103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15351256)
41. Independent evaluation of computer classification of malignant and benign calcifications in full-field digital mammograms.
Rana RS; Jiang Y; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Liu B
Acad Radiol; 2007 Mar; 14(3):363-70. PubMed ID: 17307670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Stability of malignant breast microcalcifications.
Lev-Toaff AS; Feig SA; Saitas VL; Finkel GC; Schwartz GF
Radiology; 1994 Jul; 192(1):153-6. PubMed ID: 8208928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: mammographic appearance and histologic correlation.
Helvie MA; Hessler C; Frank TS; Ikeda DM
Radiology; 1991 Jun; 179(3):759-64. PubMed ID: 2027988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Mammographic analysis of calcifications.
Bassett LW
Radiol Clin North Am; 1992 Jan; 30(1):93-105. PubMed ID: 1732937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. [Lobular cancer transformation of the female breast. Mammography diagnosis and clinical relevance].
Bochmann D; Bahnsen J; Löning T; Böcker W
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd; 1996 Apr; 56(4):204-8. PubMed ID: 8682286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. The mammographic appearance of breast carcinomas of invasive ductal type: relationship with clinicopathological parameters, biological features and prognosis.
Ildefonso C; Vazquez J; Guinea O; Perez A; Fernandez A; Corte MD; Junquera S; Gonzalez LO; Pravia P; Garcia-Moran M; Vizoso FJ
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Feb; 136(2):224-31. PubMed ID: 17118521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions.
Cornford EJ; Evans AJ; James JJ; Burrell HC; Pinder SE; Wilson AR
Clin Radiol; 2005 Nov; 60(11):1182-7. PubMed ID: 16223614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Digital imaging improves upright stereotactic core biopsy of mammographic microcalcifications.
Whitlock JP; Evans AJ; Burrell HC; Pinder SE; Ellis IO; Blamey RW; Wilson AR
Clin Radiol; 2000 May; 55(5):374-7. PubMed ID: 10816404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. [Invasive lobular breast cancer: pitfall for the radiologist?].
Egyed Z; Járay B; Péntek Z
Orv Hetil; 2006 Feb; 147(5):219-26. PubMed ID: 16509223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. [Extensive intraductal components of invasive ductal breast carcinoma--value of mammography].
Mallek R; Mostbeck GH; Lösch A; Kainz C; Baldt M; Czerwenka K; Fitzal P; Wolf G
Rofo; 1994 Feb; 160(2):164-7. PubMed ID: 8312515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Mammographic features of invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: a comparative analysis.
Cornford EJ; Wilson AR; Athanassiou E; Galea M; Ellis IO; Elston CW; Blamey RW
Br J Radiol; 1995 May; 68(809):450-3. PubMed ID: 7788227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Computer-aided screening mammography.
Feig SA; Birdwell RL; Linver MN
N Engl J Med; 2007 Jul; 357(1):84; author reply 85. PubMed ID: 17615628
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
Yamada T; Saito M; Ishibashi T; Tsuboi M; Matsuhashi T; Sato A; Saito H; Takahashi S; Onuki K; Ouchi N
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(6):408-12. PubMed ID: 15648457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme?
Kessar P; Perry N; Vinnicombe SJ; Hussain HK; Carpenter R; Wells CA
Clin Radiol; 2002 Sep; 57(9):807-14. PubMed ID: 12384106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Mammography of breast carcinoma in women who have mutations of the breast cancer gene BRCA1: initial experience.
Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Weber BL; Merajver SD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Jun; 168(6):1599-602. PubMed ID: 9168735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Phleboliths detected on mammography.
de Lourdes Díaz M; Pina LJ; Alonso A; De Luis E
Breast J; 2006; 12(5):467-9. PubMed ID: 16958967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. [Radiographic image magnification as quality control of microcalcification imaging within the scope of histopathological control of breast biopsy tissue].
Grunert JH; Flemming P; Borchert B; Farber A; Gmelin E
Rofo; 2000 Jan; 172(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 10719466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Evaluation of surrogate endpoint biomarkers for ductal carcinoma in situ.
Lagios MD
J Cell Biochem Suppl; 1994; 19():186-8. PubMed ID: 7823590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. The value of postlumpectomy mammogram in the management of breast cancer patients presenting with suspiciouis microcalcifications.
Aref A; Youssef E; Washington T; Segel M; Grigorian C; Bongers S; Bouwman D
Cancer J Sci Am; 2000; 6(1):25-7. PubMed ID: 10696735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. [The correct mammographic exam: the usefulness of additional views].
Cilotti A; Bagnolesi P; Moretti M; Marini C; Marinari A; Cambi L; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 1997 Sep; 94(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 9446121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
