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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10584814)

  • 21. Mammography in the evaluation of nipple inversion.
    Kalbhen CL; Kezdi-Rogus PC; Dowling MP; Flisak ME
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):117-21. PubMed ID: 9423612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Tumor location and detectability in mammographic screening.
    Schmitt EL; Threatt B
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1982 Oct; 139(4):761-5. PubMed ID: 6981939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Baseline screening mammography: one vs two views per breast.
    Sickles EA; Weber WN; Galvin HB; Ominsky SH; Sollitto RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1986 Dec; 147(6):1149-53. PubMed ID: 3490749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: a preliminary report.
    Oh KK; Hur J; Kim EK; Choo SS
    Yonsei Med J; 2003 Oct; 44(5):863-8. PubMed ID: 14584104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Validation of the Vectra XT three-dimensional imaging system for measuring breast volume and symmetry following oncological reconstruction.
    O'Connell RL; Khabra K; Bamber JC; deSouza N; Meybodi F; Barry PA; Rusby JE
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Sep; 171(2):391-398. PubMed ID: 29872939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
    Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Estimating splenic volume: sonographic measurements correlated with helical CT determination.
    Yetter EM; Acosta KB; Olson MC; Blundell K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Dec; 181(6):1615-20. PubMed ID: 14627584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Contrast enhanced digital mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging for accurate measurement of the size of breast cancer.
    Youn I; Choi S; Choi YJ; Moon JH; Park HJ; Ham SY; Park CH; Kim EY; Kook SH
    Br J Radiol; 2019 Jun; 92(1098):20180929. PubMed ID: 31017460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors.
    Skaane P
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1999; 420():1-47. PubMed ID: 10693544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    Rosenberg RD; Hunt WC; Williamson MR; Gilliland FD; Wiest PW; Kelsey CA; Key CR; Linver MN
    Radiology; 1998 Nov; 209(2):511-8. PubMed ID: 9807581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical validation of a pressure-standardized compression mammography system.
    den Boer D; Dam-Vervloet LAJ; Boomsma MF; de Boer E; van Dalen JA; Poot L
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Aug; 105():251-254. PubMed ID: 30017290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial.
    Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Makariou E; Chan HP; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Lo SC; Freedman M; Adler D; Bailey J; Blane C; Hoff D; Hunt K; Joynt L; Klein K; Paramagul C; Patterson SK; Roubidoux MA
    Radiology; 2004 Apr; 231(1):208-14. PubMed ID: 14990808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Is Individualizing Breast Compression during Mammography useful? - Investigations of pain indications during mammography relating to compression force and surface area of the compressed breast.
    Feder K; Grunert JH
    Rofo; 2017 Jan; 189(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 28002858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [The correct mammographic exam: the usefulness of additional views].
    Cilotti A; Bagnolesi P; Moretti M; Marini C; Marinari A; Cambi L; Bartolozzi C
    Radiol Med; 1997 Sep; 94(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 9446121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
    May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic findings and extent of disease at diagnosis in 184 patients.
    Krecke KN; Gisvold JJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Nov; 161(5):957-60. PubMed ID: 8273634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Volumetric breast density assessment: reproducibility in serial examinations and comparison with visual assessment.
    Singh JM; Fallenberg EM; Diekmann F; Renz DM; Witlandt R; Bick U; Engelken F
    Rofo; 2013 Sep; 185(9):844-8. PubMed ID: 23888472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography?
    Müller-Schimpfle M; Stoll P; Stern W; Kurz S; Dammann F; Claussen CD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 May; 168(5):1323-9. PubMed ID: 9129436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Screen-film mammography versus xeromammography in the detection of breast cancer.
    Cuttino JT; Yankaskas BC; Hoskins EO
    Br J Radiol; 1986 Dec; 59(708):1159-62. PubMed ID: 3801794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.