108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11304700)
1. Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population.
Flobbe K; van der Linden ES; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM
Int J Cancer; 2001 May; 92(4):616-8. PubMed ID: 11304700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
Flobbe K; Bosch AM; Kessels AG; Beets GL; Nelemans PJ; von Meyenfeldt MF; van Engelshoven JM
Arch Intern Med; 2003 May; 163(10):1194-9. PubMed ID: 12767956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Use of Palpation Imaging in Diagnosis of Breast Diseases: A Way to Improve the Detection Rate.
Ding Y; Sun C; Zhou Q; Cheng C; Yan C; Wang B
Med Sci Monit; 2020 Nov; 26():e927553. PubMed ID: 33247894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Comparative analysis of early diagnostic tools for breast cancer].
Shen SJ; Sun Q; Xu YL; Zhou YD; Guan JH; Mao F; Lin Y; Wang XJ; Han SM
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2012 Nov; 34(11):877-80. PubMed ID: 23291142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Berg WA; Gutierrez L; NessAiver MS; Carter WB; Bhargavan M; Lewis RS; Ioffe OB
Radiology; 2004 Dec; 233(3):830-49. PubMed ID: 15486214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Role of multimedial diagnosis of breast cancer in women below 36 year of age.
Ciatto S; Brancato B
Radiol Med; 2005 Apr; 109(4):321-9. PubMed ID: 15883517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program.
Oestreicher N; Lehman CD; Seger DJ; Buist DS; White E
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):428-32. PubMed ID: 15671358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency for breast cancer in Chinese women using mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and different combinations of these imaging modalities.
Shao H; Li B; Zhang X; Xiong Z; Liu Y; Tang G
J Xray Sci Technol; 2013; 21(2):283-92. PubMed ID: 23694915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography.
Carney PA; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Yabroff KR; Sickles EA; Buist DS; Kasales CJ; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Dignan MB; Weaver DL; Kerlikowske K;
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):385-92. PubMed ID: 17242246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis.
Ohashi R; Nagao M; Nakamura I; Okamoto T; Sakai S
Breast Cancer; 2018 Sep; 25(5):590-596. PubMed ID: 29651638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer.
Barlow WE; Lehman CD; Zheng Y; Ballard-Barbash R; Yankaskas BC; Cutter GR; Carney PA; Geller BM; Rosenberg R; Kerlikowske K; Weaver DL; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Aug; 94(15):1151-9. PubMed ID: 12165640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.
Kolb TM; Lichy J; Newhouse JH
Radiology; 2002 Oct; 225(1):165-75. PubMed ID: 12355001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.
Rhodes DJ; Hruska CB; Phillips SW; Whaley DH; O'Connor MK
Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):106-18. PubMed ID: 21045179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison between 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography and X-ray mammography in the characterization of clusters of microcalcifications: a prospective long-term study.
Grosso M; Chiacchio S; Bianchi F; Traino C; Marini C; Cilotti A; Manca G; Volterrani D; Roncella M; Rampin L; Marzola MC; Rubello D; Mariani G
Anticancer Res; 2009 Oct; 29(10):4251-7. PubMed ID: 19846982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Breast lesions: imaging with contrast-enhanced subharmonic US--initial experience.
Forsberg F; Piccoli CW; Merton DA; Palazzo JJ; Hall AL
Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):718-26. PubMed ID: 17690324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Evaluation of scintimammography as an additional test to conventional mammography in detection of breast cancer].
Cwikła JB; Buscombe JR; Kolasińska AD; Holloway B; Hilson AJ
Ginekol Pol; 2003 May; 74(5):362-70. PubMed ID: 12931463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.
Pisano ED; Gatsonis C; Hendrick E; Yaffe M; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett L; D'Orsi C; Jong R; Rebner M;
N Engl J Med; 2005 Oct; 353(17):1773-83. PubMed ID: 16169887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
