Keywords:
Abdomen, Genital / Reproductive system male, Pelvis, MR, MR-Diffusion/Perfusion, Observer performance, Biopsy, Decision analysis, Cancer, Multidisciplinary cancer care, Pathology
Authors:
A. Labra Weitzler, F. Tapia, C. Silva, J. P. Olivares, A. Zuñiga; Santiago/CL
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2019/C-2160
References
Mehralivand S,
Bednarova S,
Shih JH et al (2017) Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS™ Version 2 Using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System.
The Journal of Urology 198:583-590
Hassanzadeh E,
Glazer DI,
Dunne RM,
Fennessy FM,
Harisinghani MG,
Tempany CM (2017) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review.
Abdominal radiology (New York) 42:278-289
Distler FA,
Radtke JP,
Bonekamp D et al (2017) The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI-RADS for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction.
The Journal of Urology 198:575-582
Pinsky PF,
Parnes HL,
Andriole G (2014) Mortality and complications after prostate biopsy in the Prostate,
Lung,
Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening (PLCO) trial.
BJU International 113:254-259
Epstein JI,
Zelefsky MJ,
Sjoberg DD et al (2016) A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score.
European Urology 69:428-435
Castro HASd,
Iared W,
Shigueoka DC,
Mourão JE,
Ajzen S (2011) Contribuição da densidade do PSA para predizer o câncer da próstata em pacientes com valores de PSA entre 2,6 e 10,0 ng/ml.
[Contribution of densities of PSA to predict or prostate cancer in patients with PSA values between 2.6 and 10.0 ng/ml] Radiologia Brasileira 44:205-209