BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

358 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17456866)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. History repeats.
    Kopans DB
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):645; author reply 645-6. PubMed ID: 18227558
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
    Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.
    Schell MJ; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Qaqish BF; Barlow WE; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R
    Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):681-9. PubMed ID: 17517927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
    Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
    Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
    Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial.
    D'Orsi CJ; Getty DJ; Pickett RM; Sechopoulos I; Newell MS; Gundry KR; Bates SR; Nishikawa RM; Sickles EA; Karellas A; D'Orsi EM
    Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 23150865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations.
    Dang PA; Freer PE; Humphrey KL; Halpern EF; Rafferty EA
    Radiology; 2014 Jan; 270(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 24354377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.
    Johnson JM; Johnson AK; O'Meara ES; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Hotaling EN; Herschorn SD
    Radiology; 2015 Apr; 275(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 25423143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.
    Skaane P; Bandos AI; Gullien R; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Izadi M; Jebsen IN; Jahr G; Krager M; Niklason LT; Hofvind S; Gur D
    Radiology; 2013 Apr; 267(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 23297332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial.
    Bernardi D; Caumo F; Macaskill P; Ciatto S; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Houssami N
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 May; 50(7):1232-8. PubMed ID: 24582915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.