Distribution of prostate cancer for optimized biopsy protocols

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 1935, Issue , 2000, Pages 287-296

  Zeng, Jianchao ^a   Bauer, John J ^b   Sofer, Ariela ^c   Yao, Xiaohu ^a   Opell, Brett ^a   Zhang, Wei ^d   Sesterhenn, Isabell A ^d   Moul, Judd W ^b,e   Lynch, John ^a   Mun, Seong K ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study   (United States)

^d ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^e Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; MEDICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL IMAGING; NEEDLES; THREE DIMENSIONAL COMPUTER GRAPHICS; ULTRASONIC APPLICATIONS; UROLOGY;

DETECTION RATES; DISTRIBUTION MAPS; GOLD STANDARDS; IMAGING MODALITY; OPTIMIZED PROTOCOL; PROSTATE CANCERS; SYMMETRY CONSTRAINTS; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND;

DISEASES;

EID: 23044524282     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-40899-4_29     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Bankhead C. Sextant biopsy helps in prognosis of Pea, but it’s not foolproof. Urology Times 1997; 25(8)
2. Bauer JJ, Zeng J et al. 3D Computer simulated prostate models: Lateral prostate biopsies increase the detection rate of prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 53(5):961-967
3. Chang JJ, Shinohara K et al. Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the prostate for cancer detection. J. Urol. 1998; 159(5): 179, abstract # 688
4. Daneshgari F, Taylor GD et al. Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies. Urology 1995;45:604-609
5. Egevad L, Frimmel H et al. Three-dimensional computer reconstruction of prostate cancer from radical prostatectomy specimens: Evaluation of the model by core biopsy simulation. Urology 1999; 53: 192-198
6. Eskew AL, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5-region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J. Urol. 1997; 157: 199-202
7. Goto Y, Ohori M et al. Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J. Urol. 1996; 156: 1059-1063
8. Hodge KK, McNeal et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided trans- rectal core biopsies of the prostate. J. Urol. 1989; 142: 71-74
9. ILOG CPLex 6.5 User Manual, ILOG, 1999
10. Kaplan CR, Zeng J et al. Comparison of sextant to 5-region biopsy technique using a 3D computer simulation of actual prostate specimens. J. Urol. 1998; 159(5): 179, abstract # 687
11. Lin W, Liang C, Chen C. Dynamic elastic interpolation for 3D medical image reconstruction from serial cross section, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging 1988; 7(3): 225232
12. Nash SG, Sofer A. Linear and Nonlinear Programming. McGraw Hill, 1996
13. Nemhauser G, Wolsey L. Integer, Combinatorial Optimization. Wiley, 1988
14. Xuan J, Sesterhenn I et al. Surface reconstruction and visualization of the surgical prostate model. SPIEMedical Imaging 1997, Vol. 3031. San Diego 50-61
15. Zeng J, Kaplan CR et al. Optimizing prostate needle biopsy through 3D simulation. SPIE Medical Imaging 1998, Vol. 3335. San Diego 488-497