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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21436089)

  • 1. Mammography with synchrotron radiation: first clinical experience with phase-detection technique.
    Castelli E; Tonutti M; Arfelli F; Longo R; Quaia E; Rigon L; Sanabor D; Zanconati F; Dreossi D; Abrami A; Quai E; Bregant P; Casarin K; Chenda V; Menk RH; Rokvic T; Vascotto A; Tromba G; Cova MA
    Radiology; 2011 Jun; 259(3):684-94. PubMed ID: 21436089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial.
    D'Orsi CJ; Getty DJ; Pickett RM; Sechopoulos I; Newell MS; Gundry KR; Bates SR; Nishikawa RM; Sickles EA; Karellas A; D'Orsi EM
    Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 23150865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Diagnostic mammography and sonography: concordance of the breast imaging reporting assessments and final clinical outcome].
    Lorenzen J; Wedel AK; Lisboa BW; Löning T; Adam G
    Rofo; 2005 Nov; 177(11):1545-51. PubMed ID: 16302136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
    Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review.
    Patterson SK; Neal CH; Jeffries DO; Joe A; Klein K; Bailey J; Pinsky R; Paramagul C; Watcharotone K
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Sep; 147(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 25151294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
    Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
    Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
    Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
    Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Signs analysis and clinical assessment: phase-contrast computed tomography of human breast tumours.
    Jian W; Wu M; Shi H; Wang L; Zhang L; Luo S
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(4):e0124143. PubMed ID: 25844722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions.
    Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Padula S; Altomari F; Moriconi E; Pronio AM; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
    Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):670-80. PubMed ID: 17446524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Neddle-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer].
    Becerra-Alcántara GI; Círigo-Villagómez LL; Ramos-Medina F; Robledo-Martínez H; Mar-Merinos CG; Panzi-Altamirano RM
    Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2015 Jul; 83(7):400-7. PubMed ID: 26422910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Nonmasslike enhancement at breast MR imaging: the added value of mammography and US for lesion categorization.
    Thomassin-Naggara I; Trop I; Chopier J; David J; Lalonde L; Darai E; Rouzier R; Uzan S
    Radiology; 2011 Oct; 261(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 21771958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not to be?
    Oztekin PS; Kosar PN
    Breast J; 2014; 20(6):622-31. PubMed ID: 25200378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women.
    Venturini E; Losio C; Panizza P; Rodighiero MG; Fedele I; Tacchini S; Schiani E; Ravelli S; Cristel G; Panzeri MM; De Cobelli F; Del Maschio A
    Radiology; 2013 Aug; 268(2):347-55. PubMed ID: 23579052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
    Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
    Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality.
    O'Connell A; Conover DL; Zhang Y; Seifert P; Logan-Young W; Lin CF; Sahler L; Ning R
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):496-509. PubMed ID: 20651210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical study in phase- contrast mammography: image-quality analysis.
    Longo R; Tonutti M; Rigon L; Arfelli F; Dreossi D; Quai E; Zanconati F; Castelli E; Tromba G; Cova MA
    Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci; 2014 Mar; 372(2010):20130025. PubMed ID: 24470410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
    Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
    Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography.
    Ko JM; Nicholas MJ; Mendel JB; Slanetz PJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):1483-91. PubMed ID: 17114541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.