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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20839001)

  • 1. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.
    Dromain C; Thibault F; Muller S; Rimareix F; Delaloge S; Tardivon A; Balleyguier C
    Eur Radiol; 2011 Mar; 21(3):565-74. PubMed ID: 20839001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study.
    Dromain C; Thibault F; Diekmann F; Fallenberg EM; Jong RA; Koomen M; Hendrick RE; Tardivon A; Toledano A
    Breast Cancer Res; 2012 Jun; 14(3):R94. PubMed ID: 22697607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification.
    Petrillo A; Fusco R; Vallone P; Filice S; Granata V; Petrosino T; Rosaria Rubulotta M; Setola SV; Mattace Raso M; Maio F; Raiano C; Siani C; Di Bonito M; Botti G
    Breast J; 2020 May; 26(5):860-872. PubMed ID: 31886607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.
    Sudhir R; Sannapareddy K; Potlapalli A; Krishnamurthy PB; Buddha S; Koppula V
    Br J Radiol; 2021 Feb; 94(1118):20201046. PubMed ID: 33242249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis--Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
    Chou CP; Lewin JM; Chiang CL; Hung BH; Yang TL; Huang JS; Liao JB; Pan HB
    Eur J Radiol; 2015 Dec; 84(12):2501-8. PubMed ID: 26456307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Dromain C; Balleyguier C; Adler G; Garbay JR; Delaloge S
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 69(1):34-42. PubMed ID: 18790584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
    Sung JS; Lebron L; Keating D; D'Alessio D; Comstock CE; Lee CH; Pike MC; Ayhan M; Moskowitz CS; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
    Radiology; 2019 Oct; 293(1):81-88. PubMed ID: 31453765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Ruppel P; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Bezzon E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Mar; 23(3):664-72. PubMed ID: 22976919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound.
    Patel BK; Garza SA; Eversman S; Lopez-Alvarez Y; Kosiorek H; Pockaj BA
    Clin Imaging; 2017; 46():78-84. PubMed ID: 28750354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
    Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.
    Amir T; Hogan MP; Jacobs S; Sevilimedu V; Sung J; Jochelson MS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 May; 218(5):797-808. PubMed ID: 34817195
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography: a promising new imaging tool in breast cancer detection.
    Lalji U; Lobbes M
    Womens Health (Lond); 2014 May; 10(3):289-98. PubMed ID: 24956295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
    Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM).
    Amato F; Bicchierai G; Cirone D; Depretto C; Di Naro F; Vanzi E; Scaperrotta G; Bartolotta TV; Miele V; Nori J
    Radiol Med; 2019 Dec; 124(12):1229-1237. PubMed ID: 31773458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Fusco R; Raiano N; Raiano C; Maio F; Vallone P; Mattace Raso M; Setola SV; Granata V; Rubulotta MR; Barretta ML; Petrosino T; Petrillo A
    Eur J Radiol; 2020 May; 126():108912. PubMed ID: 32151787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.
    Zuley ML; Bandos AI; Abrams GS; Ganott MA; Gizienski TA; Hakim CM; Kelly AE; Nair BE; Sumkin JH; Waheed U; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 2020 Jul; 27(7):969-976. PubMed ID: 31495761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study.
    Thibault F; Dromain C; Breucq C; Balleyguier CS; Malhaire C; Steyaert L; Tardivon A; Baldan E; Drevon H
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Sep; 23(9):2441-9. PubMed ID: 23673573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia.
    Hogan MP; Amir T; Sevilimedu V; Sung J; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Jun; 216(6):1486-1491. PubMed ID: 33787291
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.