ライフサイエンスコーパス: endorectal

1 y corrected for the reception profile of the endorectal and pelvic phased-array coils, aligned with t

2 y corrected for the reception profile of the endorectal and pelvic phased-array coils.

3 ed with use of the single-channel inflatable endorectal balloon coil.

4 ifferent subgroups-scanner manufacturers and endorectal coil (ERC) use (Siemens, Philips, GE with and

5 Patients were treatment-naive with endorectal coil 3-T multiparametric MR imaging.

6 with varying experience in interpretation of endorectal coil images of the prostate gland.

7 tiparametric MR images were acquired with an endorectal coil in 48 patients with prostate cancer (med

8 Multiparametric MR imaging with endorectal coil is superior for the detection of local r

9 Patients underwent both phased-array coil-endorectal coil MR imaging and three-dimensional MR spec

10 The authors propose incorporation of endorectal coil MR imaging in the diagnostic paradigm of

11 d prostate cancer who underwent preoperative endorectal coil MR imaging of the prostate and subsequen

12 carcinoma staged by endorectal ultrasound or endorectal coil MRI, measuring less than 4 cm in greates

13 ent DW imaging during 3-T MR imaging with an endorectal coil were included in this retrospective inst

14 ntrast-enhanced MR imaging, obtained without endorectal coil within 34 minutes 19 seconds.

15 s average acquisition time of 15 minutes (no endorectal coil, no intravenous contrast use) and consis

16 e PET/CT and multiparametric MR imaging with endorectal coil.

17 prostate motion and deformation from the MRI endorectal coil.

18 vic phased-array coil in combination with an endorectal coil.

19 ing a combination of six-channel cardiac and endorectal coils.

20 ent study of an imaging system comprising an endorectal coregistered photoacoustic (PA) microscopy (P

21 Conclusion An endorectal coregistered photoacoustic microscopy/US syst

22 The PAM/US system consisted of an endorectal imaging probe, a 1064-nm laser, and one US ri

23 ith CG carcinoma) who underwent preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and radical p

24 Endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is helpful fo

25 Endorectal MR and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were perfo

26 60 years; range, 46-71 years) who underwent endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging before radica

27 Ninety-nine men who underwent endorectal MR and MR spectroscopy before external-beam r

28 Forty-two patients underwent endorectal MR at 1.5 T before undergoing radical prostat

29 nt increase in area under the ROC curve with endorectal MR images interpreted by genitourinary MR ima

30 Preoperative 1.5-T multiparametric endorectal MR images of 119 PC patients (dataset A, 71 p

31 Endorectal MR images were retrospectively and independen

32 Endorectal MR images were reviewed retrospectively in 82

33 e significantly associated with SVI (P<.02); endorectal MR imaging (0.76) had a larger area under the

34 The Kattan nomogram plus endorectal MR imaging (0.87) had a significantly larger

35 n patients with prostate carcinoma underwent endorectal MR imaging after cryosurgery.

36 significantly larger (P<.05) AUC than either endorectal MR imaging alone (0.76) or the Kattan nomogra

37 and November 1, 2004, 229 patients underwent endorectal MR imaging and 383 underwent combined endorec

38 Endorectal MR imaging and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging we

39 Combined phased-array, endorectal MR imaging and 3D MRSI was performed in nine

40 Endorectal MR imaging and combined endorectal MR imaging

41 ndings in 40 patients who underwent combined endorectal MR imaging and hydrogen 1 MR spectroscopic im

42 s) with biopsy-proved PCa underwent combined endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging befor

43 years; age range, 40-74 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging betwe

44 Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findi

45 level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for e

46 Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were

47 Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were

48 Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were

49 Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were

50 prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and

51 er detection of prostate cancer nodules with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, but

52 sy-proved prostate cancer underwent combined endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging.

53 detection in each side of the prostate with endorectal MR imaging and spectroscopic imaging at diffe

54 8.3 years; age range, 36-86 years) underwent endorectal MR imaging before prostate cancer surgery.

55 ars; range, 42-72 years) who underwent 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy and w

56 68 years; range, 43-75 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy betwe

57 ange, 40-76 years) without SVI who underwent endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy betwe

58 7.5 years; range, 32-72 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy, with

59 tomography (CT) and multiparametric (MP) 3-T endorectal MR imaging before robotic-assisted prostatect

60 Endorectal MR imaging can be used to evaluate seed distr

61 The addition of endorectal MR imaging contributes significant incrementa

62 up of patients, area under the ROC curve for endorectal MR imaging findings (0.646) was not larger th

63 up of patients, area under the ROC curve for endorectal MR imaging findings (0.833) was larger than a

64 of cancer in all core biopsy specimens, and endorectal MR imaging findings (P =.001, P =.001, and P

65 el containing only clinical variables; thus, endorectal MR imaging findings add incremental value in

66 Endorectal MR imaging findings are significant predictor

67 At ROC univariate analysis, endorectal MR imaging findings had the largest area unde

68 A model containing endorectal MR imaging findings has a significantly large

69 ctors and another with all predictors except endorectal MR imaging findings, demonstrated a significa

70 r ROC curve for two models, with and without endorectal MR imaging findings, were 0.838 and 0.772, re

71 el that included the clinical variables plus endorectal MR imaging findings.

