139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11056775)
1. Spectrum of abnormal mammographic findings and their predictive value for malignancy in Singaporean women from a population screening trial.
Sng KW; Ng EH; Ng FC; Tan PH; Low SC; Chiang G; Ho GH; Ng LT; Wilde C; Tan KP
Ann Acad Med Singap; 2000 Jul; 29(4):457-62. PubMed ID: 11056775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Independent predictors of breast malignancy in screen-detected microcalcifications: biopsy results in 2545 cases.
Farshid G; Sullivan T; Downey P; Gill PG; Pieterse S
Br J Cancer; 2011 Nov; 105(11):1669-75. PubMed ID: 22052156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The natural history of mammographic calcifications subjected to interval follow-up.
Berend ME; Sullivan DC; Kornguth PJ; Skinner CS; Ost A; Iglehart JD; Skinner MA
Arch Surg; 1992 Nov; 127(11):1309-13. PubMed ID: 1444792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Is the appearance of microcalcifications on mammography useful in predicting histological grade of malignancy in ductal cancer in situ?
Dinkel HP; Gassel AM; Tschammler A
Br J Radiol; 2000 Sep; 73(873):938-44. PubMed ID: 11064645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The significance of mammographic calcifications in early breast cancer detection.
Rosselli Del Turco M; Ciatto S; Bravetti P; Pacini P
Radiol Med; 1986; 72(1-2):7-12. PubMed ID: 3008222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The predictive value of needle localization mammographically assisted biopsy of the breast.
Senofsky GM; Davies RJ; Olson L; Skully P; Olshen R
Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1990 Nov; 171(5):361-5. PubMed ID: 2237718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammographic size of ductal carcinoma in situ does not predict the presence of an invasive focus.
Wahedna Y; Evans AJ; Pinder SE; Ellis IO; Blamey RW; Geraghty JG
Eur J Cancer; 2001 Mar; 37(4):459-62. PubMed ID: 11267854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Predictive factors for malignancy in breast microcalcifications without associated lesions].
Truán N; García-Bear I; Campos C; Alvarez JA; Baldonedo RF; Sánchez-Rodríguez A; Rojo O; Suárez-Solís A; Jorge-Barreiro JI
Cir Esp; 2005 Dec; 78(6):366-70. PubMed ID: 16420863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A prospective comparison of stereotaxic fine-needle aspiration versus stereotaxic core needle biopsy for the diagnosis of mammographic abnormalities.
Symmans WF; Weg N; Gross J; Cangiarella JF; Tata M; Mazzo JA; Waisman J
Cancer; 1999 Mar; 85(5):1119-32. PubMed ID: 10091797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions.
Burrell HC; Pinder SE; Wilson AR; Evans AJ; Yeoman LJ; Elston CW; Ellis IO
Clin Radiol; 1996 Apr; 51(4):277-81. PubMed ID: 8617041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Breast US in patients who had microcalcifications with low concern of malignancy on screening mammography.
Kang SS; Ko EY; Han BK; Shin JH
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Aug; 67(2):285-291. PubMed ID: 17703906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The impact of mammography on breast biopsy.
Goedde TA; Frykberg ER; Crump JM; Lay SF; Turetsky DB; Linden SS
Am Surg; 1992 Nov; 58(11):661-6. PubMed ID: 1485695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The value of MRI contrast enhancement in biopsy decision of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications: a prospective multicenter study.
Taskin F; Kalayci CB; Tuncbilek N; Soydemir E; Kurt N; Kaya H; Aribal E
Eur Radiol; 2021 Mar; 31(3):1718-1726. PubMed ID: 32939619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of percutaneous core biopsy of isolated breast microcalcifications identified by mammography. Experience with a vacuum-assisted large-core biopsy device.
Ambrogetti D; Bianchi S; Ciatto S
Radiol Med; 2003 Oct; 106(4):313-9. PubMed ID: 14612823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
Yasmeen S; Romano PS; Pettinger M; Chlebowski RT; Robbins JA; Lane DS; Hendrix SL
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Mar; 95(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 12644536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: initial experience.
Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Fine JP; Shachter RD; Sisney GA; Leung WK
Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):666-73. PubMed ID: 16926323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass.
Stomper PC; Geradts J; Edge SB; Levine EG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Dec; 181(6):1679-84. PubMed ID: 14627596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammographic characteristics and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) of non-palpable breast lesions.
Ventrella V; Tufaro A; Zito FA; Addante M; Stea B; Dentamaro R; D'Amico C; Paradiso A
Acta Radiol; 2011 Jul; 52(6):602-7. PubMed ID: 21565889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program.
Luiten JD; Voogd AC; Luiten EJT; Broeders MJM; Roes KCB; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):528-537. PubMed ID: 31990268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
