649 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15377106)
1. Emerging technologies in breast cancer detection.
Smith AP; Hall PA; Marcello DM
Radiol Manage; 2004; 26(4):16-24; quiz 25-7. PubMed ID: 15377106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [New trends and novel possibilities in the diagnostic imaging of breast cancer].
Bidlek M; Kovács E; Fehér K; Gõdény M
Magy Onkol; 2015 Mar; 59(1):44-55. PubMed ID: 25763913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Screening for dense breasts: digital breast tomosynthesis.
Destounis SV; Morgan R; Arieno A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Feb; 204(2):261-4. PubMed ID: 25615747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of a computer-aided detection (CAD)-enhanced 2D synthetic mammogram: comparison with standard synthetic 2D mammograms and conventional 2D digital mammography.
James JJ; Giannotti E; Chen Y
Clin Radiol; 2018 Oct; 73(10):886-892. PubMed ID: 29970247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Digital breast tomosynthesis].
Preibsch H; Siegmann-Luz KC
Radiologe; 2015 Jan; 55(1):59-67; quiz 68-70. PubMed ID: 25609581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Detection of early breast cancer: an overview and future prospects.
Zhou XH; Gordon R
Crit Rev Biomed Eng; 1989; 17(3):203-55. PubMed ID: 2673660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experimental characterization of a direct conversion amorphous selenium detector with thicker conversion layer for dual-energy contrast-enhanced breast imaging.
Scaduto DA; Tousignant O; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Aug; 44(8):3965-3977. PubMed ID: 28543761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. What's new in mammography.
Simonetti G; Cossu E; Montanaro M; Caschili C; Giuliani V
Eur J Radiol; 1998 May; 27 Suppl 2():S234-41. PubMed ID: 9652528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.
Niklason LT; Christian BT; Niklason LE; Kopans DB; Castleberry DE; Opsahl-Ong BH; Landberg CE; Slanetz PJ; Giardino AA; Moore R; Albagli D; DeJule MC; Fitzgerald PF; Fobare DF; Giambattista BW; Kwasnick RF; Liu J; Lubowski SJ; Possin GE; Richotte JF; Wei CY; Wirth RF
Radiology; 1997 Nov; 205(2):399-406. PubMed ID: 9356620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.
Jong RA; Yaffe MJ; Skarpathiotakis M; Shumak RS; Danjoux NM; Gunesekara A; Plewes DB
Radiology; 2003 Sep; 228(3):842-50. PubMed ID: 12881585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. New methods for imaging the breast: techniques, findings, and potential.
Adler DD; Wahl RL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Jan; 164(1):19-30. PubMed ID: 7998538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography?
Müller-Schimpfle M; Stoll P; Stern W; Kurz S; Dammann F; Claussen CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 May; 168(5):1323-9. PubMed ID: 9129436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Use of digital mammography in needle localization procedures.
Dershaw DD; Fleischman RC; Liberman L; Deutch B; Abramson AF; Hann L
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Sep; 161(3):559-62. PubMed ID: 8352104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of ultrasound and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in determining benign and malignant breast lesions using pathology as a gold standard, in 102 Chinese women.
Yang L; Zhou C
Hell J Nucl Med; 2019; 22(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 30843008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: feasibility study.
Chen B; Ning R
Med Phys; 2002 May; 29(5):755-70. PubMed ID: 12033572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in pre-surgical evaluation of breast malignant lesions in dense breasts: a single center study.
Bozzini A; Nicosia L; Pruneri G; Maisonneuve P; Meneghetti L; Renne G; Vingiani A; Cassano E; Mastropasqua MG
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2020 Dec; 184(3):723-731. PubMed ID: 32860166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings.
Ray KM; Turner E; Sickles EA; Joe BN
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):538-42. PubMed ID: 26148173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
