Skip to main content
Log in

Progress in the imaging of the prostate gland

  • Invited Commentary
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Clements R: The role of transrectal ultrasound in diagnosing prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2002, 3:194–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eckersley RJ, Sedelaar JPM, Blomley MJ, et al.: Quantitative microbubble enhanced transrectal ultrasound as a tool for monitoring hormonal treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate 2002, 51:256–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dobrowolski ZF, Jaszczynski J, Drewniak T, et al.: Vascular angiographic asymmetry on three-dimensional transrectal power Doppler ultrasonography in patients with organconfined prostate cancer. BJU Int 2002, 89:614–615.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H, et al.: Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systemic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2002, 167:1648–1652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sedelaar JPM, van Leenders GJLH, Goossen TEB, et al.: The value of contrast ultrasonography in the detection of significant prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2002, 53:246–253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Halpern EJ, Frauscher F, Rosenberg M, Gomella LG: Directed biopsy during contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:915–919.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hricak H, Williams RD, Spring DB, et al.: Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983, 141:1101–1110.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L, et al.: Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 2002, 224:203–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mueller-Lisse UG, Mueller-Lisse UL, Haller S, et al.: Likelihood of prostate cancer based on prostate-specific antigen density by MRI: retrospective analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002, 26:432–437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke DH, Blanks SJ, Wiederhorn AR, et al.: The role of endorectal coil MRI in patient selection and treatment planning for prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52:903–910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wallner K: MR imaging for prostate cancer staging: beauty or beast? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52:886–887.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cruz M, Tsuda K, Narumi Y, et al.: Characterization of low-intensity lesions in the peripheral zone of the prostate on pre-biopsy endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:357–365.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ogura K, Maekawa S, Okubo K, et al.: Dynamic endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for local staging and detection of neurovascular bundle involvement of prostate cancer: correlation with histopathologic results. Urology 2001, 57:721–726.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, et al.: Prostate cancer staging using imaging. BJU Int 2000, 86(Suppl 1):123–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, et al.: Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000, 215:445–451.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong-You-Cheong JJ, Krebs TL: MR imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am 2000, 8:869–886.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Graaf M, Schipper RG, Oosterhof GO, et al.: Proton MR spectroscopy of prostatic tissue focused on the detection of spermine, a possible biomarker of malignant behavior in prostate cancer. MAGMA 2000, 10:153–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Roach M 3rd, Kurhanewicz J, Carroll P: Spectroscopy in prostate cancer: hope or hype? Oncology (Huntingt) 2001, 15:1399–1410.

    Google Scholar 

  19. DiBiase SJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Gullapali RP, et al.: Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging-guided brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52:429–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reinhardt MJ, Matthies A, Biersack HJ: PET-imaging in tumors of the reproductive tract. Q J Nucl Med 2002, 46:105–112.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Price DT, Coleman RE, Liao RP, et al.: Comparison of [18F]fluorocholine and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography of androgen dependent and androgen independent prostate cancer. J Urol 2002, 168:273–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, et al.: Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 2002, 59:913–918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sedelaar, J.P.M., de la Rosette, J.J.M.C.H. & Debruyne, F.M.J. Progress in the imaging of the prostate gland. Curr Urol Rep 4, 1–2 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-003-0048-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-003-0048-5

Keywords

Navigation