.  Cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment , 2012, Current opinion in urology.