| pubmed-article:20718912 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0376358 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0473169 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0011923 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0031268 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1707455 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0032743 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0439858 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:issue | 4 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2010-8-19 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:abstractText | Conventional imaging (CI) is known to have limitations with respect to staging of patients with primary or relapsed prostate cancer. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with (18)F-flurodeoxyglucose (FDG) is also often suboptimal because of low tracer avidity, but (18)F-fluorocholine (FCH) appears to be a promising alternative molecular imaging probe. We report a prospective pilot study of PET/CT comparing both tracers for staging and restaging of patients with prostate cancer. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:month | Aug | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:issn | 1754-9485 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:WilliamsS GSG | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HicksR JRJ | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DegradoT RTR | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:RosellHH | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:BeauregardJ-M... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:issnType | Electronic | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:volume | 54 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:pagination | 325-32 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:20718912... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:year | 2010 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:articleTitle | Pilot comparison of F-fluorocholine and F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT with conventional imaging in prostate cancer. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:affiliation | Centre for Molecular Imaging, Department of Cancer Imaging, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:publicationType | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:20718912 | pubmed:publicationType | Evaluation Studies | lld:pubmed |
