Prostate volume estimations using magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound compared to radical prostatectomy specimens
Canadian Urological Association Journal2016Vol. 10(7-8), pp. 264–264
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2016 papers
Nicholas R. Paterson, Luke T. Lavallée, Laura Nguyen, Kelsey Witiuk, James T. Ross, Ranjeeta Mallick, Wael Shabana, Blair Macdonald, Nicola Scheida, Dean Fergusson, Franco Momoli, Sonya Cnossen, Christopher Morash, Ilias Cagiannos, Rodney H. Breau
Abstract
MRI and TRUS prostate volume estimates are consistent with pathological volumes along the prostate size spectrum. MRI demonstrated better correlation with prostatectomy specimen volume in most patients and may be better suited in cases where TRUS and MRI estimates are disparate. Validation of these findings with prospective, standardized ultrasound techniques would be helpful.
Related Papers
- → DEFINING PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN PROGRESSION AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE CUT POINT?(2001)408 cited
- → Multiple prostate cancer cores with different Gleason grades submitted in the same specimen container without specific site designation: should each core be assigned an individual Gleason score?(2009)38 cited
- → Understanding differences between high and low volume hospitals for radical prostatectomy(2007)15 cited
- → Initial Therapy With Radical Prostatectomy for High Risk Localized Prostate Cancer(2006)13 cited
- → How Bad are Positive Margins After Radical Prostatectomy and How are They Best Managed?(2009)5 cited