These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10584814)

  • 1. Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods.
    Kalbhen CL; McGill JJ; Fendley PM; Corrigan KW; Angelats J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Dec; 173(6):1643-9. PubMed ID: 10584814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mammographic determination of breast volume by elliptical cone estimation.
    Fung JT; Chan SW; Chiu AN; Cheung PS; Lam SH
    World J Surg; 2010 Jul; 34(7):1442-5. PubMed ID: 20091167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.
    Helvie MA; Chan HP; Adler DD; Boyd PG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Dec; 163(6):1371-4. PubMed ID: 7992731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Invasive breast cancer: mammographic measurement.
    Flanagan FL; McDermott MB; Barton PT; Pilgram TK; Dehdashti F; Wick MR; Monsees BS
    Radiology; 1996 Jun; 199(3):819-23. PubMed ID: 8638011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
    Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
    Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Does surgical closure technique affect early mammographic detection of tumor recurrence after breast-conserving therapy?
    Newlin HE; Indelicato DJ; Abbitt P; Marshall J; Wymer D; Grobmyer S; Haigh L; Copeland E; Morris CG; Mendenhall NP
    Am J Clin Oncol; 2009 Oct; 32(5):499-503. PubMed ID: 19528792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Breast compression and radiation dose in two different mammographic oblique projections: 45 and 60 degrees.
    Brnić Z; Hebrang A
    Eur J Radiol; 2001 Oct; 40(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 11673002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mammography for screening high-risk patients for cancer: value of including a lateral projection.
    Kreager JA; Kornguth PJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Feb; 162(2):295-7. PubMed ID: 8310913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Efficacy of combined film-screen/xeromammography: preliminary report.
    Pagani JJ; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Benedetti J; Arndt RD; Linsman J; Scanlan RL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1980 Jul; 135(1):141-6. PubMed ID: 6771979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography.
    Ozdemir A
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Sep; 13(3):134-9. PubMed ID: 17846987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Digital breast volume estimation (DBVE)-A new technique.
    Shanley E; Johnston A; Hillick D; Ng KC; Sugrue M
    Br J Radiol; 2018 Nov; 91(1091):20180406. PubMed ID: 30028189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mammography in the follow-up after breast-conserving treatment in cancer of the breast: suitability for mammographic interpretation, validity and interobserver variation.
    Jager JJ; Langendijk JA; Dohmen JP; Schreutelkamp IL; Volovics L; van Engelshoven JM; de Jong JM; Schouten LJ; Hupperets PS; Blijham GH
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Jul; 68(811):754-60. PubMed ID: 7640932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Second-screening mammography: one versus two views per breast.
    Ikeda DM; Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):651-6. PubMed ID: 3406393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Usefulness of the routine magnification view after breast conservation therapy for carcinoma.
    DiPiro PJ; Meyer JE; Shaffer K; Denison CM; Frenna TH; Rolfs AT
    Radiology; 1996 Feb; 198(2):341-3. PubMed ID: 8596828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer patients: should the mastectomy site be imaged?
    Fajardo LL; Roberts CC; Hunt KR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Nov; 161(5):953-5. PubMed ID: 8273633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Development of an adjustable model breast for mammographic dosimetry assessment in Taiwanese women.
    Dong SL; Chu TC; Lan GY; Lin YC; Yeh YH; Chuang KS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Apr; 196(4):W476-81. PubMed ID: 21427314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Polyhedral microcalcifications on mammograms: prevalence and morphometric analysis.
    Frouge C; Guinebretière JM; Juras J; Fertil B; Benali H; Contesso G; Di Paola R; Bléry M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Sep; 167(3):621-4. PubMed ID: 8751664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Wires should not be used routinely on skin scars for mammograms after breast-conserving surgery.
    Proulx GM; Heller B; Stomper PC
    Am Surg; 2001 Feb; 67(2):179-81. PubMed ID: 11243546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Adverse effects of increased body weight on quantitative measures of mammographic image quality.
    Guest AR; Helvie MA; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Bailey JE; Roubidoux MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Sep; 175(3):805-10. PubMed ID: 10954471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Changes in breast compressibility with age: implications for stereotactic biopsy.
    Kalbhen CL; Kezdi-Rogus PC
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 1999 Apr; 50(2):93-7. PubMed ID: 10226631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.