384 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17048437)
1. 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]
2. Biopsy rate and positive predictive value for breast cancer in BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions.
Wiratkapun C; Bunyapaiboonsri W; Wibulpolprasert B; Lertsithichai P
J Med Assoc Thai; 2010 Jul; 93(7):830-7. PubMed ID: 20649064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of benignity or malignancy of a lesion using BI-RADS.
Masroor I
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2005 Nov; 15(11):686-8. PubMed ID: 16300702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast cancer in patients initially assigned as BI-RADS category 3.
Wiratkapun C; Wibulpolprasert B; Lertsithichai P
J Med Assoc Thai; 2006 Jun; 89(6):834-9. PubMed ID: 16850685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
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. The value of breast MRI for BI-RADS category 4B mammographic microcalcification: based on the 5
Eun NL; Son EJ; Gweon HM; Youk JH; Kim JA
Clin Radiol; 2018 Aug; 73(8):750-755. PubMed ID: 29853301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Diagnostic value of breast ultrasound in mammography BI-RADS 0 and clinically indeterminate or suspicious of malignancy breast lesions.
Dobrosavljević A; Rakić S; Nikoli B; Raznatović SJ; Dikić SD; Milosević Z; Jurisić A; Skrobić M
Vojnosanit Pregl; 2016 Mar; 73(3):239-45. PubMed ID: 27295907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The clinical impact of breast scintigraphy acquired with a breast specific γ-camera (BSGC) in the diagnosis of breast cancer: incremental value versus mammography.
Spanu A; Sanna D; Chessa F; Manca A; Cottu P; Fancellu A; Nuvoli S; Madeddu G
Int J Oncol; 2012 Aug; 41(2):483-9. PubMed ID: 22641247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. [Fine needle aspiration biopsy of breast lesions: institutional experience].
Medina-Franco H; Abarca-Pérez L; Cortés-González R; Soto-Germes S; Ulloa JA; Uribe N
Rev Invest Clin; 2005; 57(3):394-8. PubMed ID: 16187698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Breast ultrasonographic and histopathological characteristics without any mammographic abnormalities.
Tamaki K; Ishida T; Miyashita M; Amari M; Ohuchi N; Kamada Y; Uehara K; Tamaki N; Sasano H
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2012 Mar; 42(3):168-74. PubMed ID: 22217577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Growing BI-RADS category 3 lesions on follow-up breast ultrasound: malignancy rates and worrisome features.
Ha SM; Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
Br J Radiol; 2018 Jul; 91(1087):20170787. PubMed ID: 29658793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
