Original Article
Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography in Staging Early Prostate Cancer — Results of a Multi-Institutional Cooperative Trial
N Engl J Med 1990; 323:621-626September 6, 1990
- Abstract
- Abstract
Background.
In 1987, a cooperative study group consisting of five institutions was formed to determine the relative benefits of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal (transrectal) ultrasonography in evaluating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage Ta or Tb).
Methods.
Over a period of 15 months, 230 patients were entered into the study and evaluated with identical imaging techniques. We compared imaging results with information obtained at the time of surgery and on pathological analysis.
Results.
MRI correctly staged 77 percent of cases of advanced disease and 57 percent of cases of localized disease; the corresponding figures for ultrasonography were 66 and 46 percent (P not significant). These figures did not vary significantly between readers; moreover, simultaneous interpretation of MRI and ultrasound scans did not improve accuracy. In terms of detecting and localizing lesions, MRI identified only 60 percent of all malignant tumors measuring more than 5 mm on pathological analysis and ultrasonography identified only 59 percent.
Conclusions.
The MRI and ultrasonography equipment that is currently available is not highly accurate in staging early prostate cancer, mainly because neither technique has the ability to identify microscopic spread of disease. Further evaluation with improved equipment may improve the accuracy of these techniques. (N Engl J Med 1990; 323:621–6.)
Media in This Article
Table 1
Sensitivity and Specificity of Ultrasonography in Staging Operable Prostate Cancer in 219 Patients.*Table 2
Sensitivity and Specificity of MRI in Staging Operable Prostate Cancer in 194 Patients.*Article Activity
- Article
PROSTATE cancer is the most prevalent cancer in men, the most frequently diagnosed cancer, and the second most frequent cause of death due to cancer in American men.1 2 3 The approach to treatment varies and is dependent on the extent of cancer at the time of diagnosis. Although new imaging techniques have been developed over the past 10 to 20 years to increase staging accuracy and thereby lead to better treatment decisions, the increasing need for cost containment has raised questions about the value of these approaches.
Computed tomography was initially used to stage prostate cancer,4 5 6 but since it cannot identify intrinsic prostate disease, it has been replaced by endorectal, or transrectal, ultrasonography for diagnosis and localized staging6 7 8 9 and, in many institutions, by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Data to demonstrate the accuracy of MRI and ultrasonography for staging are sparse; the largest series included only 47 patients with both surgical and pathological correlation.9 Results suggest that MRI can accurately stage 72 percent of cases of advanced disease and 84 percent of cases of localized disease.11 For ultrasonography, the most optimistic projections of sensitivity and specificity are 92 percent and 70 percent, respectively.9 The costs of these techniques are high: endorectal ultrasonography costs $150 to $400 per study, and MRI, $700 to $1,200 per study. Thus, identification of the more accurate diagnostic technique is important for both quality of care and cost containment.
This article reports on the collaborative effort of five institutions that are part of the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. More than 200 patients who were thought clinically to have localized cancer of the prostate were studied preoperatively with both MRI and transrectal ultrasonography to evaluate the ability of these techniques to determine the extent (stage) of the tumor. They underwent radical prostatectomy, and radiologic and pathological findings were correlated. Our data show that despite previous optimistic results, the currently available ultrasonography and MRI equipment cannot accurately determine the local extent of disease.
Methods
Patient Population
Five institutions participated in this study: the Cleveland Clinic, the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, the University of Michigan, and the University of California, San Francisco. At each institution, from December 1987 to April 1989, any patient who was thought on clinical evaluation to have a surgically resectable tumor (clinical stage Ta or Tb, N0) was considered a potential candidate for enrollment in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a cardiac pacemaker, had undergone abdominoperineal resection, or had been treated for prostate cancer. If the patient and the clinical service agreed to treatment by radical prostatectomy, informed consent was obtained, and the patient was scheduled for both endorectal ultrasonography and MRI.
Imaging Studies
A uniform protocol for ultrasonography and MRI was developed. All institutions used state-of-the-art ultrasound equipment, with transducers of 5 to 7.5 MHz, biplanar capabilities, and sharply focused near fields. Units used in this project included those manufactured by Acuson (Mountain View, Calif.), Advanced Technology Laboratories (Bothell, Wash.), Aloka (Tokyo, Japan), Bruel and Kjaer (Marlborough, Mass.), Diasonics (Milpitas, Calif.), and General Electric (Milwaukee). All patients had biplanar examinations.
All MRI examinations were performed on a General Electric 1.5-tesla Signa MRI system. Initially, T1-weighted (repetition time, 400 msec; echo time, 20 msec; thickness, 10 mm; and skip [space between images], 2 mm) sagittal images were used for localization. Intermediate and T2-weighted (repetition time, 2500 msec; echo time, 40 or 80 msec, 60 or 120 msec, or 20 or 80 msec; thickness, 5 mm; and field of view, 24 or 28 cm) axial and sagittal scans through the prostate and seminal vesicles were obtained (for transverse scans, in an interleaved fashion so that sections were contiguous). To identify lymph nodes, T1-weighted axial scans (repetition time, 600 msec; echo time, 20 msec; thickness, 10 mm; and skip, 2 mm) were obtained from the level of the urogenital diaphragm to the aortic bifurcation.
During the development of the protocol, the investigators agreed on a list of definitions of items to be evaluated. Sample images were circulated to the investigators to illustrate these definitions. During the study all images were interpreted prospectively, with the use of standardized forms specifically developed for this project. No reader interpreted both the MRI and ultrasound studies from the same patient. The examiners, technologists, and interpreters were unaware of the results of the digital rectal examination, the other imaging study, and other data; they knew only that the patient had a clinically suspected localized cancer.
Information was obtained about the presence and size of tumors, the location of tumors, periprostatic-fat infiltration, seminal-vesicle involvement, and pelvic lymphadenopathy (nodes larger than 1 cm in diameter) on MRI. Interpreters used a five-point grading scale appropriate for receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to rate their degree of confidence that periprostatic and seminal-vesicle invasion had occurred.
All MRI and ultrasound scans were read again, except for those from patients enrolled in the first four months of the study. The two radiologists from each institution jointly reevaluated the MRI and ultrasound scans to assess possible changes in interpretation resulting from the availability of data from the alternative study. Second readings were performed on the scans for 121 patients.
Pathological Analysis
All specimens were uniformly prepared by fixation of the surgically excised whole prostate in neutral buffered formalin for at least 24 hours. The specimens were coated with India ink (to ensure proper orientation), serially sectioned in the axial plane at intervals of 5 mm (whole-mount sections) or 2 to 3 mm (routine sections), and embedded in their entirety. The sections were designated so that the location of each lesion within the prostate would be accurate. The following were determined for all cancers with at least one dimension of more than 5 mm: location; size in each of three dimensions — anteroposterior, cephalocaudal, and transverse; capsular penetration (defined as extension of the tumor into periprostatic adipose tissue); seminal-vesicle invasion (extension into the muscle wall of the seminal vesicle); and metastasis to pelvic lymph nodes.
Statistical Analysis
A modified TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) staging system was used to categorize the clinical, ultrasound, MRI, and pathological findings. Stage Ta was defined as describing a nonpalpable cancer detected in a specimen obtained by transurethral prostatectomy. Stage Tb1—Tb2 described a palpable cancer confined to one side of the prostate, and stage Tb3 a palpable cancer involving both sides but confined to the prostate. Stage Tc1—Tc2 described a palpable lesion extending through the prostate capsule into the periprostatic fat, and Tc3 a palpable lesion extending into the seminal vesicles. Stage N0 was defined as indicating no regional lymph-node metastasis; stage N1, microscopical regional lymph-node metastasis; stage N2, gross regional lymph-node metastasis; and stage N3, extraregional lymph-node metastasis (including inguinal, periaortic, supraclavicular, or axillary nodes).
Because imaging and pathological studies cannot be used to differentiate palpable and nonpalpable disease, clinical stages Ta and Tb (both localized cancers) were grouped together. Subcategories of stage Tc were grouped together since the foremost point of clinical relevance was to distinguish localized (stages Ta and Tb) from advanced (stage Tc) cancers. Because endorectal ultrasonography cannot be used to evaluate pelvic lymph nodes, information about stage N was available only for pathological and MRI data. In addition, patients with gross lymphadenopathy (diagnosed preoperatively) were not subjected to surgery.
Data were analyzed to assess the ability of each technique to classify patients correctly into one of two groups (those with localized vs. those with advanced disease) and to detect lesions accurately as determined by subsequent pathological measurement. The imaging and pathological studies provided information on the location of each lesion in the prostate — that is, right versus left, anterior versus posterior, and cephalad versus midportion versus caudad; a computer algorithm was developed to match lesions seen on pathological analysis with those seen on imaging.
