193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23379630)
21. [Consultation in breast surgical pathology: interobserver diagnostic variability of atypical intraductal proliferative lesions].
Perez AA; Balabram D; Salles Mde A; Gobbi H
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2013 Apr; 35(4):164-70. PubMed ID: 23752581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology.
Wells WA; Carney PA; Eliassen MS; Tosteson AN; Greenberg ER
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Jan; 90(2):142-5. PubMed ID: 9450574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound, First Edition (2003).
Park CS; Lee JH; Yim HW; Kang BJ; Kim HS; Jung JI; Jung NY; Kim SH
Korean J Radiol; 2007; 8(5):397-402. PubMed ID: 17923782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Diagnosis of Papillary Breast Lesions on Core Needle Biopsy: Upgrade Rates and Interobserver Variability.
Qiu L; Mais DD; Nicolas M; Nanyes J; Kist K; Nazarullah A
Int J Surg Pathol; 2019 Oct; 27(7):736-743. PubMed ID: 31187678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Validation and Modification of the Masood Scoring Index for the Diagnosis of Atypical Breast Lesions.
Semwal S; Joshi D; Khare A; Goel G; Kapoor N
Acta Cytol; 2017; 61(2):111-116. PubMed ID: 28399518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Diagnostic concordance of breast pathologists: lessons from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme Pathology External Quality Assurance Scheme.
Rakha EA; Ahmed MA; Aleskandarany MA; Hodi Z; Lee AH; Pinder SE; Ellis IO
Histopathology; 2017 Mar; 70(4):632-642. PubMed ID: 28028831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Interobserver Agreement for the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System for Reporting Breast Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Cytopathology.
Layfield LJ; Wang G; Yang ZJ; Gomez-Fernandez C; Esebua M; Schmidt RL
Acta Cytol; 2020; 64(5):413-419. PubMed ID: 32428908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes.
Wells WA; Carney PA; Eliassen MS; Grove MR; Tosteson AN
Am J Surg Pathol; 2000 May; 24(5):651-9. PubMed ID: 10800983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Diagnostic concordance of reporting lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer.
Rakha EA; Abbas A; Pinto Ahumada P; ElSayed ME; Colman D; Pinder SE; Ellis IO
J Clin Pathol; 2018 Sep; 71(9):802-805. PubMed ID: 29599396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Diagnostic criteria and cancer risk of proliferative breast lesions.
Jensen RA; Dupont WD; Page DL
J Cell Biochem Suppl; 1993; 17G():59-64. PubMed ID: 8007711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reproducibility of three classification systems of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using a web-based survey.
Schuh F; Biazús JV; Resetkova E; Benfica CZ; Edelweiss MI
Pathol Res Pract; 2010 Oct; 206(10):705-11. PubMed ID: 20663616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Impact of immunohistochemical markers, CK5/6 and E-cadherin on diagnostic agreement in non-invasive proliferative breast lesions.
MacGrogan G; Arnould L; de Mascarel I; Vincent-Salomon A; Penault-Llorca F; Lacroix-Triki M; Bibeau F; Baranzelli MC; Fridman V; Antoine M; Bécette V; Brouste V; Jacquemier J; Mathoulin-Pélissier S;
Histopathology; 2008 May; 52(6):689-97. PubMed ID: 18397281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Review of the national external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for breast pathology in the UK.
Rakha EA; Bennett RL; Coleman D; Pinder SE; Ellis IO;
J Clin Pathol; 2017 Jan; 70(1):51-57. PubMed ID: 27406051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Variability in Pathologists' Interpretations of Individual Breast Biopsy Slides: A Population Perspective.
Elmore JG; Nelson HD; Pepe MS; Longton GM; Tosteson AN; Geller B; Onega T; Carney PA; Jackson SL; Allison KH; Weaver DL
Ann Intern Med; 2016 May; 164(10):649-55. PubMed ID: 26999810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility?
Tan PH; Ho BC; Selvarajan S; Yap WM; Hanby A
J Clin Pathol; 2005 Jul; 58(7):705-9. PubMed ID: 15976336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Inter-observer agreement in the diagnosis of breast atypical ductal hyperplasia: A systematic review.
González Mariño MA
Breast Dis; 2022; 41(1):545-550. PubMed ID: 36683493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Reproducibility of histological diagnosis of breast lesions: results of a panel in Italy.
Palli D; Galli M; Bianchi S; Bussolati G; Di Palma S; Eusebi V; Gambacorta M; Rosselli Del Turco M
Eur J Cancer; 1996 Apr; 32A(4):603-7. PubMed ID: 8695260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Reproducibility in the diagnosis of needle core biopsies of non-palpable breast lesions: an international study using virtual slides published on the world-wide web.
Zito FA; Verderio P; Simone G; Angione V; Apicella P; Bianchi S; Conde AF; Hameed O; Ibarra J; Leong A; Pennelli N; Pezzica E; Vezzosi V; Ventrella V; Pizzamiglio S; Paradiso A; Ellis I
Histopathology; 2010 May; 56(6):720-6. PubMed ID: 20546337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel.
Allison KH; Reisch LM; Carney PA; Weaver DL; Schnitt SJ; O'Malley FP; Geller BM; Elmore JG
Histopathology; 2014 Aug; 65(2):240-51. PubMed ID: 24511905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Inter-observer reproducibility of classical lobular neoplasia (B3 lesions) in preoperative breast biopsies: a study of the Swiss Working Group of breast and gynecopathologists.
Moskovszky L; Berger B; Fleischmann A; Friedrich T; Helmchen B; Körner M; Rau TT; Varga Z
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 2020 Jun; 146(6):1473-1478. PubMed ID: 32232656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
