152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10701619)
21. [Mammographic diagnosis based on oblique projection. Personal experience].
Gozzi G; Vidali C; Polonio G; Cressa C; Sabella M
Radiol Med; 1988 Apr; 75(4):365-9. PubMed ID: 3375480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Mammographic abnormalities caused by percutaneous stereotactic biopsy of histologically benign lesions evident on follow-up mammograms.
Lamm RL; Jackman RJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Mar; 174(3):753-6. PubMed ID: 10701620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Difficult mammographic needle localizations: use of alternate orthogonal projections.
Vyborny CJ; Merrill TN; Geurkink RE
Radiology; 1986 Dec; 161(3):839-41. PubMed ID: 3786743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.
Webb LJ; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA; Ghate SV; Kim C; Soo MS; Walsh R
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1972-80. PubMed ID: 21626930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [The diagnostic accuracy of a digital mammography system with photostimulable storage phosphors used with automatic reading].
Panizza P; Rodighiero MG; De Gaspari A; Tacchini S; Camalori M; Del Maschio A
Radiol Med; 1996; 91(1-2):46-51. PubMed ID: 8614730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Breast MR Imaging for Equivocal Mammographic Findings: Help or Hindrance?
Giess CS; Chikarmane SA; Sippo DA; Birdwell RL
Radiographics; 2016; 36(4):943-56. PubMed ID: 27284757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Computer-aided detection of breast carcinoma in standard mammographic projections with digital mammography.
Destounis S; Hanson S; Morgan R; Murphy P; Somerville P; Seifert P; Andolina V; Arieno A; Skolny M; Logan-Young W
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2009 Jun; 4(4):331-6. PubMed ID: 20033580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Comparing the clinical value of spot view mammography with reduced pixel size to monitor zooming by reporting microcalcifications in digital mammography].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Adamietz B; Lell M; Böhner C; Uder M; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):492-6. PubMed ID: 17436183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mammography with synchrotron radiation: first clinical experience with phase-detection technique.
Castelli E; Tonutti M; Arfelli F; Longo R; Quaia E; Rigon L; Sanabor D; Zanconati F; Dreossi D; Abrami A; Quai E; Bregant P; Casarin K; Chenda V; Menk RH; Rokvic T; Vascotto A; Tromba G; Cova MA
Radiology; 2011 Jun; 259(3):684-94. PubMed ID: 21436089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Contamination artifact that mimics in-situ carcinoma on contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Gluskin J; Click M; Fleischman R; Dromain C; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
Eur J Radiol; 2017 Oct; 95():147-154. PubMed ID: 28987661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Magnetic resonance imaging of suspicious breast masses seen on one mammographic view.
Offodile RS; Daniel BL; Jeffrey SS; Wapnir I; Dirbas FM; Ikeda DM
Breast J; 2004; 10(5):416-22. PubMed ID: 15327495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Apparent ipsilateral decrease in breast size at mammography: a sign of infiltrating lobular carcinoma.
Harvey JA; Fechner RE; Moore MM
Radiology; 2000 Mar; 214(3):883-9. PubMed ID: 10715063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Adaptive mammographic image enhancement using first derivative and local statistics.
Kim JK; Park JM; Song KS; Park HW
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1997 Oct; 16(5):495-502. PubMed ID: 9368105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Solitary dilated duct identified at mammography: outcomes analysis.
Chang CB; Lvoff NM; Leung JW; Brenner RJ; Joe BN; Tso HH; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):378-82. PubMed ID: 20093599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The potential use of ultra-low radiation dose images in digital mammography--a clinical proof-of-concept study in craniocaudal views.
Bluekens AM; Veldkamp WJ; Schuur KH; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140626. PubMed ID: 25571915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Is breast MRI helpful in the evaluation of inconclusive mammographic findings?
Moy L; Elias K; Patel V; Lee J; Babb JS; Toth HK; Mercado CL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):986-93. PubMed ID: 19770320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Small (< 2.0-cm) breast cancers: mammographic and US findings at US-guided cryoablation--initial experience.
Roubidoux MA; Sabel MS; Bailey JE; Kleer CG; Klein KA; Helvie MA
Radiology; 2004 Dec; 233(3):857-67. PubMed ID: 15567802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
