162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21274716)
1. US-guided diffuse optical tomography for breast lesions: the reliability of clinical experience.
Kim MJ; Kim JY; Youn JH; Kim MH; Koo HR; Kim SJ; Sohn YM; Moon HJ; Kim EK
Eur Radiol; 2011 Jul; 21(7):1353-63. PubMed ID: 21274716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prospective assessment of adjunctive ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in women undergoing breast biopsy: Impact on BI-RADS assessments.
Poplack SP; Young CA; Hagemann IS; Luo J; Herman CR; Wiele K; Li S; Zeng Y; Covington MF; Zhu Q
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Dec; 145():110029. PubMed ID: 34801874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interobserver variability of ultrasound elastography: how it affects the diagnosis of breast lesions.
Yoon JH; Kim MH; Kim EK; Moon HJ; Kwak JY; Kim MJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Mar; 196(3):730-6. PubMed ID: 21343520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. US-guided diffused optical tomography: a promising functional imaging technique in breast lesions.
You SS; Jiang YX; Zhu QL; Liu JB; Zhang J; Dai Q; Liu H; Sun Q
Eur Radiol; 2010 Feb; 20(2):309-17. PubMed ID: 19707770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does adding diffuse optical tomography to sonography improve differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions? Observer performance study.
La Yun B; Kim SM; Jang M; Ahn HS; Lyou CY; Kim MS; Kim SA; Song TK; Yoo Y; Chang JH; Kim Y
J Ultrasound Med; 2015 May; 34(5):749-57. PubMed ID: 25911706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessment of Functional Differences in Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions and Improvement of Diagnostic Accuracy by Using US-guided Diffuse Optical Tomography in Conjunction with Conventional US.
Zhu Q; Ricci A; Hegde P; Kane M; Cronin E; Merkulov A; Xu Y; Tavakoli B; Tannenbaum S
Radiology; 2016 Aug; 280(2):387-97. PubMed ID: 26937708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Supplemental use of optical diffusion breast imaging for differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions.
Moon JH; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Kim H; Ko MS; Gong G
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Sep; 197(3):732-9. PubMed ID: 21862818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound.
Lee HJ; Kim EK; Kim MJ; Youk JH; Lee JY; Kang DR; Oh KK
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Feb; 65(2):293-8. PubMed ID: 17531417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Differentiation of benign from malignant solid breast masses: conventional US versus spatial compound imaging.
Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Chung SY; Park SH; Park JM; Han BK; Choe YH; Cho G; Im JG
Radiology; 2005 Dec; 237(3):841-6. PubMed ID: 16304106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of vascular haemoglobin concentrations on ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions.
Lv N; He N; Wu Y; Xie C; Wang Y; Kong Y; Wei W; Wu P
Eur Radiol; 2014 Nov; 24(11):2848-56. PubMed ID: 25097131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Benign versus malignant breast masses: optical differentiation with US-guided optical imaging reconstruction.
Zhu Q; Cronin EB; Currier AA; Vine HS; Huang M; Chen N; Xu C
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):57-66. PubMed ID: 16183924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Nonpalpable breast masses: evaluation by US elastography.
Cho N; Moon WK; Park JS; Cha JH; Jang M; Seong MH
Korean J Radiol; 2008; 9(2):111-8. PubMed ID: 18385557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Solid breast lesions: clinical experience with US-guided diffuse optical tomography combined with conventional US.
Zhi W; Gu X; Qin J; Yin P; Sheng X; Gao SP; Li Q
Radiology; 2012 Nov; 265(2):371-8. PubMed ID: 23012460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Inter- and Intra-Observer Agreement in Ultrasound BI-RADS Classification and Real-Time Elastography Tsukuba Score Assessment of Breast Lesions.
Schwab F; Redling K; Siebert M; Schötzau A; Schoenenberger CA; Zanetti-Dällenbach R
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Nov; 42(11):2622-2629. PubMed ID: 27503826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detecting angiogenesis in breast tumors: comparison of color Doppler flow imaging with ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography.
Zhu Q; You S; Jiang Y; Zhang J; Xiao M; Dai Q; Sun Q
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2011 Jun; 37(6):862-9. PubMed ID: 21531497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of One- and Two-Region of Interest Strain Elastography Measurements in the Differential Diagnosis of Breast Masses.
Park HJ; Kim SM; Yun B; Jang M; Kim B; Lee SH; Ahn HS
Korean J Radiol; 2020 Apr; 21(4):431-441. PubMed ID: 32193891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Characterization of benign and malignant solid breast masses: comparison of conventional US and tissue harmonic imaging.
Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Kim SM; Park SH; Han BK; Choe YH; Park JM; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 17090709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of conventional and automated breast volume ultrasound in the description and characterization of solid breast masses based on BI-RADS features.
Kim H; Cha JH; Oh HY; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Chae EY
Breast Cancer; 2014 Jul; 21(4):423-8. PubMed ID: 23086698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
