160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22441915)
1. Complex breast masses: assessment of malignant potential based on cyst diameter.
Jales RM; Sarian LO; Peralta CF; Torresan R; Marussi EF; Alvares BR; Derchain S
J Ultrasound Med; 2012 Apr; 31(4):581-7. PubMed ID: 22441915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cysts within Otherwise Probably Benign Solid Breast Masses and the Risk of Malignancy.
Jales RM; Araujo KG; Sarian LO; Serra KP; Keppke H; Francisco J; Derchain SF
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2016 Apr; 38(4):170-6. PubMed ID: 27093646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Bayesian probability of malignancy with BI-RADS sonographic features.
Bouzghar G; Levenback BJ; Sultan LR; Venkatesh SS; Cwanger A; Conant EF; Sehgal CM
J Ultrasound Med; 2014 Apr; 33(4):641-8. PubMed ID: 24658943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS.
Heinig J; Witteler R; Schmitz R; Kiesel L; Steinhard J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 32(4):573-8. PubMed ID: 18421795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [The value of ultrasound classification in BI-RADS category 4 of breast complex cystic masses].
Yao JP; Niu LJ; Wang Y; Geng CY; Chang Q; Chen Y; Zhu L
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2018 Sep; 40(9):672-675. PubMed ID: 30293391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of retraction phenomenon and BI-RADS-US descriptors in differentiating benign and malignant breast masses using an automated breast volume scanner.
Zheng FY; Yan LX; Huang BJ; Xia HS; Wang X; Lu Q; Li CX; Wang WP
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Nov; 84(11):2123-9. PubMed ID: 26272029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon.
Costantini M; Belli P; Lombardi R; Franceschini G; Mulè A; Bonomo L
J Ultrasound Med; 2006 May; 25(5):649-59; quiz 661. PubMed ID: 16632790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses.
Berg WA; Cosgrove DO; Doré CJ; Schäfer FK; Svensson WE; Hooley RJ; Ohlinger R; Mendelson EB; Balu-Maestro C; Locatelli M; Tourasse C; Cavanaugh BC; Juhan V; Stavros AT; Tardivon A; Gay J; Henry JP; Cohen-Bacrie C;
Radiology; 2012 Feb; 262(2):435-49. PubMed ID: 22282182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Automated Breast Volume Scanning: Identifying 3-D Coronal Plane Imaging Features May Help Categorize Complex Cysts.
Wang HY; Jiang YX; Zhu QL; Zhang J; Xiao MS; Liu H; Dai Q; Li JC; Sun Q
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Mar; 42(3):689-98. PubMed ID: 26742895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.
Neuschler EI; Butler R; Young CA; Barke LD; Bertrand ML; Böhm-Vélez M; Destounis S; Donlan P; Grobmyer SR; Katzen J; Kist KA; Lavin PT; Makariou EV; Parris TM; Schilling KJ; Tucker FL; Dogan BE
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):398-412. PubMed ID: 29178816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Usefulness of combined BI-RADS analysis and Nakagami statistics of ultrasound echoes in the diagnosis of breast lesions.
Dobruch-Sobczak K; Piotrzkowska-Wróblewska H; Roszkowska-Purska K; Nowicki A; Jakubowski W
Clin Radiol; 2017 Apr; 72(4):339.e7-339.e15. PubMed ID: 28038779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Differentiation of benign from malignant nonpalpable breast masses: a comparison of computer-assisted quantification and visual assessment of lesion stiffness with the use of sonographic elastography.
Chung SY; Moon WK; Choi JW; Cho N; Jang M; Kim KG
Acta Radiol; 2010 Feb; 51(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 19929254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification.
Costantini M; Belli P; Ierardi C; Franceschini G; La Torre G; Bonomo L
Radiol Med; 2007 Sep; 112(6):877-94. PubMed ID: 17885742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical significance of interval changes in breast lesions initially categorized as probably benign on breast ultrasound.
Jang JY; Kim SM; Kim JH; Jang M; La Yun B; Lee JY; Lee SH; Kim B
Medicine (Baltimore); 2017 Mar; 96(12):e6415. PubMed ID: 28328843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Combined Use of Ultrasound Elastography and B-Mode Sonography for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Circumscribed Breast Masses.
Kim SY; Park JS; Koo HR
J Ultrasound Med; 2015 Nov; 34(11):1951-9. PubMed ID: 26384609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Risk of malignancy in palpable solid breast masses considered probably benign or low suspicion: implications for management.
Giess CS; Smeglin LZ; Meyer JE; Ritner JA; Birdwell RL
J Ultrasound Med; 2012 Dec; 31(12):1943-9. PubMed ID: 23197547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up.
Berg WA; Zhang Z; Cormack JB; Mendelson EB
Radiology; 2013 Sep; 268(3):673-83. PubMed ID: 23616634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic performance of quantitative shear wave elastography in the evaluation of solid breast masses: determination of the most discriminatory parameter.
Au FW; Ghai S; Moshonov H; Kahn H; Brennan C; Dua H; Crystal P
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):W328-36. PubMed ID: 25148191
[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]
