141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23374551)
1. Why is microcalcification missed on mammography?
Peters G; Jones CM; Daniels K
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2013 Feb; 57(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 23374551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of the presence of invasive disease from the measurement of extent of malignant microcalcification on mammography and ductal carcinoma in situ grade at core biopsy.
O'Flynn EA; Morel JC; Gonzalez J; Dutt N; Evans D; Wasan R; Michell MJ
Clin Radiol; 2009 Feb; 64(2):178-83. PubMed ID: 19103348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening.
Hofvind S; Iversen BF; Eriksen L; Styr BM; Kjellevold K; Kurz KD
Acta Radiol; 2011 Jun; 52(5):481-7. PubMed ID: 21498306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The diagnostic sensitivity of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and breast-specific gamma imaging in women with calcified and non-calcified DCIS.
Kim JS; Lee SM; Cha ES
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):668-75. PubMed ID: 24043881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in mammographically detected microcalcification in patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia, atypical ductal hyperplasia or ductal carcinoma in situ and recommendations for a selective approach to sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Catteau X; Simon P; Noël JC
Pathol Res Pract; 2012 Apr; 208(4):217-20. PubMed ID: 22445178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification.
Bagnall MJ; Evans AJ; Wilson AR; Pinder SE; Denley H; Geraghty JG; Ellis IO
Clin Radiol; 2001 Oct; 56(10):828-32. PubMed ID: 11895299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.
Elmore JG; Nakano CY; Koepsell TD; Desnick LM; D'Orsi CJ; Ransohoff DF
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Sep; 95(18):1384-93. PubMed ID: 13130114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Is mammographic microcalcification of biological significance?
Holme TC; Reis MM; Thompson A; Robertson A; Parham D; Hickman P; Preece PE
Eur J Surg Oncol; 1993 Jun; 19(3):250-3. PubMed ID: 8390947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reassessment of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography: a community-based study.
Yankaskas BC; Schell MJ; Bird RE; Desrochers DA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):535-41. PubMed ID: 11517043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Usefulness and limitations of the Japan Mammography Guidelines for the categorization of microcalcifications.
Uematsu T; Kasami M; Yuen S
Breast Cancer; 2008; 15(4):291-7. PubMed ID: 18288569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass.
Stomper PC; Geradts J; Edge SB; Levine EG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Dec; 181(6):1679-84. PubMed ID: 14627596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. How significant is detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme?
Kessar P; Perry N; Vinnicombe SJ; Hussain HK; Carpenter R; Wells CA
Clin Radiol; 2002 Sep; 57(9):807-14. PubMed ID: 12384106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project.
Evans A; Clements K; Maxwell A; Bishop H; Hanby A; Lawrence G; Pinder SE;
Clin Radiol; 2010 Mar; 65(3):181-4. PubMed ID: 20152272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The impact of image guided needle biopsy on the outcome of mammographically detected indeterminate microcalcification.
Al-Attar MA; Michell MJ; Ralleigh G; Evans D; Wasan R; Bose S; Akbar N
Breast; 2006 Oct; 15(5):635-9. PubMed ID: 16488148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mucocele-like lesions of the breast: a benign cause for indeterminate or suspicious mammographic microcalcifications.
Farshid G; Pieterse S; King JM; Robinson J
Breast J; 2005; 11(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 15647073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of artificial intelligence in 7533 consecutive prevalent screening mammograms from the BreastScreen Australia program.
Waugh J; Evans J; Miocevic M; Lockie D; Aminzadeh P; Lynch A; Bell RJ
Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun; 34(6):3947-3957. PubMed ID: 37955669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease?
Evans AJ; Pinder SE; Ellis IO; Wilson AR
J Med Screen; 2001; 8(3):149-51. PubMed ID: 11678555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.
James JJ; Gilbert FJ; Wallis MG; Gillan MG; Astley SM; Boggis CR; Agbaje OF; Brentnall AR; Duffy SW
Radiology; 2010 Aug; 256(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 20656831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) present on previous mammography.
Evans AJ; Wilson AR; Burrell HC; Ellis IO; Pinder SE
Clin Radiol; 1999 Oct; 54(10):644-6. PubMed ID: 10541387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
