245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17265008)
21. Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB).
Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E
Ann Oncol; 2004 Mar; 15(3):450-4. PubMed ID: 14998847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. Breast tomosynthesis for the clarification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions can decrease follow-up examinations and enables immediate cancer diagnosis.
Bahrs SD; Otto V; Hattermann V; Klumpp B; Hahn M; Nikolaou K; Siegmann-Luz K
Acta Radiol; 2018 Oct; 59(10):1176-1183. PubMed ID: 29451022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0 mammogram.
Zanello PA; Robim AF; Oliveira TM; Elias Junior J; Andrade JM; Monteiro CR; Sarmento Filho JM; Carrara HH; Muglia VF
Clinics (Sao Paulo); 2011; 66(3):443-8. PubMed ID: 21552670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories.
Bent CK; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Sayre JW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 May; 194(5):1378-83. PubMed ID: 20410428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.
Kim EK; Ko KH; Oh KK; Kwak JY; You JK; Kim MJ; Park BW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 May; 190(5):1209-15. PubMed ID: 18430833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.
Abramovici G; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 21285337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.
Zonderland HM; Pope TL; Nieborg AJ
Eur Radiol; 2004 Oct; 14(10):1743-50. PubMed ID: 15243715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Stereotactic Mammotome breast biopsy: routine clinical experience and correlation with BI-RADS--classification and histopathology].
Michel SC; Löw R; Singer G; Otto R; Hohl M; Kubik RA
Praxis (Bern 1994); 2007 Sep; 96(39):1459-74. PubMed ID: 17966279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.
Brandt KR; Craig DA; Hoskins TL; Henrichsen TL; Bendel EC; Brandt SR; Mandrekar J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Feb; 200(2):291-8. PubMed ID: 23345348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
