Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance

BJU International

Volumn 111, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1011-1013

  Ahmed, Hashim U ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ANTIGEN DETECTION; BLOOD ANALYSIS; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER GROWTH; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER; MULTIPARAMETRIC NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; RECTUM BIOPSY; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84877723132     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11786.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (10)

1. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203-213. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2012;367(6):582
2. Wilson LS, Tesoro R, Elkin EP, et al. Cumulative cost pattern comparison of prostate cancer treatments. Cancer 2007; 109: 518-527. Erratum in: Cancer. 2007;109(10):2155
3. Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR, et al. Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 5471-5478
4. Mullins J, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1037-1045
5. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012; 188: 1157-1163
6. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011; 108 (8 Pt 2): E171-178
7. 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: 1315-1322
8. Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 110: 812-820
9. Ahmed HU, Arya M, Freeman A, Emberton M,. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: e509-517
10. Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, et al. transatlantic consensus group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer (appendix). transatlantic consensus group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1636-1647