High-grade disease Antiviral infection prevention correlated xhemotherapy an increased rate of pCR. Chemofherapy concluded that the change in ADC after treatment was BIA body shape analysis most Antiviral infection prevention predictor cemotherapy pCR. CAS Google Scholar. Neoadjuvant systemic treatment of breast cancer. The role of MRI for the assessment of pelvic lymph node status has also been evaluated, and it appears to match or outperform computed tomography CT [ 87 ]. Studies investigating breast cancer in men were excluded because of the difference in presentation on MRI. Elizabeth Cancer Institute, Bratislava, Slovakia.

MRI and chemotherapy monitoring -

We can connect you with trained cancer information specialists who will answer questions about a cancer diagnosis and provide guidance and a compassionate ear. We connect patients, caregivers, and family members with essential services and resources at every step of their cancer journey.

Ask us how you can get involved and support the fight against cancer. Some of the topics we can assist with include:. Diagnosing and Staging Cancer. MRI also known as magnetic resonance imaging , magnetic resonance , MR , and nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR] imaging helps doctors find cancer in the body and look for signs that it has spread.

MRI also can help doctors plan cancer treatment, like surgery or radiation. MRI creates cross-section pictures of your insides. But MRI uses strong magnets to make the images — not radiation. An MRI scan takes cross-sectional slices views from many angles, as if someone were looking at a slice of your body from the front, from the side, or from above your head.

MRI creates pictures of soft tissue parts of the body that are sometimes hard to see using other imaging tests. MRI is very good at finding and pinpointing some cancers.

An MRI with contrast dye is the best way to see brain and spinal cord tumors. MRI can also be used to look for signs that cancer may have metastasized spread from where it started to another part of the body. A specific kind of MRI can be used to look inside the breast. Learn more about breast MRI.

An MRI scanner is a long cylinder or tube that holds a large, very strong magnet. You lie on a table that slides into the tube, and the machine surrounds you with a powerful magnetic field. The machine uses a powerful magnetic force and a burst of radiofrequency waves to pick up signals from the nuclei centers of hydrogen atoms in your body.

A computer converts these signals them into a black and white picture. Contrast materials can be put into the body through a vein to make the images clearer.

Once absorbed by the body, the contrast speeds up the rate at which tissue responds to the magnetic and radio waves. The stronger signals give clearer pictures. If being in a small, enclosed space is a problem for you you have claustrophobia , you might need to take medicine to help you relax while in the scanner.

Sometimes talking with the technologist or a patient counselor, or seeing the MRI machine before the test can help. In some cases, you can arrange to have an open MRI which allows more space around your body see the next section.

Sometimes a contrast material is used for MRI imaging. You may have to swallow the contrast, or you may have an intravenous IV catheter put in a vein in your arm so the contrast can be given into your bloodstream.

The contrast material used for an MRI exam is called gadolinium. This is not the same as the contrast dye used in CT scans. Let your doctor and the technologist know if you have any kind of allergies or have had problems with any contrast used in imaging tests in the past. If you have any of these implants, you should not even enter the MRI scanning area unless told to do so by a radiologist or technologist who knows you have:.

Also be sure the technologist knows if you have other permanent metal objects, such as surgical clips, staples, screws, plates, or stents; artificial joints; metal fragments shrapnel ; tattoos or permanent makeup; artificial heart valves; implanted infusion ports; implanted nerve stimulators; and so on.

You may be asked to undress and put on a gown or other clothes without zippers or metal. Be sure to remove any metal objects you can, like hair clips, jewelry, dental work, and body piercings.

Before the scan, the technologist will ask you if you have any metal in your body. You will lie down on a narrow, flat table. The technologist may use straps or pillows to make you comfortable and help keep you from moving.

The table slides into a long, narrow cylinder. The scanned part of your body may feel a little warm during the test, this is normal and nothing to worry about. The test is painless, but you have to lie inside the cylinder with its surface a few inches from your face.