Accuracy of MRI and Ultrasound Studies
The sensitivity of each imaging technique was determined by calculating the percentage of patients correctly identified as having advanced disease. We also calculated the specificity of the techniques by determining the percentage of patients correctly identified as having localized disease. Asymptotic standard errors were computed whenever the available sample size was adequate. The sensitivities of MRI and ultrasonography were compared by the McNemar test.17 The same procedure was used to compare the specificities, and the results of two comparisons were then combined according to Fisher's procedure.18 To test the hypothesis that the readers were all equally accurate, we also calculated the diagnostic accuracies of all readers who had interpreted the findings for more than four patients.
Because detection of local invasion (periprostatic or seminal vesicle) is critical in cancer staging, a more comprehensive analysis of these features was performed. For periprostatic invasion, ROC curves were fitted to the ultrasound and MRI data (pooled for all readers) with the use of a bivariate normal model. The calculations were made with the computer program CORROC2,19 and the areas under the two curves were compared. For seminal-vesicle invasion, sensitivities and specificities were calculated; studies in which seminal-vesicle invasion was considered by the readers to be "possibly, probably, or definitely present" were considered to be abnormal.
Lesion Identification and Size Determination
Once the locations of the lesions were matched on imaging and pathological studies, we were able to determine the fraction of malignant lesions seen on imaging. We were also able to determine the accuracy of imaging by measuring the lesion pathologically. Sizes were measured in three dimensions (anteroposterior, cephalocaudal, and transverse). The abilities of the two imaging techniques to detect lesions of various sizes were compared by the McNemar test.
Results
Patient Population
The initial data set consisted of 249 consecutive patients from the five original institutions who were eligible for radical prostatectomy. Over a two-year period, one institution failed to enter any patients according to the prescribed protocol, and hence its data were excluded from the study. The mean age of the remaining 239 men was 60.8 years (range, 40 to 76). Among these patients, pathological examination of the specimens obtained during radical prostatectomy revealed no evidence of cancer in five; these patients had been given a diagnosis of cancer on the basis of transurethral prostate resection for hyperplasia. In four additional patients, the specimens were not sectioned according to the protocol. The data from these patients were excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 230 patients, 219 (95 percent) had ultrasound studies, 194 (84 percent) had MRI examinations, and 187 (81 percent) had both. Four patients who had ultrasound studies began the MRI studies but could not finish because of claustrophobia.
Staging Accuracy
When the sensitivities and specificities of the MRI and ultrasound studies were compared in the 187 patients who had both studies, the difference between the two techniques was of borderline significance (combined P = 0.09 by the McNemar test). The overall staging accuracy of ultrasonography was 58 percent (126 of 219 patients), with a standard error of 3 percent (Table 1Table 1
Sensitivity and Specificity of Ultrasonography in Staging Operable Prostate Cancer in 219 Patients.*). Of the 92 patients with localized disease, ultrasonography correctly identified 42, yielding a mean (±SE) specificity of 46±5 percent. Of the 127 men with extension of disease beyond the prostate, ultrasonography correctly identified 84, yielding a sensitivity of 66±4 percent; in these patients there was an exact match between the site of periprostatic invasion detected by ultrasonography and that identified by pathological examination 71 percent of the time (63 of 89 sites).The overall staging accuracy of MRI was 69 percent (133 of 194 patients), with a standard error of 3 percent (Table 2Table 2
Sensitivity and Specificity of MRI in Staging Operable Prostate Cancer in 194 Patients.*). Of the 82 patients with localized disease, MRI correctly identified 47, yielding a specificity of 57±5 percent. Of the 112 men with advanced disease, MRI correctly identified 86, for a sensitivity of 77±4 percent; in these patients there was an exact match between the site of periprostatic invasion detected by MRI and that identified by pathological examination 76 percent of the time (71 of 94 sites). Among all patients having MRI studies, 185 had their pelvic nodes examined pathologically. MRI correctly identified 155 of 162 patients without tumor involvement of these nodes (specificity, 96 percent); its sensitivity was considerably lower (4 percent): only 1 of 23 involved nodes was detected.When the overall accuracy of each technique was calculated for each reader in the study, there was considerable variation among readers. Although this was greater for the readers of ultrasound scans than for the readers of MRI scans, there was no significant difference among readers for either technique.
Predictive Value
When the sensitivities and specificities were converted to predictive values, the results were disappointing. For every 100 patients with ultrasound results suggesting extension beyond the prostate, only 63 would actually have had such disease; thus, 37 would have been falsely considered to have a more severe stage of disease. For every 100 patients with ultrasound results suggesting containment of the disease within the prostate, only 49 would actually have had such localized disease, and 51 would have been falsely considered to have a less severe stage of disease. For every 100 patients with MRI results suggesting extension beyond the prostate, only 71 would actually have had such disease; thus, 29 would have been falsely considered to have a more severe stage of disease. For every 100 patients with MRI results suggesting containment of the disease within the prostate, only 63 would actually have had such localized disease, and 37 would have been falsely considered to have a less serious stage of disease.
Accuracy for Detecting Periprostatic Extension
For the 187 patients who had both MRI and ultrasound studies there was no significant difference between the techniques in their ability to detect either periprostatic invasion or invasion of the seminal vesicles. For periprostatic extension, the mean (±SE) estimated area under the ROC curve for MRI was 0.67 (±5 percent) and for ultrasonography, 0.62 (±4 percent); these were not significantly different (two-sided P = 0.38). Agreement between the imaging studies about the site of penetration did not seem to increase the accuracy of the results. Pathological data agreed with imaging data in only 46 of 65 cases (71 percent) in which both imaging studies pointed to penetration at a specific site.
Ultrasonography correctly identified 14 of 65 seminal vesicles involved by tumor (sensitivity, 22 percent) and 270 of 308 seminal vesicles free of disease (specificity, 88 percent). The corresponding figures for MRI were 18 of 65 (28 percent) and 272 of 308 (88 percent).
Effect of Rereading the Ultrasound and MRI Scans
When the ultrasound scans were reexamined by readers with knowledge of the MRI results and when the MRI scans were reexamined by readers with knowledge of the ultrasound results, there were no statistically significant differences in accuracy between the first and second readings (Table 3Table 3
Effect of Rereading the Ultrasound and MRI Scans on Sensitivity, Specificity, and Accuracy.*). There was, however, a systematic trend among readers to judge the disease as being at a more serious stage on the second reading than on the first, so that sensitivities were higher and specificities lower.Effect of Size on the Detectability of Lesions
In two patients there was incomplete information about the exact location of the lesion on MRI, ultrasonography, or both. Thus, there were 185 patients for whom we could compare the ability of MRI and ultrasonography to detect and localize malignant lesions of various sizes. There were 299 distinctly separate cancers with at least one measured dimension more than 5 mm on pathological examination; 110 men had one lesion, 47 had two, 20 had three, 6 had four, 1 had five, and 1 had six lesions.
Among the 299 lesions, 143 (48 percent) were identified by both techniques, an additional 37 (12 percent) were detected only by MRI, and an additional 32 (11 percent) were detected by ultrasonography alone. A total of 212 lesions (71 percent) were identified by one or both of the imaging techniques. As expected, the ability to identify these lesions varied directly with size but minimally with the plane of imaging. For example, ultrasonography identified 53 percent of all lesions ≤1 cm in the anteroposterior dimension, whereas it identified 72 percent of the lesions that were larger than 1 cm. The corresponding percentages for MRI were 56 percent for the smaller lesions and 71 percent for the larger ones (Table 4Table 4
Detection and Localization of Lesions by Ultrasonography, MRI, or Both, According to Lesion Size on Pathological Examination.). There was no statistically significant difference between the abilities of ultrasonography and MRI to identify lesions (combined P value >0.05 by the McNemar test).Discussion
Increasing concern about the rising costs of health care and the effectiveness of current diagnostic and therapeutic procedures has led to renewed interest in comparative clinical studies. In the field of radiology such studies are of particular interest to patients with cancer because they strongly influence treatment choices. Nonetheless, comparative data on competing imaging methods have traditionally been difficult to obtain for two reasons. First, few institutions have enough patients with cancer to perform a statistically reliable and generalized study. Second, until the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group was established, there was no quick and efficient way for individual institutions to pool data and thereby to enlarge samples.
Our results are disappointing. With currently available commercial equipment, neither ultrasonography nor MRI can reliably differentiate microscopical local from advanced disease in patients presenting with clinically localized disease. The overall accuracy of ultrasonography was 58 percent, and of MRI, 69 percent; both were more accurate in identifying patients with advanced disease. Ultrasonography accurately staged confined disease in only 49 percent of the patients, and MRI in 64 percent, whereas the accuracy of staging for advanced disease was 63 percent for ultrasonography and 71 percent for MRI. Moreover, making the results of the other imaging method available to the reader had no effect on the accuracy of either method. Although there was no significant difference between MRI and ultrasonography at a P level of 0.05, the performance of MRI was consistently better than that of ultrasonography in all dimensions measured (Tables 1 and 2).
