121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21924441)
1. [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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Usefulness and limitations of the Japan Mammography Guidelines for the categorization of microcalcifications.
Uematsu T; Kasami M; Yuen S
Breast Cancer; 2008; 15(4):291-7. PubMed ID: 18288569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. "Category 4A" microcalcifications: how should this subcategory be applied to microcalcifications seen on mammography?
Kim J; Kim EK; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH
Acta Radiol; 2018 Feb; 59(2):147-153. PubMed ID: 28490180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ultrasound positive predictive values by BI-RADS categories 3-5 for solid masses: An independent reader study.
Stavros AT; Freitas AG; deMello GGN; Barke L; McDonald D; Kaske T; Wolverton D; Honick A; Stanzani D; Padovan AH; Moura APC; de Campos MCV
Eur Radiol; 2017 Oct; 27(10):4307-4315. PubMed ID: 28396996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. A multiparametric classification system for lesions detected by breast magnetic resonance imaging.
Istomin A; Masarwah A; Okuma H; Sutela A; Vanninen R; Sudah M
Eur J Radiol; 2020 Nov; 132():109322. PubMed ID: 33045483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.
Liberman L; Abramson AF; Squires FB; Glassman JR; Morris EA; Dershaw DD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9648759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories.
Bent CK; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Sayre JW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 May; 194(5):1378-83. PubMed ID: 20410428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.
Hong AS; Rosen EL; Soo MS; Baker JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Apr; 184(4):1260-5. PubMed ID: 15788607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
