178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12553348)
1. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens.
Kuzmiak CM; Millnamow GA; Qaqish B; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Brown ME
Acad Radiol; 2002 Dec; 9(12):1378-82. PubMed ID: 12553348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fast 3D Near-infrared breast imaging using indocyanine green for detection and characterization of breast lesions.
Schneider P; Piper S; Schmitz CH; Schreiter NF; Volkwein N; Lüdemann L; Malzahn U; Poellinger A
Rofo; 2011 Oct; 183(10):956-63. PubMed ID: 21972043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.
Łuczyńska E; Heinze-Paluchowska S; Hendrick E; Dyczek S; Ryś J; Herman K; Blecharz P; Jakubowicz J
Med Sci Monit; 2015 May; 21():1358-67. PubMed ID: 25963880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Diagnostic value of ADC and rADC of diffusion weighted imaging in malignant breast lesions].
Xie CM; Yin SH; Li H; Liu XW; Zhang Y; Lü YC; Zhang R; Li JP; Geng ZJ; Wu PH
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2010 Mar; 32(3):217-20. PubMed ID: 20450592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Follow-up of B3 breast lesions without residual microcalcifications post vacuum-assisted biopsy, can contrast-enhanced digital mammography help?
Bicchierai G; Nori J; De Benedetto D; Boeri C; Vanzi E; Bianchi S; Kaur Gill M; Cirone D; Miele V
Breast J; 2020 Feb; 26(2):299-302. PubMed ID: 31486197
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [Second reading of breast imaging at the hospital department of radiology: reasonable or waste of money?].
Teifke A; Vomweg TW; Hlawatsch A; Nasresfahani A; Kern A; Victor A; Schmidt M; Bittinger F; Düber C
Rofo; 2006 Mar; 178(3):330-6. PubMed ID: 16508842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with new reconstruction and new processing for dose reduction.
Endo T; Morita T; Oiwa M; Suda N; Sato Y; Ichihara S; Shiraiwa M; Yoshikawa K; Horiba T; Ogawa H; Hayashi Y; Sendai T; Arai T
Breast Cancer; 2018 Mar; 25(2):159-166. PubMed ID: 28956298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical MR mammography: impact of hormonal status on background enhancement and diagnostic accuracy.
Baltzer PA; Dietzel M; Vag T; Burmeister H; Gajda M; Camara O; Pfleiderer SO; Kaiser WA
Rofo; 2011 May; 183(5):441-7. PubMed ID: 21318935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Michell MJ; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Evans DR; Peacock C; Lawinski CP; Douiri A; Wilson R; Whelehan P
Clin Radiol; 2012 Oct; 67(10):976-81. PubMed ID: 22625656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of full-field digital mammography on pre-operative diagnosis and surgical treatment of mammographic microcalcification.
Bundred SM; Zhou J; Whiteside S; Morris J; Wilson M; Hurley E; Bundred N
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Jan; 143(2):359-66. PubMed ID: 24318468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 3-T breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.
Stehouwer BL; Merckel LG; Verkooijen HM; Peters NH; Mann RM; Duvivier KM; Mali WP; Peeters PH; Veldhuis WB; van den Bosch MA
Eur Radiol; 2014 Mar; 24(3):603-9. PubMed ID: 24078055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The significance of malignancies incidental to microcalcifications in breast spot localization biopsy specimens.
Rosenfeld I; Tartter PI; Gajdos C; Hermann G; Bleiweiss I
Am J Surg; 2001 Jul; 182(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 11532405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reliability and validity of needle biopsy evaluation of breast-abnormalities using the B-categorization--design and objectives of the Diagnosis Optimisation Study (DIOS).
Kluttig A; Trocchi P; Heinig A; Holzhausen HJ; Taege C; Hauptmann S; Boecker W; Decker T; Loening T; Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A; Thomssen C; Lantzsch T; Buchmann J; Stang A
BMC Cancer; 2007 Jun; 7():100. PubMed ID: 17570833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Magnetic resonance mammography in small vs. advanced breast lesions - systematic comparison reveals significant impact of lesion size on diagnostic accuracy in 936 histologically verified breast lesions.
Dietzel M; Baltzer PA; Vag T; Gröschel T; Richter C; Burmeister H; Kaiser WA
Rofo; 2011 Feb; 183(2):126-35. PubMed ID: 20830650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast lesion localization: a freehand, interactive MR imaging-guided technique.
Daniel BL; Birdwell RL; Ikeda DM; Jeffrey SS; Black JW; Block WF; Sawyer-Glover AM; Glover GH; Herfkens RJ
Radiology; 1998 May; 207(2):455-63. PubMed ID: 9577495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Modified Core Wash Cytology: A reliable same day biopsy result for breast clinics.
Bulte JP; Wauters CA; Duijm LE; de Wilt JH; Strobbe LJ
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 42(12):1821-1826. PubMed ID: 27450639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Low-field versus high-field MRI in diagnosing breast disorders.
Pääkkö E; Reinikainen H; Lindholm EL; Rissanen T
Eur Radiol; 2005 Jul; 15(7):1361-8. PubMed ID: 15711841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. CE-Magnetic Resonance Mammography for the evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed breast cancer.
Pediconi F; Venditti F; Padula S; Roselli A; Moriconi E; Giacomelli L; Catalano C; Passariello R
Radiol Med; 2005; 110(1-2):61-8. PubMed ID: 16163140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Breast MRI: opportunities and challenges.
Day D
Minn Med; 2009 Dec; 92(12):45-8. PubMed ID: 20092173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