Unfortunately, when these findings on the accuracy of the techniques were translated into implications for patient care, the results were equally disappointing. With either method, the disease in a significant number of cases was either incorrectly staged or classified as less serious than it actually was. For example, for every 100 patients with clinically operable disease (the entry criterion for the study) for whom ultrasonography indicated that the disease had extended beyond the prostate, only 63 would actually have had such extension. The comparable number for MRI was 71 of 100 patients. The initial hope that MRI would improve staging accuracy by allowing imaging not only of the local prostate area but also of the pelvic nodes was not substantiated. MRI and presumably other cross-sectional imaging techniques currently are not able to identify microscopic spread of disease. Although the specificity of MRI was high (96 percent), the relatively low percentage of patients with nodal involvement in this population made its predictive value low — about 12 percent of all nodes positive on MRI would be positive on pathological examination. Whether this percentage is too low to indicate a treatment strategy is unclear and would depend on a weighing of the side effects of biopsy against the benefits of the information thus obtained.
Several possible explanations can be offered for the marked differences between our results and those of earlier, more optimistic studies.7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 First, all of our patients were thought, on the basis of the initial clinical examination, to have surgically resectable disease, thus minimizing the possibility of including patients with obvious advanced disease.20 Second, our data were collected prospectively, and readers for one imaging examination were blinded to the results of the other as well as to the results of the pathological study. Third, the imaging techniques differed slightly from those other published reports.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 It is not clear to us why such changes in technique should have had such a profound effect on accuracy. Fourth, no cases were self-referred — that is, there was no overlap between detailed information obtained from the physical examination and the interpretation or performance of the imaging tests. Such an overlap could potentially have biased the results, although it is not entirely obvious in what direction the bias would have been. Finally, in previous studies the entire radical-prostatectomy specimens were not always "step-sectioned" to correlate exactly with imaging,10 , 12 which may mean that not all areas of microscopic tumor extension were identified. None of the imaging techniques available, including MRI, ultrasonography, and computed tomography, are able to identify microscopic disease. They can detect only macroscopic disease, whether or not there is an attempt to evaluate local disease, periprostatic or seminal-vesicle invasion, or lymph-node or distant spread of the tumor.
Another factor that may affect accuracy in this study and in others is the possibility of artifacts (hemorrhage or inflammation) due to an earlier biopsy. Theoretically, these would be expected to cause a decrease in specificity because scarring could be confused with tumor invasion. Thus, we believe that our results provide a minimal degree of accuracy that could be improved if imaging was performed before biopsy. Because of the expense of imaging studies, however, staging is usually not done until after the diagnosis of cancer is confirmed (e.g., after the biopsy). Possible pitfalls resulting from the use of biopsy will be a recurrent problem and probably will be unavoidable whatever the experimental design.
The data in Table 4 indicate that neither ultrasonography nor MRI can accurately detect and localize malignant tumors. Because this study relates to staging existing tumors, these data can offer only a lower limit of the sensitivity of these techniques for detection alone. It is generally believed that tumors do not spread beyond the confines of the prostate unless they reach a volume of at least 1.0 to 1.5 ml.21 , 22 Such a volume is consistent with data suggesting that cancer becomes aggressive when it attains an estimated mass of only 0.2 to 1.0 cm in diameter.21 , 23
Several approaches might lead to improvements in the accuracy of ultrasonography and MRI. First, analysis of the images with special attention to diagnostic features may lead to improvements for both MRI and ultrasonography, as it has for mammography.24 Second, for MRI, the use of noise reduction,25 fat suppression,26 and intrarectal surface coils27 , 28 may, as preliminary studies have suggested, be helpful and improve accuracy. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy may also be useful to determine the extent of prostate disease.29 30 31 The use of contrast agents in MRI may have potential benefits, and tissue characterization or diagnostic analysis may improve ultrasound results. Improved accuracy may permit the clinician to plan treatment with greater confidence than at present.
In terms of the methodologic results of this study, we suggest that the use of a study group like the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group is one way of providing data rapidly for use in decisions involving patient care. This particular group consisted initially of five institutions that presented preliminary data on nearly 100 patients in less than 12 months32 and on more than 200 patients in 15 months.
In summary, we believe that our results show that ultrasonography and MRI are not as accurate in staging early prostate disease as previous studies had reported. We also believe that the larger sample in this study as compared with earlier studies, its multi-institutional nature, and the use of a number of readers increase the likelihood that these conclusions can be generalized. Further refinements of these techniques should be supported because we believe that MRI and ultrasonography have the greatest potential in staging prostate cancer.
Supported in part by grants (U01-CA-45256 and P01-CA41167) from the National Cancer Institute.
We are indebted to our project officer at the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Matti Al-Aish, for help and support; to Paul L. Carson, Ph.D., Lawrence Crooks, Ph.D., and Albert Goldstein, Ph.D., all of whom helped develop equipment specifications and quality-control techniques for imaging; and to the following persons for their contributions: American College of Radiology — John J. Curry, Steven Mervis, M.B.A., Joanne Stetz, R.N.N., R.T.T., and Elaine Pakuris; Cleveland Clinic Foundation — Howard Levin, M.D., Ronald Lorig, MD., J. Edson Pontes, M.D., and Joan L. Clarke; Harvard Medical School — Shu Zhang, M.S.; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions — Roger Sanders, M.D., Sheila Sheth, M.D., Clare Tempany, M.D., Mary Himmel, and Patrice Holtz, R.N.; Thomas Jefferson University Hospital — Hong Choi, M.D., Wolfgang Dähnert, M.D., Donald G. Mitchell, M.D., Peter McCue, M.D., S. Grant Mulholland, M.D., Alex Ranney, M.D., Theresa Matteucci, and JoAnn Gardner; University of California, San Francisco — Barbara Demas, M.D., and Hedwig Hricak, M.D.; and University of Michigan — Paul Gikas, M.D., Gary Glazer, M.D., H. Barton Grossman, M.D., Wayne Wolfson, M.D., Karen LaBarge, and Daphna Gelblum.
Source Information
From the Departments of Radiology at the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia (M.D.R.), the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland (D.M.P.), and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (L.E.Q.); the Departments of Radiology (E.A.Z., U.H.), Surgery (P.C.W.), and Pathology (J.I.E.), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore; and the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School (C.A.G., B.J.M.), Boston. Address reprint requests to Dr. Rifkin at the Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 1033 Main Bldg., 10th and Sansom Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19107.
- References
References
1
Silverberg 2
Scott
Web of Science | Medline3
Montie
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Platt
Web of Science | Medline5
Sukov
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Pontes
Web of Science | Medline7
Andriole
Web of Science | Medline8
Perrapato
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Scardino
Web of Science | Medline10
Hricak
Web of Science | Medline11
Bezzi
Web of Science | Medline12
Biondetti
Web of Science | Medline13
Friedman
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Houston
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Carrol
Web of Science | Medline16
Phillips
Web of Science | Medline17
Bishop YMM, Fienberg SE, Holland PW. Discrete multivariate analysis: theory and practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1975.
18
Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984.
19
Metz CE, Kronman HB, Shen JE, Wang PL. CORROC2: a program for ROC analysis of correlated, inherently categorical, rating-scale data. Chicago: Department of Radiology and the Franklin McLean Research Institution, University of Chicago, June 1989.
20
Ransohoff
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline21
McNeal
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
McNeal J. Morphology, pathology—prostate. In: Stamey TA, ed. 1988 Monographs in urology. Vol. 9. No. 3. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Burroughs Wellcome, 1988.
23
Akazaki
Web of Science | Medline24
Getty
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Sommer
Web of Science | Medline26
Rifkin 27
Martin
Web of Science | Medline28
Schnall
Web of Science | Medline29
Sillerud
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Vigneron
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Narayan
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline32
Rifkin
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (193)
Citing Articles
1
Kyounghee Kim, Donghee Park, Jingam Park, Heung-il Ryu, Yumi Ko, Han Sung Kim, Jongbum Seo, Tae-Young Han. (2012) A lateral speckle tracking algorithm for ultrasound elastography. Journal of the Korean Physical Society 60:1, 171-176
CrossRef2
Nelly Tan, Daniel J. A. Margolis, Timothy D. McClure, Albert Thomas, David S. Finley, Robert E. Reiter, Jiaoti Huang, Steven S. Raman. (2011) Radical prostatectomy: value of prostate MRI in surgical planning. Abdominal Imaging
CrossRef3
Marko Brock, Christian von Bodman, Florian Sommerer, Björn Löppenberg, Tobias Klein, Thomas Deix, Jüri Rein Palisaar, Joachim Noldus, Thilo Eggert. (2011) Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extra capsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU International 108:8b, E217-E222
CrossRef4
2011. Regression and Medical Test Accuracy. , 99-149.
CrossRef5
J. Walz, M. Marcy, T. Maubon, S. Brunelle, J. Laroche, G. Gravis, N. Salem, F. Bladou. (2011) Élastographie en temps réel pour l’identification du cancer de prostate : comparaison d’imagerie préopératoire avec l’anatomopathologie après prostatectomie totale. Progrès en Urologie
CrossRef6
Michael Seitz, Christian Gratzke, Boris Schlenker, Alexander Buchner, Alexander Karl, Alexander Roosen, Bernhard B. Singer, Patrick J. Bastian, Süleyman Ergün, Christian G. Stief, Oliver Reich, Derya Tilki. (2011) Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CE-TRUS) with cadence-contrast pulse sequence (CPS) technology for the identification of prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 29:3, 295-301
