231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20131074)
1. Contrast detail phantom comparison on a commercially available unit. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Borasi G; Botti A; Tassoni D; Sghedoni R; Zuccoli G
J Digit Imaging; 2011 Feb; 24(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20131074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis on assessment of the lesions in dense breast: a preliminary study].
Li Y; Ye ZX; Wu T; An YH; Liu PF; Bao RX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2013 Jan; 35(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 23648297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software.
Tagliafico A; Tagliafico G; Astengo D; Cavagnetto F; Rosasco R; Rescinito G; Monetti F; Calabrese M
Eur Radiol; 2012 Jun; 22(6):1265-70. PubMed ID: 22358426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.
Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Ko ES; Hahn SY; Shin JH; Kim MJ
Eur Radiol; 2016 Aug; 26(8):2538-46. PubMed ID: 26628063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Choi Y; Woo OH; Shin HS; Cho KR; Seo BK; Choi GY
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():12-17. PubMed ID: 30703693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.
Freer PE; Riegert J; Eisenmenger L; Ose D; Winkler N; Stein MA; Stoddard GJ; Hess R
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(2):501-509. PubMed ID: 28780702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging.
Pertuz S; McDonald ES; Weinstein SP; Conant EF; Kontos D
Radiology; 2016 Apr; 279(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 26491909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Monte-Carlo simulation of a slot-scanning digital mammography system for tomosynthesis.
Kulkarni M; Dendere R; Nicolls F; Douglas TS
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016; 24(2):191-206. PubMed ID: 27002901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.
Vecchio S; Albanese A; Vignoli P; Taibi A
Eur Radiol; 2011 Jun; 21(6):1207-13. PubMed ID: 21193910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In-plane image quality and NPWE detectability index in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Monnin P; Verdun FR; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2020 May; 65(9):095013. PubMed ID: 32191923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
