Risk Stratification of Equivocal Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate

[1]  Tristan Barrett,et al.  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 , 2017, BJU international.

[2]  M. Roberts,et al.  Prostate Biopsy-related Infection: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors, Prevention Strategies, and Management Approaches. , 2017, Urology.

[3]  James S. Babb,et al.  Proposed Adjustments to PI-RADS Version 2 Decision Rules: Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection. , 2017, Radiology.

[4]  Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa,et al.  Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. , 2017, European urology.

[5]  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.

[6]  B. Vainer,et al.  Antibiotic prophylaxis and complications following prostate biopsies - a systematic review. , 2017, Danish medical journal.

[7]  D. Georg,et al.  Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[8]  A Hayen,et al.  The Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Significant Prostate Cancer. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[9]  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.

[10]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  P. Albers,et al.  MRI-Guided In-Bore Biopsy: Differences Between Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization in Primary and Secondary Biopsy Settings. , 2016, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[13]  H. Hricak,et al.  Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference , 2016, European Radiology.

[14]  Sylvain Favelier,et al.  Current role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer. , 2015, Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery.

[15]  Erhard Godehardt,et al.  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. , 2015, European urology.

[16]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Management: Current Status and Future Perspectives , 2015, Investigative radiology.

[17]  M. Schouten,et al.  Location of Prostate Cancers Determined by Multiparametric and MRI-Guided Biopsy in Patients With Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Level and at Least One Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  А. С. Коробкин,et al.  Информативность мультипараметрического МР-исследования в выявлении рака предстательной железы. Классификация pi-rads (prostate imaging-reporting and data system) , 2015 .

[19]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[20]  H. Haxhimolla,et al.  mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer - A Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions , 2015, Current Urology.

[21]  T. Tammela,et al.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up , 2014, The Lancet.

[22]  F. Schröder,et al.  Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. , 2014, European urology.

[23]  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.

[24]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. , 2013, European urology.

[26]  B. G. Blijenberg,et al.  Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  Christina Bougatsos,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[28]  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.