168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11843854)
1. Mammographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ does not reliably predict histologic subtype.
Slanetz PJ; Giardino AA; Oyama T; Koerner FC; Halpern EF; Moore RH; Kopans DB
Breast J; 2001; 7(6):417-21. PubMed ID: 11843854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Can Occult Invasive Disease in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Be Predicted Using Computer-extracted Mammographic Features?
Shi B; Grimm LJ; Mazurowski MA; Baker JA; Marks JR; King LM; Maley CC; Hwang ES; Lo JY
Acad Radiol; 2017 Sep; 24(9):1139-1147. PubMed ID: 28506510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Microcalcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic-pathologic correlation.
Holland R; Hendriks JH
Semin Diagn Pathol; 1994 Aug; 11(3):181-92. PubMed ID: 7831529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype.
Stomper PC; Connolly JL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Sep; 159(3):483-5. PubMed ID: 1323923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mixed-Methods Study to Predict Upstaging of DCIS to Invasive Disease on Mammography.
Grimm LJ; Neely B; Hou R; Selvakumaran V; Baker JA; Yoon SC; Ghate SV; Walsh R; Litton TP; Devalapalli A; Kim C; Soo MS; Hyslop T; Hwang ES; Lo JY
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):903-911. PubMed ID: 32783550
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography.
Aminololama-Shakeri S; Abbey CK; Gazi P; Prionas ND; Nosratieh A; Li CS; Boone JM; Lindfors KK
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):297-303. PubMed ID: 26520874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast scintigraphy with breast-specific γ-camera in the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: a correlation with mammography and histologic subtype.
Spanu A; Sanna D; Chessa F; Cottu P; Manca A; Madeddu G
J Nucl Med; 2012 Oct; 53(10):1528-33. PubMed ID: 22911882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade.
Jansen SA; Newstead GM; Abe H; Shimauchi A; Schmidt RA; Karczmar GS
Radiology; 2007 Dec; 245(3):684-91. PubMed ID: 18024450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications.
Dershaw DD; Abramson A; Kinne DW
Radiology; 1989 Feb; 170(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 2536185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with micro-invasion versus ductal carcinoma in situ: a comparative analysis of clinicopathological and mammographic findings.
Zhang M; Lin Q; Su XH; Cui CX; Bian TT; Wang CQ; Zhao J; Li LL; Ma JZ; Huang JL
Clin Radiol; 2021 Oct; 76(10):787.e1-787.e7. PubMed ID: 34052010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Sensitivity of breast MRI for ductal carcinoma in situ appearing as microcalcifications only on mammography.
Rinaldi P; Buccheri C; Giuliani M; Bufi E; Romani M; Patrolecco F; Belli P; Bonomo L
Clin Imaging; 2016; 40(6):1207-1212. PubMed ID: 27618803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital Mammography Has Persistently Increased High-Grade and Overall DCIS Detection Without Altering Upgrade Rate.
Neal CH; Joe AI; Patterson SK; Pujara AC; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):912-918. PubMed ID: 33594910
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Growth Dynamics of Mammographic Calcifications: Differentiating Ductal Carcinoma in Situ from Benign Breast Disease.
Grimm LJ; Miller MM; Thomas SM; Liu Y; Lo JY; Hwang ES; Hyslop T; Ryser MD
Radiology; 2019 Jul; 292(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 31112087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Sonographic findings of high-grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
Park JS; Park YM; Kim EK; Kim SJ; Han SS; Lee SJ; In HS; Ryu JH
J Ultrasound Med; 2010 Dec; 29(12):1687-97. PubMed ID: 21098839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
