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.
149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21458145)
1. Subcategorization of ultrasonographic BI-RADS category 4: positive predictive value and clinical factors affecting it. Yoon JH; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Kwak JY; Kim EK Ultrasound Med Biol; 2011 May; 37(5):693-9. PubMed ID: 21458145 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Subcategorization of Ultrasonographic BI-RADS Category 4: Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Diagnosing Breast Lesions and Influence of Clinical Factors on Positive Predictive Value. He P; Cui LG; Chen W; Yang RL Ultrasound Med Biol; 2019 May; 45(5):1253-1258. PubMed ID: 30799123 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Value of the US BI-RADS final assessment following mastectomy: BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Gweon HM; Son EJ; Youk JH; Kim JA; Chung J Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):255-60. PubMed ID: 22302210 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficiency of Categories 4 and 5 of the Second Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Diagnosing Breast Lesions. Zou X; Wang J; Lan X; Lin Q; Han F; Liu L; Li A Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 42(9):2065-71. PubMed ID: 27262521 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of age on PPV of sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5. Fu CY; Hsu HH; Yu JC; Hsu GC; Hsu KF; Chan DC; Ku CH; Lu TC; Chu CH Ultraschall Med; 2011 Jan; 32 Suppl 1():S8-13. PubMed ID: 20603785 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Simple rules for ultrasonographic subcategorization of BI-RADS®-US 4 breast masses. Jales RM; Sarian LO; Torresan R; Marussi EF; Alvares BR; Derchain S Eur J Radiol; 2013 Aug; 82(8):1231-5. PubMed ID: 23540948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prediction for Breast Cancer in BI-RADS Category 4 Lesion Categorized by Age and Breast Composition of Women in Songklanagarind Hospital. Noonpradej S; Wangkulangkul P; Woodtichartpreecha P; Laohawiriyakamol S Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2021 Feb; 22(2):531-536. PubMed ID: 33639670 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Role of BI-RADS Ultrasound Subcategories 4A to 4C in Predicting Breast Cancer. Spinelli Varella MA; Teixeira da Cruz J; Rauber A; Varella IS; Fleck JF; Moreira LF Clin Breast Cancer; 2018 Aug; 18(4):e507-e511. PubMed ID: 29066139 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Elverici E; Barça AN; Aktaş H; Özsoy A; Zengin B; Çavuşoğlu M; Araz L Diagn Interv Radiol; 2015; 21(3):189-94. PubMed ID: 25835079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biopsy rate and positive predictive value for breast cancer in BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions. Wiratkapun C; Bunyapaiboonsri W; Wibulpolprasert B; Lertsithichai P J Med Assoc Thai; 2010 Jul; 93(7):830-7. PubMed ID: 20649064 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Utility of the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Category 4 Breast Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Study in China. Gu Y; Tian JW; Ran HT; Ren WD; Chang C; Yuan JJ; Kang CS; Deng YB; Wang H; Luo BM; Guo SL; Zhou Q; Xue ES; Zhan WW; Zhou Q; Li J; Zhou P; Zhang CQ; Chen M; Gu Y; Xu JF; Chen W; Zhang YH; Wang HQ; Li JC; Wang HY; Jiang YX Acad Radiol; 2022 Jan; 29 Suppl 1():S26-S34. PubMed ID: 32768352 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Interobserver variability and positive predictive value for ultrasonographic BI-RADS categories requiring pathohistological evaluation. Dobrosavljevic A; Milosevic Z; Plesinac S; Dmitrović A; Jankovic A; Nadrljanski M; Rakic S; Pazin V; Raznatovic SJ; Jurisic A Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2016; 37(1):95-9. PubMed ID: 27048118 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Does power Doppler ultrasonography improve the BI-RADS category assessment and diagnostic accuracy of solid breast lesions? Tozaki M; Fukuma E Acta Radiol; 2011 Sep; 52(7):706-10. PubMed ID: 21596798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Analysis of the positive predictive value of the subcategories of BI-RADS(®) 4 lesions: preliminary results in 880 lesions]. Torres-Tabanera M; Cárdenas-Rebollo JM; Villar-Castaño P; Sánchez-Gómez SM; Cobo-Soler J; Montoro-Martos EE; Sainz-Miranda M Radiologia; 2012; 54(6):520-31. PubMed ID: 21924441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical implications of subcategorizing BI-RADS 4 breast lesions associated with microcalcification: a radiology-pathology correlation study. Sanders MA; Roland L; Sahoo S Breast J; 2010; 16(1):28-31. PubMed ID: 19929890 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Added Value of Statistical Modeling of Backscatter Properties in the Management of Breast Lesions at US. Trop I; Destrempes F; El Khoury M; Robidoux A; Gaboury L; Allard L; Chayer B; Cloutier G Radiology; 2015 Jun; 275(3):666-74. PubMed ID: 25496215 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]