These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17400760)

  • 1. Electromagnetic breast imaging: results of a pilot study in women with abnormal mammograms.
    Poplack SP; Tosteson TD; Wells WA; Pogue BW; Meaney PM; Hartov A; Kogel CA; Soho SK; Gibson JJ; Paulsen KD
    Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):350-9. PubMed ID: 17400760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
    Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
    Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.
    Rhodes DJ; Hruska CB; Phillips SW; Whaley DH; O'Connor MK
    Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):106-18. PubMed ID: 21045179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality.
    O'Connell A; Conover DL; Zhang Y; Seifert P; Logan-Young W; Lin CF; Sahler L; Ning R
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):496-509. PubMed ID: 20651210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution.
    Kuhl CK; Schild HH; Morakkabati N
    Radiology; 2005 Sep; 236(3):789-800. PubMed ID: 16118161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.
    McCarthy AM; Keller B; Kontos D; Boghossian L; McGuire E; Bristol M; Chen J; Domchek S; Armstrong K
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Jan; 17(1):1. PubMed ID: 25567532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Occult breast cancer: scintimammography with high-resolution breast-specific gamma camera in women at high risk for breast cancer.
    Brem RF; Rapelyea JA; Zisman G; Mohtashemi K; Raub J; Teal CB; Majewski S; Welch BL
    Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):274-80. PubMed ID: 16126919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography.
    Zhao B; Zhang X; Cai W; Conover D; Ning R
    Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jan; 84(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 25439008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening.
    Brandt KR; Scott CG; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Jensen MR; Whaley DH; Wu FF; Malkov S; Hruska CB; Norman AD; Heine J; Shepherd J; Pankratz VS; Kerlikowske K; Vachon CM
    Radiology; 2016 Jun; 279(3):710-9. PubMed ID: 26694052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories.
    Martin KE; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Paramagul C; Blane CE; Klein KA; Sonnad SS; Chan HP
    Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):656-65. PubMed ID: 16857974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Added Value of Statistical Modeling of Backscatter Properties in the Management of Breast Lesions at US.
    Trop I; Destrempes F; El Khoury M; Robidoux A; Gaboury L; Allard L; Chayer B; Cloutier G
    Radiology; 2015 Jun; 275(3):666-74. PubMed ID: 25496215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The negative predictive value of electrical impedance scanning in BI-RADS category IV breast lesions.
    Fuchsjaeger MH; Flöry D; Reiner CS; Rudas M; Riedl CC; Helbich TH
    Invest Radiol; 2005 Jul; 40(7):478-85. PubMed ID: 15973141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses.
    Berg WA; Cosgrove DO; Doré CJ; Schäfer FK; Svensson WE; Hooley RJ; Ohlinger R; Mendelson EB; Balu-Maestro C; Locatelli M; Tourasse C; Cavanaugh BC; Juhan V; Stavros AT; Tardivon A; Gay J; Henry JP; Cohen-Bacrie C;
    Radiology; 2012 Feb; 262(2):435-49. PubMed ID: 22282182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.