407 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11807365)
1. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics.
Gajdos C; Tartter PI; Bleiweiss IJ; Hermann G; de Csepel J; Estabrook A; Rademaker AW
Ann Surg; 2002 Feb; 235(2):246-51. PubMed ID: 11807365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Age-related differences in patients with nonpalpable breast carcinomas.
Wazer DE; Gage I; Homer MJ; Krosnick SH; Schmid C
Cancer; 1996 Oct; 78(7):1432-7. PubMed ID: 8839548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Nonpalpable breast cancer: mammographic appearance as predictor of histologic type.
Thurfjell MG; Lindgren A; Thurfjell E
Radiology; 2002 Jan; 222(1):165-70. PubMed ID: 11756721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic features are associated with clinicopathological characteristics in invasive breast cancer.
Jiang L; Ma T; Moran MS; Kong X; Li X; Haffty BG; Yang Q
Anticancer Res; 2011 Jun; 31(6):2327-34. PubMed ID: 21737659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Casting-type calcifications with invasion and high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a more aggressive disease?
Zunzunegui RG; Chung MA; Oruwari J; Golding D; Marchant DJ; Cady B
Arch Surg; 2003 May; 138(5):537-40. PubMed ID: 12742959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinoma.
Tabar L; Tony Chen HH; Amy Yen MF; Tot T; Tung TH; Chen LS; Chiu YH; Duffy SW; Smith RA
Cancer; 2004 Oct; 101(8):1745-59. PubMed ID: 15386334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening.
Hofvind S; Iversen BF; Eriksen L; Styr BM; Kjellevold K; Kurz KD
Acta Radiol; 2011 Jun; 52(5):481-7. PubMed ID: 21498306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Patterns of aggressiveness: risk of progression to invasive breast cancer by mammographic features of calcifications in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ.
Lilleborge M; Falk RS; Hovda T; Holmen MM; Ursin G; Hofvind S
Acta Radiol; 2022 May; 63(5):586-595. PubMed ID: 33887963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mammographic pattern of microcalcifications in the preoperative diagnosis of comedo ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathologic correlation.
Hermann G; Keller RJ; Drossman S; Caravella BA; Tartter P; Panetta RA; Bleiweiss IJ
Can Assoc Radiol J; 1999 Aug; 50(4):235-40. PubMed ID: 10459309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Not all nonpalpable breast cancers are alike.
Franceschi D; Crowe JP; Lie S; Duchesneau R; Zollinger R; Shenk R; Stefanek G; Shuck JM
Arch Surg; 1991 Aug; 126(8):967-70; discussion 970-1. PubMed ID: 1650548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Aspects in mammographic screening. Detection, prediction, recurrence and prognosis.
Thurfjell MG
Acta Radiol Suppl; 2001 Dec; 42(424):1-22. PubMed ID: 12040855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Qualitative Radiogenomics: Association Between BI-RADS Calcification Descriptors and Recurrence Risk as Assessed by the Oncotype DX Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Score.
Woodard GA; Price ER
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Apr; 212(4):919-924. PubMed ID: 30714832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammographically detected breast cancer. Nonpalpable is not a synonym for inconsequential.
Schwartz GF; Carter DL; Conant EF; Gannon FH; Finkel GC; Feig SA
Cancer; 1994 Mar; 73(6):1660-5. PubMed ID: 8156493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mammographic features of calcifications in DCIS: correlation with oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status.
Bae MS; Moon WK; Chang JM; Cho N; Park SY; Won JK; Jeon YK; Moon HG; Han W; Park IA
Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2072-8. PubMed ID: 23512196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers?
Weigel S; Decker T; Korsching E; Hungermann D; Böcker W; Heindel W
Radiology; 2010 Jun; 255(3):738-45. PubMed ID: 20501713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. High-grade histologic features of DCIS are associated with R5 rather than R3 calcifications in breast screening mammography.
Hayes BD; Brodie C; O'Doherty A; Quinn CM
Breast J; 2013; 19(3):319-24. PubMed ID: 23600490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. HER2-positive breast cancer patients: correlation between mammographic and pathological findings.
Radenkovic S; Konjevic G; Isakovic A; Stevanovic P; Gopcevic K; Jurisic V
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2014 Nov; 162(1-2):125-8. PubMed ID: 25063784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Screening mammography-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features based on breast cancer subtypes.
Kim MY; Kim HS; Choi N; Yang JH; Yoo YB; Park KS
Clin Imaging; 2015; 39(6):983-6. PubMed ID: 26259866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Is there a correlation between breast cancer molecular subtype using receptors as surrogates and mammographic appearance?
Killelea BK; Chagpar AB; Bishop J; Horowitz NR; Christy C; Tsangaris T; Raghu M; Lannin DR
Ann Surg Oncol; 2013 Oct; 20(10):3247-53. PubMed ID: 23975299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