CrossRef7
2011. References. , 481-517.
CrossRef8
Michael L. Eisenberg, Janet E. Cowan, Benjamin J. Davies, Peter R. Carroll, Katsuto Shinohara. (2011) The importance of tumor palpability and transrectal ultrasonographic appearance in the contemporary clinical staging of prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 29:2, 171-176
CrossRef9
Seung Hwan Lee, Kyung Kgi Park, Kyung Hwa Choi, Beom Jin Lim, Joo Hee Kim, Seung Wook Lee, Byung Ha Chung. (2010) Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World Journal of Urology 28:6, 667-672
CrossRef10
Thomas Fischer, Anke Thomas, Isabell Tardy, Michel Schneider, Hana Hünigen, Pia Custodis, Dirk Beyersdorff, Johanna Plendl, Jörg Schnorr, Felix Diekmann, Ole Gemeinhardt. (2010) Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor 2-Specific Microbubbles for Molecular Ultrasound Detection of Prostate Cancer in a Rat Model. Investigative Radiology 45:10, 675-684
CrossRef11
Osamu Ukimura. (2010) Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer. Expert Review of Medical Devices 7:4, 541-554
CrossRef12
Oguz Akin, Christopher C. Riedl, Nicole M. Ishill, Chaya S. Moskowitz, Jingbo Zhang, Hedvig Hricak. (2010) Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. European Radiology 20:4, 995-1002
CrossRef13
Fiona M. Fennessy, Kemal Tuncali, Paul R. Morrison, Clare M. Tempany. (2010) MR Imaging–Guided Interventions in the Genitourinary Tract: An Evolving Concept. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America 18:1, 11-28
CrossRef14
Sedat Ozer, Deanna L. Langer, Xin Liu, Masoom A. Haider, Theodorus H. van der Kwast, Andrew J. Evans, Yongyi Yang, Miles N. Wernick, Imam S. Yetik. (2010) Supervised and unsupervised methods for prostate cancer segmentation with multispectral MRI. Medical Physics 37:4, 1873
CrossRef15
Seo Yong Park, Jung Jun Kim, Tae Heon Kim, Soo Hyun Lim, Deok Hyun Han, Byung Kwan Park, Chan Kyo Kim, Ghee Young Kwon, Han Yong Choi, Hyun Moo Lee. (2010) The Role of Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting Extraprostatic Extension and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Korean Journal of Urology 51:5, 308
CrossRef16
Derek W. Cool, Lori Gardi, Cesare Romagnoli, Manale Saikaly, Jonathan I. Izawa, Aaron Fenster. (2010) Temporal-based needle segmentation algorithm for transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy procedures. Medical Physics 37:4, 1660
CrossRef17
Charlotte L. Foley, Mark R. Feneley. (2009) The clinical significance and therapeutic implications of extraprostatic invasion. Surgical Oncology 18:3, 203-212
CrossRef18
Hashim U. Ahmed, Alex Kirkham, Manit Arya, Rowland Illing, Alex Freeman, Clare Allen, Mark Emberton. (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 6:4, 197-206
CrossRef19
Nigel Borley, Mark R. Feneley. (2009) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and staging. Asian Journal of Andrology 11:1, 74-80
CrossRef20
David Bonekamp, Katarzyna J. Macura. (2008) Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of the Prostate. Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 19:6, 273-284
CrossRef21
Jurgen J. Fütterer, Jelle O. Barentsz, Stijn W.T.P.J. Heijmink. (2008) Value of 3-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Local Staging of Prostate Cancer. Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 19:6, 285-289
CrossRef22
Katarzyna J. Macura. (2008) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: Current Status in Prostate Cancer Detection, Localization, and Staging. Seminars in Roentgenology 43:4, 303-313
CrossRef23
Osamu Ukimura, Thomas E. Ahlering, Inderbir S. Gill. (2008) Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided, Energy-Free, Nerve-Sparing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Journal of Endourology 22:9, 1993-1996
CrossRef24
Hyunjin Park, Morand R. Piert, Asra Khan, Rajal Shah, Hero Hussain, Javed Siddiqui, Thomas L. Chenevert, Charles R. Meyer. (2008) Registration Methodology for Histological Sections and In Vivo Imaging of Human Prostate. Academic Radiology 15:8, 1027-1039
CrossRef25
A.M. Hövels, R.A.M. Heesakkers, E.M. Adang, G.J. Jager, S. Strum, Y.L. Hoogeveen, J.L. Severens, J.O. Barentsz. (2008) The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clinical Radiology 63:4, 387-395
CrossRef26
Fiona M. Fennessy, Kemal Tuncali, Paul R. Morrison, Clare M. Tempany. (2008) MR Imaging–Guided Interventions in the Genitourinary Tract: An Evolving Concept. Radiologic Clinics of North America 46:1, 149-166
CrossRef27
T HAMBROCK. 2008. Local staging of Prostate Cancer Using Endoretal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging. , 641-654.
CrossRef28
Yiqiang Zhan, Yangming Ou, Michael Feldman, John Tomaszeweski, Christos Davatzikos, Dinggang Shen. (2007) Registering Histologic and MR Images of Prostate for Image-based Cancer Detection. Academic Radiology 14:11, 1367-1381
CrossRef29
Ramaswamy Manikandan, Hasan A.R. Qazi, Joe Philip, Rahul Mistry, Gabby H. Lamb, Kenneth A. Woolfenden, Philip A. Cornford, Keith F. Parsons. (2007) Routine Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Management of T 1c Carcinoma of the Prostate: Is It Necessary?. Journal of Endourology 21:10, 1171-1174
CrossRef30
Jurgen J. Fütterer. (2007) MR imaging in local staging of prostate cancer. European Journal of Radiology 63:3, 328-334
CrossRef31
Fawzi T. Abul, Narayanaswamy Arun, Mona A. Abu-Assi, Akram M. Asbeutah. (2007) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: can random biopsies be reduced using the 4-dimensional technique?. International Urology and Nephrology 39:2, 517-524
CrossRef32
Gregory L. Lacy, Douglas W. Soderdahl, Javier Hernandez. (2007) Optimal cost-effective staging evaluations in prostate cancer. Current Urology Reports 8:3, 190-196
CrossRef33
Bruce J. Hillman. (2007) Health Services Research of Medical Imaging: My Impressions. Academic Radiology 14:4, 381-384
CrossRef34
Jurgen J. Fütterer, Marc R. Engelbrecht, Gerrit J. Jager, Robert P. Hartman, Bernard F. King, Christina A. Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, J. Alfred Witjes, Jelle O. Barentsz. (2007) Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal–pelvic phased-array coils. European Radiology 17:4, 1055-1065
CrossRef35
Hedvig Hricak, William T. Okuno. 2007. Male Pelvis Studies Using MRI. .
CrossRef36
Oguz Akin, Hedvig Hricak. (2007) Imaging of Prostate Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:1, 207-222
CrossRef37
Alexander P.S. Kirkham, Mark Emberton, Clare Allen. (2006) How Good is MRI at Detecting and Characterising Cancer within the Prostate?. European Urology 50:6, 1163-1175
CrossRef38
YUZURI TSURUMAKI, KYOICHI TOMITA, HARUKI KUME, TAKUHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TEPPEI MORIKAWA, SATORU TAKAHASHI, TAKUMI TAKEUCHI, TADAICHI KITAMURA. (2006) Predictors of seminal vesicle invasion before radical prostatectomy. International Journal of Urology 13:12, 1501-1508
CrossRef39
Arnauld Villers, Philippe Puech, Damien Mouton, Xavier Leroy, Charles Ballereau, Laurent Lemaitre. (2006) Dynamic Contrast Enhanced, Pelvic Phased Array Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Localized Prostate Cancer for Predicting Tumor Volume: Correlation With Radical Prostatectomy Findings. The Journal of Urology 176:6, 2432-2437
CrossRef40
Simon Phipps. (2006) Prostate tissue stiffness as measured with a resonance sensor system: a study on silicone and human prostate tissue in vitro. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 44:11, 941-943
CrossRef41
Robert Ross, Mukesh Harisinghani. (2006) Prostate Cancer Imaging—What the Urologic Oncologist Needs to Know. Radiologic Clinics of North America 44:5, 711-722
CrossRef42
Emanuele Casciani, Gian Franco Gualdi. (2006) Prostate cancer: value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy 3D chemical shift imaging. Abdominal Imaging 31:4, 490-499
CrossRef43
Gilad E. Amiel, Kevin M. Slawin. (2006) Newer Modalities of Ultrasound Imaging and Treatment of the Prostate. Urologic Clinics of North America 33:3, 329-337
CrossRef44
Yanong Zhu, Stuart Williams, Reyer Zwiggelaar. (2006) Computer technology in detection and staging of prostate carcinoma: A review. Medical Image Analysis 10:2, 178-199
CrossRef45
Neil H Bander. (2006) Technology Insight: monoclonal antibody imaging of prostate cancer. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 3:4, 216-225
CrossRef46
F. Yoon, G. Rodrigues, D. D'Souza, J. Radwan, M. Lock, G. Bauman, R. Ash, V. Venketesan, D. Downey, L. Stitt, D. Weisz, J. Izawa. (2006) Assessing the Prognostic Significance of Transrectal Ultrasound Extracapsular Extension in Prostate Cancer. Clinical Oncology 18:2, 117-124
CrossRef47
Emanuele Casciani, Gian Franco Gualdi. (2006) Prostate cancer: value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy 3D chemical shift imaging. Abdominal Imaging
CrossRef48
F.C. Kelleher, J. Armstrong. (2005) A Method for Assessing Accurate Application of the Partin Tables in the Pre-therapy Evaluation of Patients with Prostate Cancer. Clinical Oncology 17:8, 659-662
CrossRef49
MICHAEL MULLERAD, HEDVIG HRICAK, KENTARO KUROIWA, DARKO PUCAR, HUI-NI CHEN, MICHAEL W. KATTAN, PETER T. SCARDINO. (2005) COMPARISON OF ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY AND DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION IN THE PREOPERATIVE ANATOMICAL LOCALIZATION OF PROSTATE CANCER. The Journal of Urology 174:6, 2158-2163
CrossRef50
L. Rinnab, R. Küfer, R. E. Hautmann, B. G. Volkmer, M. Straub, N. M. Blumstein, H. W. Gottfried. (2005) Innovative Diagnostik in der Früherkennung und beim Staging des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms. Der Urologe 44:11, 1262-1276
