BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19703878)

  • 1. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.
    Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Cole EB; Marques HS; Yaffe MJ; Blevins M; Conant EF; Hendrick RE; Baum JK; Fajardo LL; Jong RA; Koomen MA; Kuzmiak CM; Lee Y; Pavic D; Yoon SC; Padungchaichote W; Gatsonis C
    Radiology; 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57. PubMed ID: 19703878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.
    Hendrick RE; Cole EB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Marques H; Cohen MA; Jong RA; Mawdsley GE; Kanal KM; D'Orsi CJ; Rebner M; Gatsonis C
    Radiology; 2008 Apr; 247(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 18372463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
    Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Cormack JB; Hanna LA; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Jong RA; Rebner M; Tosteson AN; Gatsonis CA;
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83. PubMed ID: 18227537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.
    Pisano ED; Gatsonis CA; Yaffe MJ; Hendrick RE; Tosteson AN; Fryback DG; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Conant EF; Jong RA; Rebner M; D'Orsi CJ
    Radiology; 2005 Aug; 236(2):404-12. PubMed ID: 15961755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
    Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
    Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
    Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Nishikawa RM; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Padungchaichote W; Kuzmiak C; Chayakulkheeree J; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Baum J; Gatsonis C; Pisano E
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Sep; 199(3):W392-401. PubMed ID: 22915432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.
    Tosteson AN; Stout NK; Fryback DG; Acharyya S; Herman BA; Hannah LG; Pisano ED;
    Ann Intern Med; 2008 Jan; 148(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 18166758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.
    Hubbard RA; Zhu W; Horblyuk R; Karliner L; Sprague BL; Henderson L; Lee D; Onega T; Buist DS; Sweet A
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2013 Apr; 138(3):879-87. PubMed ID: 23471650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.
    Del Turco MR; Mantellini P; Ciatto S; Bonardi R; Martinelli F; Lazzari B; Houssami N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Oct; 189(4):860-6. PubMed ID: 17885057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.
    Cole E; Pisano ED; Brown M; Kuzmiak C; Braeuning MP; Kim HH; Jong R; Walsh R
    Acad Radiol; 2004 Aug; 11(8):879-86. PubMed ID: 15288038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
    Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reduction in false-positive results after introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain.
    Sala M; Salas D; Belvis F; Sánchez M; Ferrer J; Ibañez J; Román R; Ferrer F; Vega A; Laso MS; Castells X
    Radiology; 2011 Feb; 258(2):388-95. PubMed ID: 21273520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
    Harvey JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BA; Onega TL;
    Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):752-8. PubMed ID: 23249570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
    Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
    Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).
    McCarthy AM; Yamartino P; Yang J; Bristol M; Conant EF; Armstrong K
    Med Care; 2015 Aug; 53(8):673-8. PubMed ID: 26125419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial.
    Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist AK; Mawdsley GE; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Fajardo LL; Boone JM; Kanal K; Mahesh M; Fleischman RC; Och J; Williams MB; Beideck DJ; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):737-52. PubMed ID: 16878576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.