Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 100

1.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Confirmatory Biopsy for Initiating Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Jayadevan R, Felker ER, Kwan L, Barsa DE, Zhang H, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Marks LS.

JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1911019. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11019.

2.

Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

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

BJU Int. 2017 Oct;120(4):511-519. doi: 10.1111/bju.13836. Epub 2017 Apr 4.

3.

Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ.

BJU Int. 2018 Dec;122(6):946-958. doi: 10.1111/bju.14358. Epub 2018 Jun 6.

PMID:
29679430
4.

Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, Sharma DS, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Marks LS.

J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):632-639. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.070. Epub 2016 Sep 14.

5.

Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial.

Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, Vesprini D, Milot L, Kebabdjian M, Fleshner N, Ghai S, Chin J, Pond GR, Haider M.

Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):300-309. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025. Epub 2018 Jul 13.

PMID:
30017404
6.

Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population.

Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S.

Cancer. 2017 Jun 1;123(11):1941-1948. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30548. Epub 2017 Jan 31.

7.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.

Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, Carroll PR.

Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):275-281. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.023. Epub 2016 Aug 29.

PMID:
27595378
8.

Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease.

Schoots IG, Osses DF, Drost FH, Verbeek JFM, Remmers S, van Leenders GJLH, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ.

Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Feb;7(1):132-144. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.29.

9.

Value of Tracking Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Chang E, Jones TA, Natarajan S, Sharma D, Simopoulos D, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Marks LS.

J Urol. 2018 Jan;199(1):98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.038. Epub 2017 Jul 18.

10.
11.

Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance programme: PSA dynamics and serial MRI scans allow omission of protocol biopsies.

Gallagher KM, Christopher E, Cameron AJ, Little S, Innes A, Davis G, Keanie J, Bollina P, McNeill A.

BJU Int. 2019 Mar;123(3):429-438. doi: 10.1111/bju.14513. Epub 2018 Oct 9.

PMID:
30113755
12.

Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reporting Using the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation Criteria and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion with Transperineal Saturation Biopsy to Select Men on Active Surveillance.

Dieffenbacher S, Nyarangi-Dix J, Giganti F, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Müller-Wolf MB, Schütz V, Gasch C, Hatiboglu G, Hauffe M, Stenzinger A, Duensing S, Schlemmer HP, Moore CM, Hohenfellner M, Radtke JP.

Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Mar 13. pii: S2405-4569(19)30076-8. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.001. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
30878348
13.

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
14.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer.

Kamrava M, Kishan AU, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Dorey F, Lieu P, Kupelian PA, Marks LS.

Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Nov-Dec;5(6):411-6. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 Jun 6.

15.

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.

Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Schlemmer HP, Warren AY, Wieczorek K, Hohenfellner M, Kastner C, Hadaschik B.

BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120(5):631-638. doi: 10.1111/bju.13711. Epub 2016 Dec 21.

16.

Use of the Prostate Health Index for detection of prostate cancer: results from a large academic practice.

Tosoian JJ, Druskin SC, Andreas D, Mullane P, Chappidi M, Joo S, Ghabili K, Agostino J, Macura KJ, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM, Partin AW, Sokoll LJ, Ross AE.

Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Jun;20(2):228-233. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.72. Epub 2017 Jan 24.

17.

Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study.

Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, Marks LS.

JAMA Surg. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
31188412
18.

Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.

Bloom JB, Hale GR, Gold SA, Rayn KN, Smith C, Mehralivand S, Czarniecki M, Valera V, Wood BJ, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Parnes HL, Turkbey B, Pinto PA.

J Urol. 2019 Jan;201(1):84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.051.

PMID:
30577395
19.

Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.

Bloom JB, Hale GR, Gold SA, Rayn KN, Smith C, Mehralivand S, Czarniecki M, Valera V, Wood BJ, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Parnes HL, Turkbey B, Pinto PA.

J Urol. 2019 Jan;201(1):84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.051.

PMID:
30063928
20.

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

Supplemental Content

Support Center