72 with biopsy-proved prostate cancer underwent endorectal MR imaging followed by prostatectomy.

73 with biopsy-proved prostate cancer underwent endorectal MR imaging followed by surgery.

74 Endorectal MR imaging following radiation therapy can he

75 ficantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of endorectal MR imaging in the detection of locally recurr

76 e (AUCs) were used to assess the accuracy of endorectal MR imaging in tumor detection and determinati

77 Endorectal MR imaging is accurate in demonstrating SVI p

78 59 years; range, 47-75 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging of the prostate prior to external-

79 998, and October 31, 2004, and who underwent endorectal MR imaging prior to surgery.

80 with biopsy-proved prostate cancer underwent endorectal MR imaging prior to surgery; 216 of these pat

81 At univariate analysis, endorectal MR imaging results and all clinical variables

82 The endorectal MR imaging results had been prospectively int

83 At multivariate analysis, endorectal MR imaging results, Gleason grade, PSA level,

84 Endorectal MR imaging was performed in 35 consecutive pa

85 ggest that MR spectroscopic imaging, but not endorectal MR imaging, may be of value for the depiction

86 Sixty-four men who underwent endorectal MR imaging, MR spectroscopic imaging, and tra

87 rectal MR imaging and 383 underwent combined endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging before ra

88 preoperatively, and underwent combined 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging between J

89 Endorectal MR imaging and combined endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging contribut

90 rostatectomy, the accuracy of combined 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging for sexta

91 d to assess the accuracy of detecting SVI at endorectal MR imaging.

92 On the MR images and combined endorectal MR-MR spectroscopic images, two radiologists

93 (23 men, 18 women) were randomized to either endorectal mucosectomy and handsewn IPAA or to double-st

94 imen TZ cancer larger than 0.5 cm(3) and 3-T endorectal presurgery MP MR imaging (T2-weighted imaging

95 t 3D imaging of the prostate gland with a 3D endorectal probe following conventional two-dimensional

96 A side-fire endorectal probe was inserted into the vagina and direct

97 ed by using combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal probe.

98 6.2 years +/- 6.9) underwent multiparametric endorectal prostate MR imaging at 3 T and transperineal

99 Three-dimensional endorectal prostatic US appears to be clinically feasibl

100 ptember 1999, 78 infants underwent a primary endorectal pull-through (ERPT) procedure at four pediatr

101 on and quality of life (QoL) after transanal endorectal pull-through (TEPT) for Hirschsprung disease

102 Transanal endorectal pull-through (TEPT) is considered the most pr

103 es to in vivo MR images acquired by using an endorectal receive coil was sufficiently accurate for co

104 bilization is performed transanally using an endorectal sleeve technique.

105 m two sources, and all were obtained with an endorectal surface coil.

106 ents deemed suitable for preoperative CMT by endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) may be overstaged.

107 We prospectively accrued 109 patients with endorectal ultrasound (ERUS)-staged, locally advanced re

108 The advent of accurate endorectal ultrasound and MRI staging has allowed the us

109 Preoperative staging by endorectal ultrasound did not influence local recurrence

110 linical T2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma staged by endorectal ultrasound or endorectal coil MRI, measuring

111 ly advanced (stage II/III) disease (noted on endorectal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging) who

112 Of those staged before surgery with endorectal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging, 57%

113 tients with stage II and III rectal cancers (endorectal ultrasound staged uT3-4 and/or uN1) located <

114 adenocarcinoma staged T2 by clinical and/or endorectal ultrasound who were judged by the operating s

115 of penetration (T stage) was determined with endorectal US and correlated with the histopathologic fi

116 determining the specific T stage may occur, endorectal US facilitates surgical planning in the vast

117 tection of residual tumor after polypectomy, endorectal US had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of

118 Endoscopic and endorectal US have added a new dimension to the assessme

119 precise T stage was correctly predicted with endorectal US in only eight patients (44%), endorectal U

120 Endorectal US is an accurate technique for localizing tu

121 endorectal US in only eight patients (44%), endorectal US was able to demonstrate whether the tumor

122 Before surgical resection, endorectal US was performed in 18 consecutive patients w