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 *

60 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2068301)

  • 1. Professional mammographic quality assessment program for a community hospital.
    Reinig JW; Strait CJ
    Radiology; 1991 Aug; 180(2):393-6. PubMed ID: 2068301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [The technique and results of mammography].
    Friedrich M
    Radiologe; 1993 May; 33(5):243-59. PubMed ID: 8516435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The significance of mammographic calcifications in early breast cancer detection.
    Rosselli Del Turco M; Ciatto S; Bravetti P; Pacini P
    Radiol Med; 1986; 72(1-2):7-12. PubMed ID: 3008222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammographically directed breast biopsies: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of clinical physician expectations and of specimen handling and reporting characteristics in 434 institutions.
    Nakhleh RE; Jones B; Zarbo RJ
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Jan; 121(1):11-8. PubMed ID: 9111087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: mammographic appearance and histologic correlation.
    Helvie MA; Hessler C; Frank TS; Ikeda DM
    Radiology; 1991 Jun; 179(3):759-64. PubMed ID: 2027988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mammographic and histologic correlations of microcalcifications.
    de Paredes ES; Abbitt PL; Tabbarah S; Bickers MA; Smith DC
    Radiographics; 1990 Jul; 10(4):577-89. PubMed ID: 2377764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A quantitative analysis of the spatial relationships of grouped microcalcifications demonstrated on xeromammography in benign and malignant breast disease.
    Hansell DM; Cooke JC; Parsons CA; Evans SH; Dance DR; Bliss JM; Llesley I
    Br J Radiol; 1988 Jan; 61(721):21-5. PubMed ID: 2832028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mammographic patterns as markers for high-risk benign breast disease and incident cancers.
    Moskowitz M; Gartside P; McLaughlin C
    Radiology; 1980 Feb; 134(2):293-5. PubMed ID: 7352202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The predictive value of needle localization mammographically assisted biopsy of the breast.
    Senofsky GM; Davies RJ; Olson L; Skully P; Olshen R
    Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1990 Nov; 171(5):361-5. PubMed ID: 2237718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Radiologic types in mammography in the 90-s. New classification].
    Tetti C; Tetti A
    Minerva Ginecol; 1992 Sep; 44(9):437-40. PubMed ID: 1436618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammography in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
    Stomper PC; Gelman RS
    Hematol Oncol Clin North Am; 1989 Dec; 3(4):611-40. PubMed ID: 2691492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Fine needle aspiration cytology in the management of palpable benign and malignant breast disease. Correlation with clinical and mammographic findings.
    Langmuir VK; Cramer SF; Hood ME
    Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(1):93-8. PubMed ID: 2916375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump.
    Dennis MA; Parker SH; Klaus AJ; Stavros AT; Kaske TI; Clark SB
    Radiology; 2001 Apr; 219(1):186-91. PubMed ID: 11274555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Radiology and the breast.
    Albertyn LE
    Aust Fam Physician; 1993 Jan; 22(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 8431170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammographic follow-up of nonpalpable low-suspicion breast abnormalities: one versus two views.
    Datoc PD; Hayes CW; Conway WF; Bosch HA; Neal MP
    Radiology; 1991 Aug; 180(2):387-91. PubMed ID: 2068300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A simple classification system for mammographic reporting.
    Kemp KI; Jackson GL
    Radiology; 1987 Nov; 165(2):319-22. PubMed ID: 3659349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
    Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.
    Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR
    N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Rates of recall for thorough examination and surgical biopsy following mammographic screening. Experience with the screening program in Florence].
    Ciatto S; Rosselli Del Turco M
    Radiol Med; 1991; 82(1-2):56-9. PubMed ID: 1896581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial.
    Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Makariou E; Chan HP; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Lo SC; Freedman M; Adler D; Bailey J; Blane C; Hoff D; Hunt K; Joynt L; Klein K; Paramagul C; Patterson SK; Roubidoux MA
    Radiology; 2004 Apr; 231(1):208-14. PubMed ID: 14990808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.