CrossRef51
2005. Anticoagulants. .
CrossRef52
2005. Ultrasonics. .
CrossRef53
Vinod Nargund, Dona Al Hashmi, Priya Kumar, Stephen Gordon, Ugo Otitie, David Ellison, Melvyn Carroll, Sohail Baithun, Keith E. Britton. (2005) Imaging with radiolabelled monoclonal antibody (MUJ591) to prostate-specific membrane antigen in staging of clinically localized prostatic carcinoma: comparison with clinical, surgical and histological staging. BJU International 95:9, 1232-1236
CrossRef54
Xiao-Hua Zhou, Gengsheng Qin. (2005) A new confidence interval for the difference between two binomial proportions of paired data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 128:2, 527-542
CrossRef55
Jae Mann Song, Chun-Bae Kim, Hyun Chul Chung, Robert L. Kane. (2005) Prostate-Specific Antigen, Digital Rectal Examination and Transrectal Ultrasonography: A Meta-Analysis for This Diagnostic Triad of Prostate Cancer in Symptomatic Korean Men. Yonsei Medical Journal 46:3, 414
CrossRef56
Hedvig Hricak, Liang Wang, David C. Wei, Fergus V. Coakley, Oguz Akin, Victor E. Reuter, Mithat Gonen, Michael W. Kattan, Chinyere N. Onyebuchi, Peter T. Scardino. (2004) The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 100:12, 2655-2663
CrossRef57
Adam B Hittelman, Rajveer S Purohit, Christopher J Kane. (2004) Update of staging and risk assessment for prostate cancer patients. Current Opinion in Urology 14:3, 163-170
CrossRef58
Javier Hernandez, Ian M Thompson. (2004) Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Medical Clinics of North America 88:2, 267-279
CrossRef59
FERGUS V. COAKLEY, ALIYA QAYYUM, JOHN KURHANEWICZ. (2003) Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopic Imaging of Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology 170:6, S69-S76
CrossRef60
Mona V. Sanghani, Delray Schultz, Clare M. Tempany, David Titelbaum, Andrew A. Renshaw, Marian Loffredo, Kerri Cote, Beth McMahon, Anthony V. D'Amico. (2003) Quantifying the change in endorectal magnetic resonance imaging-defined tumor volume during neoadjuvant androgen suppression therapy in patients with prostate cancer. Urology 62:3, 487-491
CrossRef61
Roger Bourne, Phillip Katelaris, Suzanne Danieletto, Theresa Dzendrowskyj, Peter Stanwell, Carolyn Mountford. (2003) Detection of prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in vivo. ANZ Journal of Surgery 73:8, 666-668
CrossRef62
Kate D Linton, Freddie C Hamdy. (2003) Early diagnosis and surgical management of prostate cancer. Cancer Treatment Reviews 29:3, 151-160
CrossRef63
Alan Pollack, Eric M Horwitz, Benjamin Movsas, Alexandra L Hanlon. (2003) Mindless or mindful? Radiation oncologists' perspectives on the evolution of prostate cancer treatment. Urologic Clinics of North America 30:2, 337-349
CrossRef64
Rajveer S Purohit, Katsuto Shinohara, Maxwell V Meng, Peter R Carroll. (2003) Imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urologic Clinics of North America 30:2, 279-293
CrossRef65
Stefania Gelmini, Carmela Tricarico, Luisa Petrone, Gianni Forti, Andrea Amorosi, Giovanni L. Dedola, Mario Serio, Mario Pazzagli, Claudio Orlando. (2003) Real-Time RT-PCR for the Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen mRNA Expression in Benign Hyperplasia and Adenocarcinoma of Prostate. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 41:3, 261-265
CrossRef66
Richard Clements. (2002) The role of transrectal ultrasound in diagnosing prostate cancer. Current Urology Reports 3:3, 194-200
CrossRef67
Beverley A Wilkinson, Freddie C Hamdy. (2002) Staging in prostate cancer. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2:1, 48-58
CrossRef68
GERALD W. HULL, FARHANG RABBANI, FARHAT ABBAS, THOMAS M. WHEELER, MICHAEL W. KATTAN, PETER T. SCARDINO. (2002) CANCER CONTROL WITH RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY ALONE IN 1,000 CONSECUTIVE PATIENTS. The Journal of Urology528-534
CrossRef69
Kyle K. Yu, Steven C. Eberhardt, Hedvig Hricak. 2002. Cancer of the Prostate. , 575-602.
CrossRef70
Mark R. Feneley, Alan W. Partin. (2001) INDICATORS OF PATHOLOGIC STAGE OF PROSTATE CANCER AND THEIR USE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE. Urologic Clinics of North America 28:3, 443-458
CrossRef71
Judd W. Moul, Christopher J. Kane, S. Bruce Malkowicz. (2001) THE ROLE OF IMAGING STUDIES AND MOLECULAR MARKERS FOR SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Urologic Clinics of North America 28:3, 459-472
CrossRef72
Timothy Campbell, John Blasko, E. David Crawford, Jeffrey Forman, Gerald Hanks, Deborah Kuban, James Montie, Judd Moul, Alan Pollack, Derek Raghavan, Paul Ray, Mack Roach, Gary Steinberg, Nelson Stone, Ian Thompson, Nicholas Vogelzang, Srinivasan Vijayakumar. (2001) Clinical staging of prostate cancer: Reproducibility and clarification of issues. International Journal of Cancer 96:3, 198-209
CrossRef73
J.P.M Sedelaar, J.G.H van Roermund, G.L.J.H van Leenders, C.A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, H Wijkstra, J.J.M.C.H de la Rosette. (2001) Three-dimensional grayscale ultrasound: evaluation of prostate cancer compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 57:5, 914-920
CrossRef74
Ali M. Ziada, Turner C. Lisle, Peter B. Snow, Richard F. Levine, Gary Miller, E. David Crawford. (2001) Impact of different variables on the outcome of patients with clinically confined prostate carcinoma. Cancer 91:S8, 1653-1660
CrossRef75
James C. Kim, Glenn S. Gerber. (2001) Should laparoscopy be the standard approach used for pelvic lymph node dissection?. Current Urology Reports 2:2, 171-179
CrossRef76
Seema S. Sonnad, Curtis P. Langlotz, J. Sanford Schwartz. (2001) Accuracy of MR imaging for staging prostate cancer: A meta-analysis to examine the effect of technologic change. Academic Radiology 8:2, 149-157
CrossRef77
Takahiko Hachiya, Sadatsugu Minei, Ken-Ichirou Kobayashi, Hajime Ishida, Kiyoki Okada. (2000) Prediction of organ-confined disease by prostate-specific antigen nadir after neoadjuvant therapy. International Journal of Urology 7:11, 393-401
CrossRef78
Mark R. Feneley, Alan W. Partin. (2000) Diagnosis of localized prostate cancer: 10 years of progress. Current Opinion in Urology 10:4, 319-327
CrossRef79
RABI TIGUERT, EDWARD L. GHEILER, DAVID J. GRIGNON, PETER J. LITTRUP, WAEL SAKR, J. EDSON PONTES, DAVID P. WOOD. (2000) PATIENTS WITH ABNORMAL ULTRASOUND OF THE PROSTATE BUT NORMAL DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS HAVING CLINICAL STAGE T2 TUMORS. The Journal of Urology 163:5, 1486-1490
CrossRef80
Michael R. Bernstein, Thomas Cangiano, Anthony D'Amico, Jesse Chittams, Christine Hardy, Richard D. Whittington, John E. Tomaszewski, Mitchell D. Schnall, Alan J. Wein, S.Bruce Malkowicz. (2000) Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathologic findings in T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 5:3, 104-107
CrossRef81
JUAN CARLOS QUINTANA, MICHAEL J. BLEND. (2000) The Dual-Isotope ProstaScint Imaging Procedure. Clinical Nuclear Medicine 25:1, 33
CrossRef82
John Kurhanewicz, Daniel B. Vigneron, Ryan G. Males, Mark G. Swanson, Kyle K. Yu, Hedvig Hricak. (2000) THE PROSTATE: MR IMAGING AND SPECTROSCOPY. Radiologic Clinics of North America 38:1, 115-138
CrossRef83
Kyle K. Yu, Hedvig Hricak. (2000) IMAGING PROSTATE CANCER. Radiologic Clinics of North America 38:1, 59-85
CrossRef84
Anthony V. D'Amico, Frans Debruyne, Hartwig Huland, Jerome P. Richie. (1999) Innovative treatment for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: The future role of molecular imaging. The Prostate 41:3, 208-212
CrossRef85