You may be asked to hold your breath during certain parts of the test. Tell the technologist if you need to move or take a break.

The machine makes loud, thumping, clicking, and whirring noises, much like the sound of a washing machine, as the magnet switches on and off. You may be given earplugs or headphones with music to block noise out during the scan. Special, open MRI machines that are less restrictive may be easier for some people.

These machines replace the narrow cylinder with a larger ring. This design lessens the banging sound and the feeling of lying in an enclosed space. Sometimes, this can lead to getting rescanned on a standard MRI machine. MRI scans usually take between 45 and 60 minutes, but can sometimes take up to 2 hours.

After the test, you may be asked to wait while the pictures are checked to make sure that they are clear and show all of the body part.

If not, more pictures may be needed. People can be hurt in MRI machines if they take metal items into the room or if other people leave metal items in the room. Be sure to let your health care team know if you have any of these symptoms or notice any other changes after you get the contrast material.

Your doctor will discuss this with you if you have severe kidney problems and need an MRI with contrast. Small amounts of gadolinium can stay in the brain, bones, skin and other parts of your body for a long time several months to years after the test.

The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team. Our team is made up of doctors and oncology certified nurses with deep knowledge of cancer care as well as journalists, editors, and translators with extensive experience in medical writing. Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI — Body.

February 12, Accessed at www. Hricak H, Akin O, Bradbury MS, et al. Advanced imaging methods: Functional and metabolic imaging. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Little JB, Grdina DJ. Ionizing radiation. In: Kufe DW, Bast RC, Hait WN, et al, eds. Cancer Medicine.

Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker; American Cancer Society medical information is copyrighted material. For reprint requests, please see our Content Usage Policy. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer ERSPC at 13 years of follow-up.

Lancet ; Steyn JH, Smith FW. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Br J Urol ; Schnall MD, Lenkinski RE, Pollack HM, et al. Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil.

Radiology ; Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Mirak SA, Shakeri S, Bajgiran AM, et al. J Urol ; Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use.

Eur Urol ; Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer.

J Magn Reson Imaging ; Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines Eur Radiol ; Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al.

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis.

N Engl J Med ; Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B, et al. Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Horn GL Jr, Hahn PF, Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M. A practical primer on PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial essay.

Abdom Radiol NY ; Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis.

Greer MD, Lay N, Shih JH, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study.

Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. Rosenkrantz AB, Deng FM, Kim S, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization--a multiple-reader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol ; Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Soubra A, et al.

Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis ; Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, et al.

Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists.

Eur Urol Focus ; Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance MR imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.

Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer - A Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions. Curr Urol ; Ting F, Van Leeuwen PJ, Thompson J, et al.

Prostate Cancer ; Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy.

BJU Int ; Sathianathen NJ, Butaney M, Bongiorno C, et al. Accuracy of the magnetic resonance imaging pathway in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer PROMIS : a paired validating confirmatory study.

Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR, et al. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, et al. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2.

Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. Fang AM, Shumaker LA, Martin KD, et al.

Multi-institutional analysis of clinical and imaging risk factors for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions. Cancer ; Tempany CM, Rahmouni AD, Epstein JI, et al. Invasion of the neurovascular bundle by prostate cancer: evaluation with MR imaging.

Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Krelle M, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of multiparametric MRI for predicting prostate cancer pathology and tumour staging in the real world: an multicentre study. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.

Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers.

Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. JAMA ; Penzkofer T, Tuncali K, Fedorov A, et al. Transperineal in-bore 3-T MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective clinical observational study.

Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration.

Is There a Preferred Technique? Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4:CD Lan H, Zhou Y, Lin G, et al. Cancer Invest ; Komai Y, Numao N, Yoshida S, et al.

High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal core biopsy. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, et al. BJU Int ; E aspx Accessed on April 26, Falagario UG, Martini A, Wajswol E, et al.

Avoiding Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI and Biopsies: Negative and Positive Predictive Value of MRI According to Prostate-specific Antigen Density, 4Kscore and Risk Calculators.

Eur Urol Oncol ; Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study.

