255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21062924)
1. Combined optical and X-ray tomosynthesis breast imaging.
Fang Q; Selb J; Carp SA; Boverman G; Miller EL; Brooks DH; Moore RH; Kopans DB; Boas DA
Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):89-97. PubMed ID: 21062924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M
Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Digital breast tomosynthesis and breast ultrasound: Additional roles in dense breasts with category 0 at conventional digital mammography.
Lee WK; Chung J; Cha ES; Lee JE; Kim JH
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):291-296. PubMed ID: 26499000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Combined optical imaging and mammography of the healthy breast: optical contrast derived from breast structure and compression.
Fang Q; Carp SA; Selb J; Boverman G; Zhang Q; Kopans DB; Moore RH; Miller EL; Brooks DH; Boas DA
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2009 Jan; 28(1):30-42. PubMed ID: 19116186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Detectability on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-Dimensional Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts.
Lee SH; Jang MJ; Kim SM; Yun B; Rim J; Chang JM; Kim B; Choi HY
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 20(1):58-68. PubMed ID: 30627022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?
Nakashima K; Uematsu T; Itoh T; Takahashi K; Nishimura S; Hayashi T; Sugino T
Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):570-577. PubMed ID: 27236817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Breast percent density: estimation on digital mammograms and central tomosynthesis projections.
Bakic PR; Carton AK; Kontos D; Zhang C; Troxel AB; Maidment AD
Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):40-9. PubMed ID: 19420321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis.
You C; Zhang Y; Gu Y; Xiao Q; Liu G; Shen X; Yang W; Peng W
Breast Cancer; 2020 Jan; 27(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 31302894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening for dense breasts: digital breast tomosynthesis.
Destounis SV; Morgan R; Arieno A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Feb; 204(2):261-4. PubMed ID: 25615747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Fully automated nipple detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Chae SH; Jeong JW; Choi JH; Chae EY; Kim HH; Choi YW; Lee S
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2017 May; 143():113-120. PubMed ID: 28391808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.
Hakim CM; Catullo VJ; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Kelly AE; Shinde DD; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Bandos AI; Gur D
Radiology; 2015 Jul; 276(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 25768673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.
Li X; Qin G; He Q; Sun L; Zeng H; He Z; Chen W; Zhen X; Zhou L
Eur Radiol; 2020 Feb; 30(2):778-788. PubMed ID: 31691121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Slab Thickness: Impact on Reader Performance and Interpretation Time.
Pujara AC; Joe AI; Patterson SK; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Ma T; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Maturen KE
Radiology; 2020 Dec; 297(3):534-542. PubMed ID: 33021891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, digital mammography, and ultrasonography.
Su X; Lin Q; Cui C; Xu W; Wei Z; Fei J; Li L
Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 24(4):562-570. PubMed ID: 27837442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
