These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
360 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12185047)
1. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Varas X; Leborgne JH; Leborgne F; Mezzera J; Jaumandreu S; Leborgne F AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):691-5. PubMed ID: 12185047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Surveillance of probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions in mammography: what is the right follow-up protocol? Buch KA; Qureshi MM; Carpentier B; Cunningham DA; Stone M; Jaffe C; Quinn M; Gonzalez C; LaVoye J; Hines N; Bloch BN Breast J; 2015; 21(2):168-74. PubMed ID: 25669425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions. Chung CS; Giess CS; Gombos EC; Frost EP; Yeh ED; Raza S; Birdwell RL AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Apr; 202(4):922-7. PubMed ID: 24660725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound. Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Mar; 206(3):666-72. PubMed ID: 26901026 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [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]
6. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Orel SG; Kay N; Reynolds C; Sullivan DC Radiology; 1999 Jun; 211(3):845-50. PubMed ID: 10352614 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions. Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effectiveness of assigning BI-RADS category-3 to breast lesion with respect to follow-up. Masroor I J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2008 Apr; 18(4):209-12. PubMed ID: 18474152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Liberman L; Abramson AF; Squires FB; Glassman JR; Morris EA; Dershaw DD AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9648759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging. Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database. Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding--short interval follow-up suggested". Caplan LS; Blackman D; Nadel M; Monticciolo DL AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Feb; 172(2):339-42. PubMed ID: 9930778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time. Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R; J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):710-4. PubMed ID: 14770425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening. Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Positive predictive value of breast cancer in the lesions categorized as BI-RADS category 5. Wiratkapun C; Lertsithichai P; Wibulpholprasert B J Med Assoc Thai; 2006 Aug; 89(8):1253-9. PubMed ID: 17048437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]