SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA. 2009;302:12021209.
  • 2
    Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:36693676.
  • 3
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate cancer (version 1.2013). Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2012.
  • 4
    Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol. 2007;177:21062131.
  • 5
    Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol. 2007;178:S14S19.
  • 6
    Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54:371381.
  • 7
    Conti SL, Dall'era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2009;181:16281633; discussion 33–34.
  • 8
    Carter HB. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: an underutilized opportunity for reducing harm. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012:175183.
  • 9
    Ukimura O. Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2010;7:541554.
  • 10
    Singer EA, Kaushal A, Turkbey B, Couvillon A, Pinto PA, Parnes HL. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24:243250.
  • 11
    Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric mr imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? [published online ahead of print March 6, 2013] Radiology. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121325
  • 12
    Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, Gasparetto EL. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:468475.
  • 13
    Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2011;258:488495.
  • 14
    Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Chung PH, et al. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011;185:815820.
  • 15
    Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259:453461.
  • 16
    Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:21852190.
  • 17
    Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011;186:12811285.
  • 18
    Turkbey B, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Documenting the location of prostate biopsies with image fusion. BJU Int. 2011;107:5357.
  • 19
    Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection—histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255:8999.
  • 20
    Turkbey B, Huang R, Vourganti S, et al. Age-related changes in prostate zonal volumes as measured by high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a cross-sectional study in over 500 patients. BJU Int. 2012;110:16421647.
  • 21
    Ochiai A, Troncoso P, Chen ME, Lloreta J, Babaian RJ. The relationship between tumor volume and the number of positive cores in men undergoing multisite extended biopsy: implication for expectant management. J Urol. 2005;174:21642168; discussion 68.
  • 22
    Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166:104109; discussion 9–10.
  • 23
    Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185:477482.
  • 24
    Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:762767.
  • 25
    Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012;188:21522157.
  • 26
    Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B, et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt B):E783-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11646.x. Epub 2012 Nov 6.
  • 27
    Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol. 2012;188:11571163.
  • 28
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:17321738.
  • 29
    Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109:13151322.
  • 30
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746757.