|
1
|
Peng P, Gong YM, Bao PP, Ke JZ, Xiang YM,
Zhang ML and Zheng Y: Estimates and prediction of prostate cancer
incidence, mortality and prevalence in China, 2008. Zhonghua Liu
Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 33:1056–1059. 2012.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
|
|
2
|
Carter HB: American Urological Association
(AUA) guideline on prostate cancer detection: Process and
rationale. BJU Int. 112:543–547. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Simmons LA, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Punwani S,
Freeman A, Hu Y, Barratt D, Charman SC, Van der Meulen J and
Emberton M: The PICTURE study-prostate imaging (multi-parametric
MRI and Prostate HistoScanning™) compared to transperineal
ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk
evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials. 37:69–83. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
4
|
Abd TT, Goodman M, Hall J, Ritenour CW,
Petros JA, Marshall FF and Issa MM: Comparison of 12-core versus
8-core prostate biopsy: Multivariate analysis of large series of US
veterans. Urology. 77:541–547. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
5
|
Yoon BI, Shin TS, Cho HJ, Hong SH, Lee JY,
Hwang TK and Kim SW: Is it effective to perform two more prostate
biopsies according to prostate-specific antigen level and prostate
volume in detecting prostate cancer? Prospective study of 10-core
and 12-core prostate biopsy. Urol J. 9:491–497. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
6
|
Pepe P and Aragona F: Morbidity after
transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18
vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology. 81:1142–1146. 2013.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK and Stamey
TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal
core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 142:71–75. 1989.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen HN,
Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, Muruganandham M, Ebora L, Kattan MW,
Reuter VE, et al: Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging
with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after
radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 234:804–814. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
9
|
Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C,
Sofikerim M, Günay M, Ekici S and Ozen H: An extended 10-core
transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol
improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 45:444–449.
2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
De Sutter Ph, Coibion M, Vosse M, Hertens
D, Huet F, Wesling F, Wayembergh M, Bourdon C and Autier Ph: A
multicentre study comparing cervicography and cytology in the
detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol. 105:613–620. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
11
|
Bjurlin MA and Taneja SS: Standards for
prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 24:155–161. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
12
|
Rochester MA, Griffin S, Chappell B and
McLoughlin J: A prospective randomised trial of extended core
prostate biopsy protocols utilizing 12 versus 15 cores. Urol Int.
83:155–159. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
13
|
Chen ME, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ
and Troncoso P: Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: Biopsy
strategy implications. Cancer. 89:1800–1809. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Yan W, Li H, Zhou Y, Huang Z, Rong S, Xia
M, Ji Z, Chen J and Jiang Y: Prostate carcinoma spatial
distribution patterns in Chinese men investigated with systematic
transperineal ultrasound guided 11-region biopsy. Urol Oncol.
27:520–524. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
15
|
Vis AN, Boerma MO, Ciatto S, Hoedemaeker
RF, Schröder FH and van der Kwast TH: Detection of prostate cancer:
A comparative study of the diagnostic efficacy of sextant
transrectal versus sextant transperineal biopsy. Urology.
56:617–621. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
16
|
Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ,
Jager GJ, van Leenders GJ, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA, de la Rosette
JJ, Blickman JG and Barentsz JO: Discrimination of prostate cancer
from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using
dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 229:248–254. 2003.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
17
|
Udeh EI Amu, OC Nnabugwu II and Ozoemena
O: Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: Our findings
in a tertiary health institution. Niger J Clin Pract. 18:110–114.
2015.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
18
|
Chang DT, Challacombe B and Lawrentschuk
N: Transperineal biopsy of the prostate-is this the future? Nat Rev
Urol. 10:690–702. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
19
|
Bittner N, Merrick GS, Butler WM, Bennett
A and Galbreath RW: Incidence and pathological features of prostate
cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy
after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol.
190:509–514. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
20
|
Wagenlehner FM, Pilatz A, Waliszewski P,
Weidner W and Johansen TE: Reducing infection rates after prostate
biopsy. Nat Rev Urol. 11:80–86. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
21
|
Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N,
Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, Taneja SS and Emberton M:
Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance
imaging-derived targets: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 63:125–140.
2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
22
|
Fiard G, Hohn N, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ,
Troccaz J and Long JA: Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for
the detection of prostate cancer: Initial clinical experience with
real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and
magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology.
81:1372–1378. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
23
|
Villers A: Words of wisdom. Re: Improving
detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: MRI/TRUS
fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 65:1218–1219. 2014.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
24
|
Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Marcantonio A,
Forte V, Biondi T, Laghi A and Catalano C: Conventional imaging and
multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI, MRS, DWI, MRP) in the
diagnosis of prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 56:331–342.
2012.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
25
|
Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A,
Khoury G, Eiss D and Hélénon O: Ultrasound elastography of the
prostate: State of the art. Diagn Interv Imaging. 94:551–560. 2013.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
26
|
Schiffmann J, Fischer J, Tennstedt P,
Beyer B, Böhm K, Michl U, Graefen M and Salomon G: Comparison of
prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanningTm and final
histopathological results. World J Urol. 32:939–944. 2014.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
27
|
Clyne M: Prostate cancer: Visual
estimation versus software fusion for MRI-targeted biopsy. Nat Rev
Urol. 11:52014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
