731 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21771958)
1. 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]
2. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging.
Mahoney MC; Gatsonis C; Hanna L; DeMartini WB; Lehman C
Radiology; 2012 Jul; 264(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 22589320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement.
Gutierrez RL; DeMartini WB; Eby PR; Kurland BF; Peacock S; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):994-1000. PubMed ID: 19770321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Characteristics, Malignancy Rate, and Follow-up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Identified at Breast MR Imaging: Implications for MR Image Interpretation and Management.
Chikarmane SA; Birdwell RL; Poole PS; Sippo DA; Giess CS
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):707-15. PubMed ID: 27089027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.
Giger ML; Inciardi MF; Edwards A; Papaioannou J; Drukker K; Jiang Y; Brem R; Brown JB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jun; 206(6):1341-50. PubMed ID: 27043979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.
Abramovici G; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 21285337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the applicability of BI-RADS® MRI for the interpretation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Travieso-Aja MM; Maldonado-Saluzzi D; Naranjo-Santana P; Fernández-Ruiz C; Severino-Rondón W; Rodríguez Rodríguez M; Luzardo OP
Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2019; 61(6):477-488. PubMed ID: 31262509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Performance of users in tropical areas with the BI-RADS classification of breast lesions for predicting malignancy].
Gonsu Kamga JE; Moifo B; Sando Z; Guegang Goudjou E; Nko'o Amvene S; Gonsu Fotsin J
Med Sante Trop; 2013; 23(4):439-44. PubMed ID: 24334372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.
Baker JA; Kornguth PJ; Floyd CE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Apr; 166(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 8610547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Use of BI-RADS-MRI descriptors for differentiation between mucinous carcinoma and fibroadenoma.
Igarashi T; Ashida H; Morikawa K; Motohashi K; Fukuda K
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jun; 85(6):1092-8. PubMed ID: 27161057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Eben EB; Sandhaug M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Stoeblen F
Acta Radiol; 2015 Apr; 56(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 24682405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. MR imaging in probably benign lesions (BI-RADS category 3) of the breast.
Gökalp G; Topal U
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Mar; 57(3):436-44. PubMed ID: 16316732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Scoring system based on BI-RADS lexicon to predict probability of malignancy in suspicious microcalcifications.
Youk JH; Son EJ; Kim JA; Moon HJ; Kim MJ; Choi CH; Kim EK
Ann Surg Oncol; 2012 May; 19(5):1491-8. PubMed ID: 22173328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
