SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126131
  • 2
    Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 36693676
  • 3
    Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Carter HB. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 17791785
  • 4
    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
  • 5
    Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180: 19641968
  • 6
    Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y et al. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 625631
  • 7
    Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006; 50: 11631175
  • 8
    Seitz M, Shukla-Dave A, Bjartell A et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 801814
  • 9
    van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 15601563
  • 10
    Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. Localization of prostate cancer using 3T MRI: comparison of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30: 711
  • 11
    Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS. Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 11111118
  • 12
    Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2010; 256: 176183
  • 13
    Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012; 187: 12471252
  • 14
    Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC et al. Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 2008; 247: 444450
  • 15
    Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ et al. Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2012; 30: 301305
  • 16
    Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006; 241: 449458
  • 17
    Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 2006; 176: 24322437
  • 18
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746757
  • 19
    Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP, Kurhanewicz J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stromal prostatic tissues. Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 26: 10711080
  • 20
    Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with Gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: W316322
  • 21
    Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 167172
  • 22
    deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2008; 63: 774782
  • 23
    Yoshimitsu K, Kiyoshima K, Irie H et al. Usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: correlation with stepwise histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27: 132139
  • 24
    Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249: 900908
  • 25
    San Francisco IF, Werner L, Regan MM et al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185: 471476
  • 26
    Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2012; 118: 973980
  • 27
    El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la Taille A et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013; 111: 5359