451 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26256979)
1. Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.
Hwang JY; Han BK; Ko EY; Shin JH; Hahn SY; Nam MY
Yonsei Med J; 2015 Sep; 56(5):1352-8. PubMed ID: 26256979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up.
Corsetti V; Houssami N; Ghirardi M; Ferrari A; Speziani M; Bellarosa S; Remida G; Gasparotti C; Galligioni E; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2011 May; 47(7):1021-6. PubMed ID: 21211962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Ultrasound screening of contralateral breast after surgery for breast cancer.
Kim SJ; Chung SY; Chang JM; Cho N; Han W; Moon WK
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jan; 84(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 25458226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women.
Venturini E; Losio C; Panizza P; Rodighiero MG; Fedele I; Tacchini S; Schiani E; Ravelli S; Cristel G; Panzeri MM; De Cobelli F; Del Maschio A
Radiology; 2013 Aug; 268(2):347-55. PubMed ID: 23579052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Melnikow J; Fenton JJ; Whitlock EP; Miglioretti DL; Weyrich MS; Thompson JH; Shah K
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):268-78. PubMed ID: 26757021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Application of the downgrade criteria to supplemental screening ultrasound for women with negative mammography but dense breasts.
Kim SY; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Kim EK
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Nov; 95(44):e5279. PubMed ID: 27858896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiologist-performed hand-held ultrasound screening at average risk of breast cancer: results from a single health screening center.
Chang JM; Koo HR; Moon WK
Acta Radiol; 2015 Jun; 56(6):652-8. PubMed ID: 24951614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Follow-Up Intervals for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions on Screening Ultrasound in Screening and Tertiary Referral Centers.
Huh S; Suh HJ; Kim EK; Kim MJ; Yoon JH; Park VY; Moon HJ
Korean J Radiol; 2020 Sep; 21(9):1027-1035. PubMed ID: 32691538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience.
Arleo EK; Saleh M; Ionescu D; Drotman M; Min RJ; Hentel K
Clin Imaging; 2014; 38(4):439-444. PubMed ID: 24768327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound.
Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Mar; 206(3):666-72. PubMed ID: 26901026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost.
Corsetti V; Houssami N; Ferrari A; Ghirardi M; Bellarosa S; Angelini O; Bani C; Sardo P; Remida G; Galligioni E; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2008 Mar; 44(4):539-44. PubMed ID: 18267357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.
Giger ML; Inciardi MF; Edwards A; Papaioannou J; Drukker K; Jiang Y; Brem R; Brown JB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jun; 206(6):1341-50. PubMed ID: 27043979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, digital mammography, and ultrasonography.
Su X; Lin Q; Cui C; Xu W; Wei Z; Fei J; Li L
Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 24(4):562-570. PubMed ID: 27837442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sonographic characteristics of breast cancers detected by supplemental screening US: Comparison with breast cancers seen on screening mammography.
Cho N; Moon WK; Chang JM; Yi A; Koo HR; Han BK
Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):969-76. PubMed ID: 20942730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
