196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22289153)
1. Outcome of mammography in women with large breasts.
Gayde C; Goolam I; Bangash HK; Tresham J; Fritschi L; Wylie E
Breast; 2012 Aug; 21(4):493-8. PubMed ID: 22289153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of screening whole-breast sonography as a supplemental tool in conjunction with mammography in women with dense breasts.
Chae EY; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Kim H
J Ultrasound Med; 2013 Sep; 32(9):1573-8. PubMed ID: 23980217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Automated Volumetric Analysis of Mammographic Density in a Screening Setting: Worse Outcomes for Women with Dense Breasts.
Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Lee CI; Akslen LA; Tsuruda KM; Elmore JG; Hofvind S
Radiology; 2018 Aug; 288(2):343-352. PubMed ID: 29944088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.
Kerlikowske K; Zhu W; Tosteson AN; Sprague BL; Tice JA; Lehman CD; Miglioretti DL;
Ann Intern Med; 2015 May; 162(10):673-81. PubMed ID: 25984843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up.
Corsetti V; Houssami N; Ghirardi M; Ferrari A; Speziani M; Bellarosa S; Remida G; Gasparotti C; Galligioni E; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2011 May; 47(7):1021-6. PubMed ID: 21211962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program.
Buchberger W; Geiger-Gritsch S; Knapp R; Gautsch K; Oberaigner W
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Apr; 101():24-29. PubMed ID: 29571797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital volumetric measurement of mammographic density and the risk of overlooking cancer in Japanese women.
Sawada T; Akashi S; Nakamura S; Kuwayama T; Enokido K; Yoshida M; Hashimoto R; Ide T; Masuda H; Taruno K; Oyama H; Takamaru T; Kanada Y; Ikeda M; Kosugi N; Sato H; Nakayama S; Ata A; Tonouchi Y; Sakai H; Matsunaga Y; Matsutani A
Breast Cancer; 2017 Sep; 24(5):708-713. PubMed ID: 28238177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound in women recalled after mammography screening.
Hellgren R; Dickman P; Leifland K; Saracco A; Hall P; Celebioglu F
Acta Radiol; 2017 May; 58(5):515-520. PubMed ID: 27565633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study.
Brem RF; Tabár L; Duffy SW; Inciardi MF; Guingrich JA; Hashimoto BE; Lander MR; Lapidus RL; Peterson MK; Rapelyea JA; Roux S; Schilling KJ; Shah BA; Torrente J; Wynn RT; Miller DP
Radiology; 2015 Mar; 274(3):663-73. PubMed ID: 25329763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Macaskill P
Lancet Oncol; 2013 Jun; 14(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 23623721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.
Rhodes DJ; Hruska CB; Phillips SW; Whaley DH; O'Connor MK
Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):106-18. PubMed ID: 21045179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors.
Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Wray LA; Helvie MA
Radiology; 2004 Jan; 230(1):42-8. PubMed ID: 14695385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program.
Oestreicher N; Lehman CD; Seger DJ; Buist DS; White E
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):428-32. PubMed ID: 15671358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Berg WA; Gutierrez L; NessAiver MS; Carter WB; Bhargavan M; Lewis RS; Ioffe OB
Radiology; 2004 Dec; 233(3):830-49. PubMed ID: 15486214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.
White E; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Kerlikowske K; Saba L; Vacek PM; Carney PA; Buist DS; Oestreicher N; Barlow W; Ballard-Barbash R; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Dec; 96(24):1832-9. PubMed ID: 15601639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Body weight and sensitivity of screening mammography.
Njor SH; von Euler-Chelpin M; Tjønneland A; Vejborg I; Lynge E
Eur J Cancer; 2016 Jun; 60():93-100. PubMed ID: 27085424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Characteristics of breast cancers detected by ultrasound screening in women with negative mammograms.
Bae MS; Han W; Koo HR; Cho N; Chang JM; Yi A; Park IA; Noh DY; Choi WS; Moon WK
Cancer Sci; 2011 Oct; 102(10):1862-7. PubMed ID: 21752153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Radiologist-performed hand-held ultrasound screening at average risk of breast cancer: results from a single health screening center.
Chang JM; Koo HR; Moon WK
Acta Radiol; 2015 Jun; 56(6):652-8. PubMed ID: 24951614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years.
Miller AB; Baines CJ; To T; Wall C
CMAJ; 1992 Nov; 147(10):1477-88. PubMed ID: 1423088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. New mammography screening performance metrics based on the entire screening episode.
Sprague BL; Miglioretti DL; Lee CI; Perry H; Tosteson AAN; Kerlikowske K
Cancer; 2020 Jul; 126(14):3289-3296. PubMed ID: 32374471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
