BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23249570)

  • 1. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
    Harvey JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BA; Onega TL;
    Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):752-8. PubMed ID: 23249570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
    Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Cormack JB; Hanna LA; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Jong RA; Rebner M; Tosteson AN; Gatsonis CA;
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83. PubMed ID: 18227537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.
    Seo BK; Pisano ED; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen M; Pavic D; McLelland R; Lee Y; Cole EB; Mattingly D; Lee J
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Oct; 13(10):1229-35. PubMed ID: 16979072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    Gastounioti A; McCarthy AM; Pantalone L; Synnestvedt M; Kontos D; Conant EF
    Radiology; 2019 May; 291(2):320-327. PubMed ID: 30888933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing Mammographic Density Assessed by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis or Digital Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Tice JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Joe BN; Ho TH; Kerlikowske K
    Radiology; 2022 Feb; 302(2):286-292. PubMed ID: 34812671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.
    Nishikawa RM; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Marques HS; D'Orsi CJ; Farria DM; Kanal KM; Mahoney MC; Rebner M; Staiger MJ;
    Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 19332845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The influence of mammogram acquisition on the mammographic density and breast cancer association in the Mayo Mammography Health Study cohort.
    Olson JE; Sellers TA; Scott CG; Schueler BA; Brandt KR; Serie DJ; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Morton MJ; Heine JJ; Couch FJ; Pankratz VS; Vachon CM
    Breast Cancer Res; 2012 Nov; 14(6):R147. PubMed ID: 23152984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.
    Haygood TM; Wang J; Atkinson EN; Lane D; Stephens TW; Patel P; Whitman GJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Jan; 192(1):216-20. PubMed ID: 19098202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.
    Chiarelli AM; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Shumak RS; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Done SJ; Yaffe MJ
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Nov; 154(2):377-87. PubMed ID: 26518019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories.
    Martin KE; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Paramagul C; Blane CE; Klein KA; Sonnad SS; Chan HP
    Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):656-65. PubMed ID: 16857974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Dec; 90(23):1801-9. PubMed ID: 9839520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using Volumetric Breast Density to Quantify the Potential Masking Risk of Mammographic Density.
    Destounis S; Johnston L; Highnam R; Arieno A; Morgan R; Chan A
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jan; 208(1):222-227. PubMed ID: 27824483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].
    Hauth EA; Khan K; Wolfgarten B; Betzler A; Kimmig R; Forsting M
    Radiologe; 2008 Mar; 48(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 17265008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Risk stratification of women with false-positive test results in mammography screening based on mammographic morphology and density: A case control study.
    Winkel RR; Euler-Chelpin MV; Lynge E; Diao P; Lillholm M; Kallenberg M; Forman JL; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Nielsen M; Vejborg I
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 49():53-60. PubMed ID: 28558329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Variability of breast density assessment in short-term reimaging with digital mammography.
    Kim WH; Moon WK; Kim SM; Yi A; Chang JM; Koo HR; Lee SH; Cho N
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):1724-30. PubMed ID: 23727379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
    Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.
    Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Cole EB; Marques HS; Yaffe MJ; Blevins M; Conant EF; Hendrick RE; Baum JK; Fajardo LL; Jong RA; Koomen MA; Kuzmiak CM; Lee Y; Pavic D; Yoon SC; Padungchaichote W; Gatsonis C
    Radiology; 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57. PubMed ID: 19703878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.