MICHAEL PERROTTI, KEN-RYU HAN, ROBERT E. EPSTEIN, EUGENE C. KENNEDY, FARHANG RABBANI, KETAN BADANI, ALLAN J. PANTUCK, ROBERT E. WEISS, KENNETH B. CUMMINGS. (1999) PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING TO DETECT TUMOR FOCI IN MEN WITH PRIOR NEGATIVE PROSTASTIC BIOPSY: A PILOT STUDY. The Journal of Urology1314-1317
CrossRef86
MICHAEL PERROTTI, KEN-RYU HAN, ROBERT E. EPSTEIN, EUGENE C. KENNEDY, FARHANG RABBANI, KETAN BADANI, ALLAN J. PANTUCK, ROBERT E. WEISS, KENNETH B. CUMMINGS. (1999) PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING TO DETECT TUMOR FOCI IN MEN WITH PRIOR NEGATIVE PROSTASTIC BIOPSY: A PILOT STUDY. The Journal of Urology 162:4, 1314-1317
CrossRef87
SUDHANSHU GARG, BJØRN FORTLING, DAVID CHADWICK, MARY C. ROBINSON, FREDDIE C. HAMDY. (1999) STAGING OF PROSTATE CANCER USING 3-DIMENSIONAL TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND IMAGES: A PILOT STUDY. The Journal of Urology 162:4, 1318-1321
CrossRef88
Hedrig Hricak. (1999) EDITORIAL: IMAGING PROSTATE CANCER. The Journal of Urology1329-1330
CrossRef89
Hedrig Hricak. (1999) EDITORIAL: IMAGING PROSTATE CANCER. The Journal of Urology 162:4, 1329-1330
CrossRef90
(1999) Session 1: Summary of clinical issues. Academic Radiology 6, S267-S277
CrossRef91
Michael Perrotti, Allan Pantuck, Farhang Rabbani, Ron S Israeli, Robert E Weiss. (1999) Review of staging modalities in clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 54:2, 208-214
CrossRef92
ALEXANDRE de la TAILLE, MARK A. RUBIN, EMILIA BAGIELLA, CARL A. OLSSON, RALPH BUTTYAN, TATJANA BURCHARDT, CHARLES KNIGHT, KATHLEEN M. O'TOOLE, AARON E. KATZ. (1999) CAN PERINEURAL INVASION ON PROSTATE NEEDLE BIOPSY PREDICT PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN RECURRENCE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY?. The Journal of Urology 162:1, 103-106
CrossRef93
Gary M Freedman, William G Negendank, Gary R Hudes, Andrew H Shaer, Gerald E Hanks. (1999) Preliminary results of a bone marrow magnetic resonance imaging protocol for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Urology 54:1, 118-123
CrossRef94
Zbigniew Petrovich, Gary Lieskovsky, Bryan Langholz, Bernard Bochner, Silvia Formenti, Oscar Streeter, Donald G Skinner. (1999) Adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with pathologic stage C (pT3N0) adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology 53:6, 1184-1193
CrossRef95
Rajesh V. Iyer, Alexandra L. Hanlon, Wayne H. Pinover, Gerald E. Hanks. (1999) Outcome evaluation of the 1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for prostate carcinoma treated by radiation therapy. Cancer 85:8, 1816-1821
CrossRef96
Robert H. Liebross, Alan Pollack, Scott P. Lankford, Gunar K. Zagars, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, Fady B. Geara. (1999) Transrectal ultrasound for staging prostate carcinoma prior to radiation therapy. Cancer 85:7, 1577-1585
CrossRef97
J Rørvik. (1999) Use of pelvic surface coil MR imaging for assessment of clinically localized prostate cancer with histopathological correlation. Clinical Radiology 54:3, 164-169
CrossRef98
Robert F. Wagner. (1999) Physical performance of diagnostic imaging modalities. Academic Radiology 6, S69-S71
CrossRef99
Robert H Liebross, Alan Pollack, Scott P Lankford, Andrew C von Eschenbach, Gunar K Zagars. (1998) Relationship of ultrasound staging and bilateral biopsy positivity to outcome in stage T1c prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Urology 52:4, 647-652
CrossRef100
Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Harold L. Kundel. (1998) Update on long-term goals for medical image perception research. Academic Radiology 5:9, 629-633
CrossRef101
Kyle K. Yu, Hedvig Hricak, Gary D. Grossfeld, Peter R. Carroll. (1998) Prediction of patient outcome after radical prostatectomy by imaging: Choice of outcome measure. Academic Radiology 5, S347-S348
CrossRef102
J HUSBAND, A PADHANI, A MACVICAR, P REVELL. (1998) Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: Comparison of image quality using endorectal and pelvic phased array coils. Clinical Radiology 53:9, 673-681
CrossRef103
JEFF A. WIEDER, MARK S. SOLOWAY. (1998) INCIDENCE, ETIOLOGY, LOCATION, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PROSTATE CANCER. The Journal of Urology 160:2, 299-315
CrossRef104
Yasuki Goto, Makoto Ohori, Peter T. Scardino. (1998) Use of Systematic Biopsy Results to Predict Pathologic Stage in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Preliminary Report. International Journal of Urology 5:4, 337-342
CrossRef105
Marcia L Wills, Jurgita Sauvageot, Alan W Partin, Robin Gurganus, Jonathan I Epstein. (1998) Ability of Sextant Biopsies to Predict Radical Prostatectomy Stage. Urology 51:5, 759-764
CrossRef106
Tomohiro Namimoto, Shouji Morishita, Ryuichi Saitoh, Junzou Kudoh, Yasuyuki Yamashita, Mutsumasa Takahashi. (1998) The value of dynamic MR imaging for hypointensity lesions of the peripheral zone of the prostate. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 22:3, 239-245
CrossRef107
OSAMU UKIMURA, PATRICIA TRONCOSO, EDILBERTO I. RAMIREZ, R. JOSEPH BABAIAN. (1998) PROSTATE CANCER STAGING: CORRELATION BETWEEN ULTRASOUND DETERMINED TUMOR CONTACT LENGTH AND PATHOLOGICALLY CONFIRMED EXTRAPROSTATIC EXTENSION. The Journal of Urology 159:4, 1251-1259
CrossRef108
Anthony V. D'Amico, Mitchell Schnall, Richard Whittington, S.Bruce Malkowicz, Delray Schultz, John E. Tomaszewski, Alan Wein. (1998) Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging identifies locally advanced prostate cancer in select patients with clinically localized disease. Urology 51:3, 449-454
CrossRef109
Ronald D. Ennis, Bozena K. Malyszko, John Rescigno, Adam E. Whitman, Daniel F. Heitjan, Kathleen M. O'Toole, Mark Rubin, Peter B. Schiff. (1998) Biologic classification as an alternative to anatomic staging for clinically localized prostate cancer: a proposal based on patients treated with external beam radiotherapy. Urology 51:2, 265-270
CrossRef110
T. Fesseha, W. Sakr, D. Grignon, M. Banerjee, D.P. Wood, J.E. Pontes. (1997) PROGNOSTIC IMPLICATIONS OF A POSITIVE APICAL MARGIN IN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS. The Journal of Urology 158:6, 2176-2179
CrossRef111
N DEASY, B CONRY, J LEWIS, T FORD, G RUSSELL, R BASU, J FLANAGAN. (1997) Local staging of prostate cancer with 0.2 T body coil MRI. Clinical Radiology 52:12, 933-937
CrossRef112
M. Werner-Wasik, R. Whittington, S.B. Malkowicz, B.W. Corn, P. Arger, S. Reisinger, C. Langlotz, A. Alexander, A.V. D'Amico, T. Hyslop, L. Gomella, K. Brownstein, A.J. Wein. (1997) Prostate imaging may not be necessary in nonpalpable carcinoma of the prostate. Urology 50:3, 385-389
CrossRef113
Giuseppe Castaldo, Gaetano Cecere, Virginia di Fusco, Domenico Prezioso, Massimo d'Armiento, Francesco Salvatore. (1997) Prostate-specific antigen (protein and mRNA) analysis in the differential diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Clinica Chimica Acta 265:1, 65-76
CrossRef114
Albert Marchetti, Kenneth LaPensee, Liping Wang. (1997) A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of staging modalities for patients with newly diagnosed and occult recurrent adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 3:5-6, 154-165
CrossRef115
Martin I. Resnick, Joseph A. Smith, Peter T. Scardino, Marlene J. Egger, Alberto Hernandez, Steven C. Rose. (1997) Transrectal Prostate Ultrasonography: Variability of Interpretation. The Journal of Urology 158:3, 856-860
CrossRef116
Gerard J. O'Dowd, Robert W. Veltri, Roberto Orozco, M. Craig Miller, Joseph E. Oesterling. (1997) Update on the Appropriate Staging Evaluation for Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology 158:3, 687-698
CrossRef117
