81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16137434)
1. Abnormal mammographic findings with short-interval follow-up recommendation.
Chlebowski RT; Khalkhali I
Clin Breast Cancer; 2005 Aug; 6(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 16137434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
Yasmeen S; Romano PS; Pettinger M; Chlebowski RT; Robbins JA; Lane DS; Hendrix SL
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Mar; 95(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 12644536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Additional Diagnostic Mammographic Views for the Evaluation of Asymmetric Mammographic Densities.
Waheed H; Masroor I; Afzal S; Alvi MI; Jahanzeb S
Cureus; 2020 Aug; 12(8):e9637. PubMed ID: 32923238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.
Taplin SH; Ichikawa LE; Kerlikowske K; Ernster VL; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Carney PA; Geller BM; Urban N; Dignan MB; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2002 Feb; 222(2):529-35. PubMed ID: 11818624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Case-control study of increased mammographic breast density response to hormone replacement therapy.
Vachon CM; Sellers TA; Vierkant RA; Wu FF; Brandt KR
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2002 Nov; 11(11):1382-8. PubMed ID: 12433715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Investigation of lesions detected by mammography. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists.
CMAJ; 1998 Feb; 158 Suppl 3():S9-14. PubMed ID: 9484273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham LA; Lehman CD; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Voeks JH; Geller BM; Carney PA; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):684-92. PubMed ID: 15734926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.
Geller BM; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R; Ernster VL; Yankaskas BC; Sickles EA; Carney PA; Dignan MB; Rosenberg RD; Urban N; Zheng Y; Taplin SH
Radiology; 2002 Feb; 222(2):536-42. PubMed ID: 11818625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.
White E; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Kerlikowske K; Saba L; Vacek PM; Carney PA; Buist DS; Oestreicher N; Barlow W; Ballard-Barbash R; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Dec; 96(24):1832-9. PubMed ID: 15601639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Breast imaging.
Kopans DB; Meyer JE; Sadowsky N
N Engl J Med; 1984 Apr; 310(15):960-7. PubMed ID: 6366562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The abnormal mammogram in women with clinically normal breasts.
Sterns EE
Can J Surg; 1995 Apr; 38(2):168-72. PubMed ID: 7728672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammography in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
Stomper PC; Gelman RS
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am; 1989 Dec; 3(4):611-40. PubMed ID: 2691492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Outcome of men presenting with clinical breast problems: the role of mammography and ultrasound.
Patterson SK; Helvie MA; Aziz K; Nees AV
Breast J; 2006; 12(5):418-23. PubMed ID: 16958958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications.
Pijnappel RM; Peeters PH; Hendriks JH; Mali WP
Br J Radiol; 2004 Apr; 77(916):312-4. PubMed ID: 15107321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pain and increased mammographic density in women receiving hormone replacement therapy: a prospective study.
McNicholas MM; Heneghan JP; Milner MH; Tunney T; Hourihane JB; MacErlaine DP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Aug; 163(2):311-5. PubMed ID: 8037021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
