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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20032826)

  • 21. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
    Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
    Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation.
    Bassett LW; Hoyt AC; Oshiro T
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):903-15. PubMed ID: 20868893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Status of mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: digital versus film.
    Dershaw DD
    Breast J; 2006; 12(2):99-102. PubMed ID: 16509833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan.
    Yamada T
    Breast Cancer; 2010 Jul; 17(3):163-8. PubMed ID: 20143190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    Cohen EO; Tso HH; Phalak KA; Mayo RC; Leung JWT
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Aug; 211(2):445-451. PubMed ID: 29792742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
    Karssemeijer N; Bluekens AM; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; Beekman M; Visser R; van Engen R; Bartels-Kortland A; Broeders MJ
    Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography.
    Zuckerman SP; Maidment ADA; Weinstein SP; McDonald ES; Conant EF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):222-229. PubMed ID: 28463546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. How to transition to digital mammography.
    Zuley M
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2007 Mar; 4(3):178-83. PubMed ID: 17412259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK
    Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
    Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Digital mammography: physical principles and future applications.
    Gambaccini M; Baldelli P
    Radiol Med; 2003; 106(5-6):454-64; quiz 465-6. PubMed ID: 14735011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Digital mammography: novel applications.
    Rafferty EA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):831-43, vii. PubMed ID: 17888772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
    Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
    Bluekens AM; Holland R; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
    Radiology; 2012 Dec; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.