Michael J. Barry, Floyd J. Fowler, Lin Bin, Joseph E. Oesterling. (1997) A Nationwide Survey of Practicing Urologists: Current Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology 158:2, 488-492
CrossRef118
Michael A. Rees, Martin I. Resnick, Joseph E. Oesterling. (1997) USE OF PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN, GLEASON SCORE, AND DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION IN STAGING PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED PROSTATE CANCER. Urologic Clinics of North America 24:2, 379-388
CrossRef119
Joseph A. Smith, Peter T. Scardino, Martin I. Resnick, Alberto D. Hernandez, Steven C. Rose, Marlene J. Egger. (1997) Transrectal Ultrasound Versus Digital Rectal Examination for the Staging of Carcinoma of the Prostate: Results of a Prospective, Multi-Institutional Trial. The Journal of Urology 157:3, 902-906
CrossRef120
W. Tobocman, M.I. Resnick, T.G. Pretlow. (1997) Ultrasound reflections fail to reflect the histopathology of the prostate. The Prostate 30:1, 33-40
CrossRef121
David G. Bostwick, Rodolfo Montironi. (1997) Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: Therapeutic and prognostic importance. Virchows Archiv 430:1, 1-16
CrossRef122
M.L. Thakur, H. Kolan, J. Li, R. Wiaderkiewicz, V.R. Pallela, R. Duggaraju, A.V. Schally. (1997) Radiolabeled somatostatin analogs in prostate cancer. Nuclear Medicine and Biology 24:1, 105-113
CrossRef123
Alan R. Schned, Karlya J. Wheeler, Christine A. Hodorowski, John A. Heaney, Marc S. Ernstoff, Robert J. Amdur, Robert D. Harris. (1996) Tissue-shrinkage Correction Factor in the Calculation of Prostate Cancer Volume. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology 20:12, 1501-1506
CrossRef124
Aaron E. Katz, Glen M. de Vries, Mitchell C. Benson, Ralph E. Buttyan, Kathleen O'Toole, Mark A. Rubin, Michael Stifelman, Carl A. Olsson. (1996) THE ROLE OF THE REVERSE-TRANSCRIPTASE POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION ASSAY FOR PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN IN THE SELECTION OF PATIENTS FOR RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Urologic Clinics of North America 23:4, 541-549
CrossRef125
Joseph A. Smith. (1996) Transrectal ultrasonography for the detection and staging of carcinoma of the prostate. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 24:8, 455-461
CrossRef126
Thomas M. Pisansky, Michael L. Blute, Vera J. Suman, David G. Bostwick, John D. Earle, Horst Zincke. (1996) Correlation of pretherapy prostate cancer characteristics with seminal vesicle invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 36:3, 585-591
CrossRef127
Barry Högström. (1996) Efficacy assessment of imaging technologies and contrast media. Academic Radiology 3:10, 859-864
CrossRef128
MICHAEL K. HASEMAN, NANCY L. REED, SETH A. ROSENTHAL. (1996) Monoclonal Antibody Imaging of Occult Prostate Cancer in Patients With Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen. Clinical Nuclear Medicine 21:9, 704-713
CrossRef129
T BATES, P CAVANAGH, M SPEAKMAN, D GILLATT. (1996) Endorectal MRI using a 0.5 T mid-field system in the staging of localized prostate cancer. Clinical Radiology 51:8, 550-553
CrossRef130
Dipak J. Ranparia, Lois Hart, Dean G. Assimos. (1996) Utility of chest radiography and cystoscopy in the evaluation of patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 48:1, 72-74
CrossRef131
Aaron E. Katz, Glen M. de Vries, Carl A. Olsson, Mitchel C. Benson, Patty Swanton, Edward F. Ikeguchi, Ralph Buttyan. (1996) Molecular staging of genitourinary malignancies. Urology 47:6, 948-958
CrossRef132
David G. Bostwick, Junqi Qian, Erik Bergstralh, Paul Dundore, Dugan James, Robert P. Myers, Joseph E. Oesterling. (1996) Prediction of Capsular Perforation and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology 155:4, 1361-1367
CrossRef133
Curtis P. Langlotz, Mitchell D. Schnall, S. Bruce Malkowicz, J. Sanford Schwartz. (1996) Cost-effectiveness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer. Academic Radiology 3, S24-S27
CrossRef134
Wayne H. Pinover, Alex Hanlon, W. Robert Lee, Edward J. Kaplan, Gerald E. Hanks. (1996) Prostate carcinoma patients upstaged by imaging and treated with irradiation: An outcome-based analysis. Cancer 77:7, 1334-1341
CrossRef135
Peter J. Effert, Roland Bares, Stefan Handt, Johannes M. Wolff, Udalrich Bull, Gerhard Jakse. (1996) Metabolic Imaging of Untreated Prostate Cancer by Positron Emission Tomography with sup 18 Fluorine-Labeled Deoxyglucose. The Journal of Urology 155:3, 994-998
CrossRef136
Gustave L. Davis. (1996) Author reply. Cancer 77:5, 1004-1005
CrossRef137
Peter J. Effert, Roland Bares, Stefan Handt, Johannes M. Wolff, Udalrich Bull, Gerhard Jakse. (1996) Metabolic Imaging of Untreated Prostate Cancer by Positron Emission Tomography with sup 18 Fluorine-Labeled Deoxyglucose. The Journal of Urology994-998
CrossRef138
Inderbir S. Gill. (1996) Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy: Transperitoneal approach. Seminars in Surgical Oncology 12:2, 126-133
CrossRef139
Gerrit J. Jager. (1996) Sensitivity of frozen section examination of pelvic lymph nodes for metastatic prostate carcinoma. Cancer 77:5, 1003-1004
CrossRef140
Robert G. Moore, Alan W. Partin, Louis R. Kavoussi. (1996) Role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Seminars in Surgical Oncology 12:2, 139-144
CrossRef141
J. Ray Ballinger. (1996) RADIOLOGIC IMAGING IN CANCER. Medical Clinics of North America 80:1, 201-218
CrossRef142
S. Tong, D.B. Downey, H.N. Cardinal, A. Fenster. (1996) A three-dimensional ultrasound prostate imaging system. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 22:6, 735-746
CrossRef143
Badrinath R. Konety, Robert Naraghi, William Gooding, Walter F. O'Donnell, Robert R. Bahnson. (1996) Evaluation of computerized tomography for staging of clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations 2:1, 14-19
CrossRef144
Michael J. Barry, Craig Fleming, Christopher M. Coley, John H. Wasson, Marianne C. Fahs, Joseph E. Oesterling. (1995) Should medicare provide reimbursement for prostate-specific antigen testing for early detection of prostate cancer? Part III: Management strategies and outcomes. Urology 46:3, 277-289
CrossRef145
R.A. Huch Böni, J.A. Boner, J.F. Debatin, F. Trinkler, H. Knönagel, A. Von Hochstetter, U. Helfenstein, G.P. Krestin. (1995) Optimization of prostate carcinoma staging: Comparison of imaging and clinical methods. Clinical Radiology 50:9, 593-600
CrossRef146
G. Brown, D.A. Macvicar, V. Ayton, J.E. Husband. (1995) The role of intravenous contrast enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic carcinoma. Clinical Radiology 50:9, 601-606
CrossRef147
James E. Montie. (1995) Staging of prostate cancer. Current TNM classification and future prospects for prognostic factors. Cancer 75:S7, 1814-1818
CrossRef148
J.J.M.C.H. Rosette, R.J.B. Giesen, A.L. Huynen, R.G. Aarnink, F.M.J. Debruyne, H. Wijkstra. (1995) Computerized analysis of transrectal ultrasonography images in the detection of prostate carcinoma. British Journal of Urology 75:4, 485-491
CrossRef149
J. Stuart Wolf, Michael Cher, Marc Dall'Era, Joseph C. Presti, Hedvig Hricak, Peter R. Carroll. (1995) Original Articles. The Journal of Urology993-999
CrossRef150
Paul A. Peller, Donn C. Young, David P. Marmaduke, William L. Marsh, Robert A. Badalament. (1995) Sextant prostate biopsies. A histopathologic correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 75:2, 530-538
CrossRef151
W.Robert Lee, Bruce Giantonio, Gerald E. Hanks. (1994) Prostate cancer. Current Problems in Cancer 18:6, 298-357
CrossRef152