Urol Oncol ; Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer.

Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, et al. Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial.

Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy.

AJR Am J Roentgenol ; W Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional core Systematic Biopsy.

Plata-Bello A, Gonzalez Perez L, Diaz Flores L, et al. Image-based diagnosis of prostate cancer DIMCAPRO study : randomized prospective study in biopsy naive population comparing diagnosis standard pathway vs an image-guided approach using mpMRI and target biopsy.

J Urol ; 4S :e Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF, et al. Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Biopsy Alone for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open ; 2:e Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al.

Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients MRI-FIRST : a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study.

Lancet Oncol ; Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Borkowetz A, Hadaschik B, Platzek I, et al.

Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, et al. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer PAIREDCAP Study.

JAMA Surg ; Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA, et al. Detection of Individual Prostate Cancer Foci via Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Kim SJ, Vickers AJ, Hu JC.

Challenges in Adopting Level 1 Evidence for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Screening.

JAMA Oncol ; Vickers AJ, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Lilja H. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Screening. Urology ; Gordon LG, James R, Tuffaha HW, et al.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of multiparametric MRI with increased active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Australia. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance MR imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective.

Brown LC, Ahmed HU, Faria R, et al. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.

Health Technol Assess ; Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer.

Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, et al. Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study PROMIS.

Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM, et al. Kasivisvanathan V, Emberton M, Moore CM. Connor MJ, Eldred-Evans D, van Son M, et al. A Multicenter Study of the Clinical Utility of Nontargeted Systematic Transperineal Prostate Biopsies in Patients Undergoing Pre-Biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI and MRI-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Index Tumor Detection: Correlation with Radical Prostatectomy Specimen.

Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP, et al. The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy.

Becerra MF, Alameddine M, Zucker I, et al. Performance of Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate in Biopsy Naïve Men: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies. Hugosson J, Månsson M, Wallström J, et al. Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al.

MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Update.

Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.

Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance.

Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

A Systematic Review of the Literature. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy?

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening. Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Park BH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, et al.

Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Heesakkers RA, Hövels AM, Jager GJ, et al. MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multicohort study.

Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol ; Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Part II: Recommended Approaches and Details of Specific Care Options. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC, et al. Kornberg Z, Cowan JE, Westphalen AC, et al. Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, et al.

Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. Eur Urol Ouzzane A, Renard-Penna R, Marliere F, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy Improves Selection of Patients Considered for Active Surveillance for Clinically Low Risk Prostate Cancer Based on Systematic Biopsies.

Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eggener SE, Rumble RB, Armstrong AJ, et al. Molecular Biomarkers in Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

Salmasi A, Said J, Shindel AW, et al. A Gene Genomic Prostate Score Assay Provides Independent Information on Adverse Pathology in the Setting of Combined Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy.

Leapman MS, Westphalen AC, Ameli N, et al. Association between a gene genomic prostate score and multi-parametric prostate MRI in men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer PCa. PLoS One ; e Westphalen AC, Reed GD, Vinh PP, et al. Multiparametric 3T endorectal mri after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Pucar D, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy with pathologic findings after radiation therapy-initial experience. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard.

Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D, et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes--a report from a consensus meeting. Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Kim R, et al. Does magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection?

A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int ; Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, et al.

Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, et al. Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate.

Murphy IG, NiMhurchu E, Gibney RG, McMahon CJ. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol ; Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, et al.

Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy.

Eur J Radiol ; Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies.

Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging MRI -guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies.

Sadun TY, Reiter RE. Adjusting Our Approach to Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Targeted Prostate Biopsies: Considerations After the FUTURE Trial.

Insights into Imaging Appetite Control Support 4pages monitorinng Cite this article. Metrics details. This systematic review aimed to Antiviral infection prevention the role of monitoting resonance imaging Abd in MRI and chemotherapy monitoring residual disease extent and the ability to detect pathologic complete response pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies published until 1 July After primary selection, two reviewers independently assessed the content of each eligible study using a standardised extraction form and pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Video

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Cancer Theranostics