These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23150865)

  • 1. Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial.
    D'Orsi CJ; Getty DJ; Pickett RM; Sechopoulos I; Newell MS; Gundry KR; Bates SR; Nishikawa RM; Sickles EA; Karellas A; D'Orsi EM
    Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 23150865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF
    Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.
    Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):273-81. PubMed ID: 24450665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.
    Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):104-13. PubMed ID: 23169790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mammography with synchrotron radiation: first clinical experience with phase-detection technique.
    Castelli E; Tonutti M; Arfelli F; Longo R; Quaia E; Rigon L; Sanabor D; Zanconati F; Dreossi D; Abrami A; Quai E; Bregant P; Casarin K; Chenda V; Menk RH; Rokvic T; Vascotto A; Tromba G; Cova MA
    Radiology; 2011 Jun; 259(3):684-94. PubMed ID: 21436089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature.
    Carbonaro LA; Di Leo G; Clauser P; Trimboli RM; Verardi N; Fedeli MP; Girometti R; Tafà A; Bruscoli P; Saguatti G; Bazzocchi M; Sardanelli F
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 Apr; 85(4):808-14. PubMed ID: 26971428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
    Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
    Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
    Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
    Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.
    McDonald ES; Oustimov A; Weinstein SP; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
    JAMA Oncol; 2016 Jun; 2(6):737-43. PubMed ID: 26893205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Lourenco AP; Barry-Brooks M; Baird GL; Tuttle A; Mainiero MB
    Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):337-42. PubMed ID: 25247407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
    Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
    Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
    Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
    Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
    Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial).
    Martincich L; Faivre-Pierret M; Zechmann CM; Corcione S; van den Bosch HC; Peng WJ; Petrillo A; Siegmann KC; Heverhagen JT; Panizza P; Gehl HB; Diekmann F; Pediconi F; Ma L; Gilbert FJ; Sardanelli F; Belli P; Salvatore M; Kreitner KF; Weiss CM; Zuiani C
    Radiology; 2011 Feb; 258(2):396-408. PubMed ID: 21163915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
    Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.
    Partyka L; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jul; 203(1):216-22. PubMed ID: 24951218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
    Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
    Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.