Herbert Lepor, Michael Guerena, Christopher M. Dixon. (1994) Perianastomotic injection of autologous fat at the time of radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 44:5, 783-788
CrossRef153
James M. Cummings, John A. Boullier, Bashir R. Sankari, Raul O. Parka. (1994) Seminal vesicle volume as a sonographicpredictor of prostate cancer stage. Urology 44:2, 206-210
CrossRef154
James E. Montie. (1994) Staging of prostate cancer. Cancer 74:1, 1-3
CrossRef155
Makoto Ohori, Thomas M. Wheeler, Peter T. Scardino. (1994) The new american joint committee on cancer and international union against cancer tnm classification of prostate cancer. Cancer 74:1, 104-114
CrossRef156
M. OHORI, S. EGAWA, K. SHINOHARA, T.M. WHEELER, P.T. SCARDINO. (1994) Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. British Journal of Urology 74:1, 72-79
CrossRef157
Aaron E. Katz, Carl A. Olsson, Anthony J. Raffo, Cristoforo Cama, Harris Perlman, Eric Seaman, Kathleen M. O'Toole, Don McMahon, Mitchell C. Benson, Ralph Buttyan. (1994) Molecular staging of prostate cancer with the use of an enhanced reverse transcriptase-PCR assay. Urology 43:6, 765-775
CrossRef158
Max Haid, David Rabin, Karen M. King, Charles M. Feinstein, Kenneth L. Janson, Stanley R. Levine, David L. Mutchnik, Elyse A. Lambiase, Richard Bradley. (1994) Digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen, and prostatic ultrasound: How effective is this diagnostic triad?. Journal of Surgical Oncology 56:1, 32-38
CrossRef159
Gunar K. Zagars, Fady B. Geara, Alan Pollack, Andrew C. Von Eschenbach. (1994) The T classification of clinically localized prostate cancer. An appraisal based on disease outcome after radiation therapy. Cancer 73:7, 1904-1912
CrossRef160
E. M. Olson, M. A. Trambert, R. F. Mattrey. (1994) Cystosarcoma phyllodes of the prostate: MRI findings. Abdominal Imaging 19:2, 180-181
CrossRef161
Michael K. Brawer, Robert E. Deering, Marianne Brown, Steven D. Preston, Steven A. Bigler. (1994) Predictors of pathologic stage in prostatic carcinoma. The role of neovascularity. Cancer 73:3, 678-687
CrossRef162
J. RØRVIK, O. J. HALVORSEN, E. SERVOLL, S. HAUKAAS. (1994) Transrectal ultrasonography to assess local extent of prostatic cancer before radical prostatectomy. British Journal of Urology 73:1, 65-69
CrossRef163
David G. Bostwick, Robert P. Myers, Joseph E. Oesterling. (1994) Staging of prostate cancer. Seminars in Surgical Oncology 10:1, 60-72
CrossRef164
Irene Guggenmoos-Holzmann. (1993) HOW reliable are change-corrected measures of agreement?. Statistics in Medicine 12:23, 2191-2205
CrossRef165
M. OHORI, K. SHINOHARA, T. M. WHEELER, M. AIHARA, E. C. WESSELS, S. ST C. CARTER, P.T. SCARDINO. (1993) Ultrasonic Detection of Non-palpable Seminal Vesicle Invasion: A Clinicopathological Study. British Journal of Urology 72:5, 799-808
CrossRef166
J.Stuart Wolf, Katsuto Shinohara, Peter R. Carroll, Perinchery Narayan. (1993) Combined role of transrectal ultrasonography, gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen in predicting organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 42:2, 130-137
CrossRef167
Wen-Son Hsieh, Jonathan W. Simons. (1993) Systemic therapy of prostate cancer. new concepts from prostate cancer tumor biology. Cancer Treatment Reviews 19:3, 229-260
CrossRef168
J SPENCER, S GOLDING, D COLE. (1993) Staging prostatic cancer. Clinical Radiology 48:1, 69-70
CrossRef169
A. S. ADAMSON, J. L. FRANCIS, R. O'N. WITHEROW, M. E. SNELL. (1993) Urinary Tissue Factor Levels in Prostatic Carcinoma: A Potential. Marker of Metastatic Spread ?. British Journal of Urology 71:5, 587-592
CrossRef170
Edelman, Robert R.Warach, Steven. (1993) Magnetic Resonance Imaging. New England Journal of Medicine 328:11, 785-791
Full Text171
Magda M. Stilmant, Ewa Kuligowska. (1993) Transrectal ultrasound screening for prostatic adenocarcinoma with histopathologic correlation.Factors affecting specificity. Cancer 71:6, 2041-2047
CrossRef172
Isabelle Durand-zaleski, Daniel Reizine, Daniel Puzin, Jean-Jacques Merland, Claudine Blum-Boisgard. (1993) Economic Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Inpatients: Is It Still Too Early?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 9:02, 263
CrossRef173
F.Graham Sommer, Hanh V. Nghiem, Robert Herfkens, John McNeal. (1993) Gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the abnormal prostate. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 11:7, 941-948
CrossRef174
R.G. Moore, L.R. Kavoussi. (1993) Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in genitourinary malignancies. Surgical Oncology 2, 51-66
CrossRef175
Anthony P. Polednak, Johti T. Flannery. (1992) Black versus white racial differences in clinical stage at diagnosis and treatment of prostatic cancer in connecticut. Cancer 70:8, 2152-2158
CrossRef176
Glenn S. Gerber, Ruth Goldberg, Gerald W. Chodak. (1992) Local staging of prostate cancer by tumor volume, prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound. Urology 40:4, 311-316
CrossRef177
R CLEMENTS, G GRIFFITHS, W PEELING. (1992) Staging prostatic cancer. Clinical Radiology 46:4, 225-231
CrossRef178
Eric Outwater, Mark L. Schiebler, Mitchell D. Schnall, Herbert Y. Kressel, John E. Tomaszewski. (1992) Mucinous carcinomas involving the prostate: Atypical findings at MR imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2:5, 597-600
CrossRef179
P. Ramchandani, H.M. Pollack. (1992) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and bladder. World Journal of Urology 10:3, 161-172
CrossRef180
Joseph A. Smith. (1992) Management of localized prostate cancer. Cancer 70:S1, 302-306
CrossRef181
Sam D. Graham. (1992) Critical assessment of prostate cancer staging. Cancer 70:S1, 269-274
CrossRef182
H. Ito, K. Yamaguchi, T. Kotake, F. Suzuki, N. Miura. (1992) Modified method of radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostatic cancer. International Urology and Nephrology 24:3, 283-290
CrossRef183
Farhad Parivar, Victor Waluch. (1992) Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer. Human Pathology 23:4, 335-343
CrossRef184
John R Thornbury, Dennis G Fryback. (1992) Technology assessment — an American view. European Journal of Radiology 14:2, 147-156
CrossRef185
Jelle O Barentsz. (1992) MRI of the abdomen and pelvis: an update in The Netherlands. European Journal of Radiology 14:2, 110-116
CrossRef186
Jonathan I. Epstein. (1992) Cancer detected incidental to simple prostatectomy (stage A1). Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 50:S16H, 78-82
CrossRef187
Torben Lorentzen, Henrik Nerstrom, SøRen T. Torp-Pedersen, Peter Iversen. (1992) Local staging of prostate cancer with transrectal ultrasound: A literature review. The Prostate 21:S4, 11-16
CrossRef188
Howard M. Pollack, Mitchell D. Schnall. (1992) Magnetic resonance imaging in carcinoma of the prostate. The Prostate 21:S4, 17-31
CrossRef189
Colini B. Begg. (1991) Advances in statistical methodology for diagnostic medecine ni the 1980's. Statistics in Medicine 10:12, 1887-1895
CrossRef190
Farhad Parivar, Vasanthan Rajanayagam, Victor Waluch, Ross T. Eto, Lawrence W. Jones, Brian D. Ross. (1991) Endorectal surface coil MR imaging of prostatic carcinoma with the inversion-recovery sequence. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1:6, 657-664
CrossRef191
(1991) MRI and Ultrasonography in Staging Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 324:7, 494-495
Full Text192
Fuchs, Victor R., Garber, Alan M., . (1990) The New Technology Assessment. New England Journal of Medicine 323:10, 673-677
Full Text193
(1990) Inaccuracy of ultrasonography and MRI in staging early prostatic cancer. The Lancet 336:8716, 681
CrossRef
- Letters
