217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17185661)
1. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.
Roelofs AA; Karssemeijer N; Wedekind N; Beck C; van Woudenberg S; Snoeren PR; Hendriks JH; Rosselli del Turco M; Bjurstam N; Junkermann H; Beijerinck D; Séradour B; Evertsz CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 17185661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Computer-aided detection of masses at mammography: interactive decision support versus prompts.
Hupse R; Samulski M; Lobbes MB; Mann RM; Mus R; den Heeten GJ; Beijerinck D; Pijnappel RM; Boetes C; Karssemeijer N
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 23091171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Use of prior mammograms in the transition to digital mammography: a performance and cost analysis.
Taylor-Phillips S; Wallis MG; Duncan A; Gale AG
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jan; 81(1):60-5. PubMed ID: 21095083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Missed and true interval and screen-detected breast cancers in a population based screening program.
Hoff SR; Samset JH; Abrahamsen AL; Vigeland E; Klepp O; Hofvind S
Acad Radiol; 2011 Apr; 18(4):454-60. PubMed ID: 21216632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance.
Roelofs AA; van Woudenberg S; Otten JD; Hendriks JH; Bödicker A; Evertsz CJ; Karssemeijer N
Eur Radiol; 2006 Jan; 16(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 16132926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.
Rawashdeh MA; Lee WB; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard RC; Black DA; Brennan PC
Radiology; 2013 Oct; 269(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 23737538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
Nishikawa RM; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Marques HS; D'Orsi CJ; Farria DM; Kanal KM; Mahoney MC; Rebner M; Staiger MJ;
Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 19332845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].
Marra V; Frigerio A; Di Virgilio MR; Menna S; Burke P
Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):342-6. PubMed ID: 10780212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study.
Setz-Pels W; Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Voogd AC; Jansen FH; Hooijen MJ; Louwman MW
Radiology; 2011 Aug; 260(2):357-63. PubMed ID: 21474705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses.
Varela C; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Holland R
Eur J Radiol; 2005 Nov; 56(2):248-55. PubMed ID: 15890483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
