317 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22415412)
1. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool.
Timmers JM; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Zonderland HM; van Tinteren H; Visser O; Verbeek AL; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
Eur Radiol; 2012 Aug; 22(8):1717-23. PubMed ID: 22415412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A dedicated BI-RADS training programme: effect on the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists.
Timmers JM; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Verbeek AL; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 81(9):2184-8. PubMed ID: 21899969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.
Timmers JM; Verbeek AL; IntHout J; Pijnappel RM; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2013 Sep; 23(9):2413-9. PubMed ID: 23591619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mammographic breast density: How it affects performance indicators in screening programmes?
Posso M; Louro J; Sánchez M; Román M; Vidal C; Sala M; Baré M; Castells X;
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 110():81-87. PubMed ID: 30599878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sensitivity of screening mammography by density and texture: a cohort study from a population-based screening program in Denmark.
von Euler-Chelpin M; Lillholm M; Vejborg I; Nielsen M; Lynge E
Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Oct; 21(1):111. PubMed ID: 31623646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.
Zonderland HM; Pope TL; Nieborg AJ
Eur Radiol; 2004 Oct; 14(10):1743-50. PubMed ID: 15243715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Prevalence and Predictive Value of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Correlation with Study Indication.
Chikarmane SA; Tai R; Meyer JE; Giess CS
Acad Radiol; 2017 Apr; 24(4):435-441. PubMed ID: 27955878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective.
Mohamed AA; Luo Y; Peng H; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
J Digit Imaging; 2018 Aug; 31(4):387-392. PubMed ID: 28932980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Application of the downgrade criteria to supplemental screening ultrasound for women with negative mammography but dense breasts.
Kim SY; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Kim EK
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Nov; 95(44):e5279. PubMed ID: 27858896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI.
Strigel RM; Burnside ES; Elezaby M; Fowler AM; Kelcz F; Salkowski LR; DeMartini WB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1392-1399. PubMed ID: 28792802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Role of Clinical and Imaging Risk Factors in Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis Among BI-RADS 4 Cases.
Hsu W; Zhou X; Petruse A; Chau N; Lee-Felker S; Hoyt A; Wenger N; Elashoff D; Naeim A
Clin Breast Cancer; 2019 Feb; 19(1):e142-e151. PubMed ID: 30366654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
