125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12042956)
21. Minority report - false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Ambrogetti D; Bonardi R; Collini G; Del Turco MR
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Sep; 105(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 17115112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The value of breast MRI for BI-RADS category 4B mammographic microcalcification: based on the 5
Eun NL; Son EJ; Gweon HM; Youk JH; Kim JA
Clin Radiol; 2018 Aug; 73(8):750-755. PubMed ID: 29853301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Combined assessment (aspiration cytology and mammography) of clinically suspicious breast masses.
van Wyk WF; Dent DM; Hacking EA; Learmonth G; Kottler RE; Gudgeon CA; Tiltman A
S Afr Med J; 1995 Feb; 85(2):81-4. PubMed ID: 7597539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography: Does it really suffer from low specificity? A retrospective analysis stratified by mammographic BI-RADS classes.
Benndorf M; Baltzer PA; Vag T; Gajda M; Runnebaum IB; Kaiser WA
Acta Radiol; 2010 Sep; 51(7):715-21. PubMed ID: 20707656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Diagnostic mammography and sonography: concordance of the breast imaging reporting assessments and final clinical outcome].
Lorenzen J; Wedel AK; Lisboa BW; Löning T; Adam G
Rofo; 2005 Nov; 177(11):1545-51. PubMed ID: 16302136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Padula S; Altomari F; Moriconi E; Pronio AM; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):670-80. PubMed ID: 17446524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.
Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Ljung BM; Grady D
Ann Intern Med; 2003 Aug; 139(4):274-84. PubMed ID: 12965983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Electrical impedance spectroscopy of the breast: clinical imaging results in 26 subjects.
Kerner TE; Paulsen KD; Hartov A; Soho SK; Poplack SP
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2002 Jun; 21(6):638-45. PubMed ID: 12166860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Breast tomosynthesis for the clarification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions can decrease follow-up examinations and enables immediate cancer diagnosis.
Bahrs SD; Otto V; Hattermann V; Klumpp B; Hahn M; Nikolaou K; Siegmann-Luz K
Acta Radiol; 2018 Oct; 59(10):1176-1183. PubMed ID: 29451022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The impact of lesion vascularisation on tumours detection by electrical impedance scanning at 200 Hz.
Malich A; Scholz B; Kott A; Facius M; Fischer D; Freesmeyer M
Biomed Imaging Interv J; 2007 Oct; 3(4):e33. PubMed ID: 21614295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [A simulation study of electrical impedance scan-imaging based on a phantom].
Ji ZY; Fu F; Shi XT; Liu RG; Dong XZ; You FS; Wang K
Space Med Med Eng (Beijing); 2005 Apr; 18(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 15977393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Prospective study of electrical impedance scanning for identifying young women at risk for breast cancer.
Stojadinovic A; Moskovitz O; Gallimidi Z; Fields S; Brooks AD; Brem R; Mucciola RN; Singh M; Maniscalco-Theberge M; Rockette HE; Gur D; Shriver CD
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 May; 97(2):179-89. PubMed ID: 16491309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Imaging-histologic discordance at percutaneous breast biopsy.
Liberman L; Drotman M; Morris EA; LaTrenta LR; Abramson AF; Zakowski MF; Dershaw DD
Cancer; 2000 Dec; 89(12):2538-46. PubMed ID: 11135213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Electrical impedance scanning in classifying suspicious breast lesions.
Malich A; Fuchsjäger M
Invest Radiol; 2003 May; 38(5):302-3; author reply 303-4. PubMed ID: 12750620
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results, follow-up and correlation with radiological suspicion.
Zuiani C; Mazzarella F; Londero V; Linda A; Puglisi F; Bazzocchi M
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):304-17. PubMed ID: 17361368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Electrical impedance scanning of thyroid nodules before thyroid surgery: a prospective study.
Stojadinovic A; Fields SI; Shriver CD; Lenington S; Ginor R; Peoples GE; Burch HB; Peretz T; Freund HR; Nissan A
Ann Surg Oncol; 2005 Feb; 12(2):152-60. PubMed ID: 15827796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Papillary lesions of the breast: diagnostic imaging and contribution of percutaneous needle biopsy with 14G needle].
Bazzocchi M; Berra I; Francescutti GE; Del Frate C; Zuiani C; Puglisi F; Di Loreto C
Radiol Med; 2001 Jun; 101(6):424-31. PubMed ID: 11479438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
