Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 107

1.

Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound image fusion guidance of prostate biopsies: current status, challenges and future perspectives.

Boesen L.

Scand J Urol. 2019 Apr - Jun;53(2-3):89-96. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2019.1600581. Epub 2019 Apr 22.

PMID:
31006323
2.

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.

Mannaerts CK, Gayet M, Verbeek JF, Engelbrecht MRW, Savci-Heijink CD, Jager GJ, Gielens MPM, van der Linden H, Beerlage HP, de Reijke TM, Wijkstra H, Roobol MJ.

Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Jun;1(2):109-117. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.010. Epub 2018 May 15.

PMID:
31100233
3.

Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.

Brown LC, Ahmed HU, Faria R, El-Shater Bosaily A, Gabe R, Kaplan RS, Parmar M, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Bott S, Burns-Cox N, Dudderidge T, Ghei M, Henderson A, Persad R, Rosario DJ, Shergill I, Winkler M, Soares M, Spackman E, Sculpher M, Emberton M.

Health Technol Assess. 2018 Jul;22(39):1-176. doi: 10.3310/hta22390.

4.

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.

Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Gabbert HE, Becker N, Antoch G, Albers P, Schimmöller L.

Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):713-20. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008. Epub 2015 Jun 23.

PMID:
26116294
5.

Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG.

Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037. Epub 2014 Dec 3. Review.

PMID:
25480312
6.

Prediction of High-grade Prostate Cancer Following Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators.

Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, Schoots IG, Chiu PK, Osses DF, Tijsterman JD, Beerlage HP, Mannaerts CK, Schimmöller L, Albers P, Arsov C.

Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):310-318. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.031. Epub 2018 Aug 3.

PMID:
30082150
7.

Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy.

Boesen L, Noergaard N, Chabanova E, Logager V, Balslev I, Mikines K, Thomsen HS.

Scand J Urol. 2015 Feb;49(1):25-34. doi: 10.3109/21681805.2014.925497. Epub 2014 Jun 12.

PMID:
24922550
8.

The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V, Perrouin-Verbe MA, Demany N, Serey-Effeil S, Callerot P, Coquet JB, Doucet L, Deruelle C, Joulin V, Nonent M, Fournier G, Valeri A.

Scand J Urol. 2018 Jun;52(3):174-179. doi: 10.1080/21681805.2018.1438509. Epub 2018 Feb 20.

PMID:
29463177
9.

Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion Targeted Biopsy: Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M.

Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Feb;15(1):e33-e36. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007. Epub 2016 Jul 21.

PMID:
27530436
10.

There Is No Way to Avoid Systematic Prostate Biopsies in Addition to Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsies.

Dell'Oglio P, Stabile A, Soligo M, Brembilla G, Esposito A, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Bravi CA, Dehò F, De Cobelli F, Montorsi F, Karnes RJ, Briganti A.

Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Mar 27. pii: S2588-9311(19)30033-1. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.002. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
31411973
11.

Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer.

Boesen L.

Dan Med J. 2017 Feb;64(2). pii: B5327. Review.

PMID:
28157066
12.

Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, Somford DM.

Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041. Epub 2016 Aug 25. Review.

PMID:
27568655
13.

Magnetic Resonance and Ultrasound Image Fusion Supported Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using the Ginsburg Protocol: Technique, Learning Points, and Biopsy Results.

Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K, Gaziev G, Miano R, Barrett T, Gnanapragasam V, Doble A, Warren A, Bratt O, Kastner C.

Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):332-40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.064. Epub 2016 Mar 16.

PMID:
26995327
14.

Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results.

Tewes S, Hueper K, Hartung D, Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Weidemann J, Renckly S, Kuczyk MA, Wacker F, Peters I.

World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1707-14. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1525-4. Epub 2015 Mar 14.

PMID:
25774003
15.

Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial.

Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, Piippo U, Kauppila S, Lammentausta E, Ohtonen P, Vaarala MH.

Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):419-25. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.024. Epub 2015 May 29.

PMID:
26033153
16.

A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging techniques used to secure biopsies in prostate cancer patients.

van Luijtelaar A, Bomers J, Fütterer J.

Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2019 Jul 19:1-12. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2019.1641086. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
31277551
17.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category.

John S, Cooper S, Breau RH, Flood TA, Cagiannos I, Lavallee LT, Morash C, O'sullivan J, Schieda N.

Can Urol Assoc J. 2018 Jun 19. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5254. [Epub ahead of print]

18.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided In-bore and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsies: An Adjusted Comparison of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate.

Costa DN, Goldberg K, Leon AD, Lotan Y, Xi Y, Aziz M, Freifeld Y, Margulis V, Raj G, Roehrborn CG, Hornberger B, Desai N, Bagrodia A, Francis F, Pedrosa I, Cadeddu JA.

Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Jul;2(4):397-404. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.022. Epub 2018 Sep 20.

PMID:
31277776
19.

Risk-based Patient Selection for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy after Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Random Biopsy Avoids Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans.

Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, van Leenders GJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ.

Eur Urol. 2016 Jun;69(6):1129-34. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.018. Epub 2015 Dec 2.

PMID:
26651990
20.

Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?

Gold SA, Hale GR, Bloom JB, Smith CP, Rayn KN, Valera V, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Pinto PA.

World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):235-241. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2337-0. Epub 2018 May 21. Review.

PMID:
29785491

Supplemental Content

Support Center