268 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11517043)
21. The significance of concordance in mammographic interpretations.
Golinger RC; Gur D; Fisher B; Herbert DL; Naugle I; Reece JG; Hayes P; Grady S
Cancer; 1979 Oct; 44(4):1252-5. PubMed ID: 227558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Why is microcalcification missed on mammography?
Peters G; Jones CM; Daniels K
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2013 Feb; 57(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 23374551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography.
Yankaskas BC; Cleveland RJ; Schell MJ; Kozar R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):543-9. PubMed ID: 11517044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; de Koning HJ; Coebergh JW; van Beek M; Hooijen MJ; van de Poll-Franse LV
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Mar; 45(5):774-81. PubMed ID: 19046632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ
Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.
Tunçbilek I; Ozdemir A; Gültekin S; Oğur T; Erman R; Yüce C
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Dec; 13(4):183-7. PubMed ID: 18092288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.
Hofvind S; Sagstad S; Sebuødegård S; Chen Y; Roman M; Lee CI
Radiology; 2018 Apr; 287(1):58-67. PubMed ID: 29239711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors.
Burrell HC; Sibbering DM; Wilson AR; Pinder SE; Evans AJ; Yeoman LJ; Elston CW; Ellis IO; Blamey RW; Robertson JF
Radiology; 1996 Jun; 199(3):811-7. PubMed ID: 8638010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.
Birdwell RL; Ikeda DM; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2001 Apr; 219(1):192-202. PubMed ID: 11274556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Performance of artificial intelligence in 7533 consecutive prevalent screening mammograms from the BreastScreen Australia program.
Waugh J; Evans J; Miocevic M; Lockie D; Aminzadeh P; Lynch A; Bell RJ
Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun; 34(6):3947-3957. PubMed ID: 37955669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Contribution of mammography and echography to the diagnosis of breast cancer in Dakar: apropos of 25 cases].
Diop-Ba S; Badiane M; Niang EH; Ly Ba A; Alfidja A; Favre Y
Dakar Med; 1997; 42(2):114-7. PubMed ID: 9827132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic core-needle biopsy: frequency of mammographic change and false-negative rate.
Lee CH; Philpotts LE; Horvath LJ; Tocino I
Radiology; 1999 Jul; 212(1):189-94. PubMed ID: 10405741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Surgeon-read screening mammography: an analysis of 11,948 examinations.
Apffelstaedt JP; Steenkamp V; Baatjes KJ
Ann Surg Oncol; 2010 Oct; 17 Suppl 3():249-54. PubMed ID: 20853042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Risk of Breast Cancer in Women with False-Positive Results according to Mammographic Features.
Castells X; Torá-Rocamora I; Posso M; Román M; Vernet-Tomas M; Rodríguez-Arana A; Domingo L; Vidal C; Baré M; Ferrer J; Quintana MJ; Sánchez M; Natal C; Espinàs JA; Saladié F; Sala M;
Radiology; 2016 Aug; 280(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 26878225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Is mammographic breast density a breast cancer risk factor in women with BRCA mutations?
Passaperuma K; Warner E; Hill KA; Gunasekara A; Yaffe MJ
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Aug; 28(23):3779-83. PubMed ID: 20625126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
