216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23600490)
1. High-grade histologic features of DCIS are associated with R5 rather than R3 calcifications in breast screening mammography.
Hayes BD; Brodie C; O'Doherty A; Quinn CM
Breast J; 2013; 19(3):319-24. PubMed ID: 23600490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Pathologic-radiologic correlations in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: findings of the Singapore breast screening project.
Tan PH; Ho JT; Ng EH; Chiang GS; Low SC; Ng FC; Bay BH
Int J Cancer; 2000 Aug; 90(4):231-6. PubMed ID: 10993963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A mass on breast imaging predicts coexisting invasive carcinoma in patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ.
King TA; Farr GH; Cederbom GJ; Smetherman DH; Bolton JS; Stolier AJ; Fuhrman GM
Am Surg; 2001 Sep; 67(9):907-12. PubMed ID: 11565774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Surgical biopsy is still necessary for BI-RADS 4 calcifications found on digital mammography that are technically too faint for stereotactic core biopsy.
Jeffries DO; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Joe AI; Pinsky RW; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Dec; 154(3):557-61. PubMed ID: 26589316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of microcalcifications detected at screening mammography.
Cho N; Moon WK; Cha JH; Kim SM; Jang M; Chang JM; Chung SY
Acta Radiol; 2009 Jul; 50(6):602-9. PubMed ID: 19449232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype.
Stomper PC; Connolly JL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Sep; 159(3):483-5. PubMed ID: 1323923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Qualitative Radiogenomics: Association Between BI-RADS Calcification Descriptors and Recurrence Risk as Assessed by the Oncotype DX Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Score.
Woodard GA; Price ER
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Apr; 212(4):919-924. PubMed ID: 30714832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics.
Gajdos C; Tartter PI; Bleiweiss IJ; Hermann G; de Csepel J; Estabrook A; Rademaker AW
Ann Surg; 2002 Feb; 235(2):246-51. PubMed ID: 11807365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Patterns of aggressiveness: risk of progression to invasive breast cancer by mammographic features of calcifications in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ.
Lilleborge M; Falk RS; Hovda T; Holmen MM; Ursin G; Hofvind S
Acta Radiol; 2022 May; 63(5):586-595. PubMed ID: 33887963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers?
Weigel S; Decker T; Korsching E; Hungermann D; Böcker W; Heindel W
Radiology; 2010 Jun; 255(3):738-45. PubMed ID: 20501713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinoma.
Tabar L; Tony Chen HH; Amy Yen MF; Tot T; Tung TH; Chen LS; Chiu YH; Duffy SW; Smith RA
Cancer; 2004 Oct; 101(8):1745-59. PubMed ID: 15386334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammographic features predicting an extensive intraductal component in early-stage infiltrating ductal carcinoma.
Stomper PC; Connolly JL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Feb; 158(2):269-72. PubMed ID: 1309620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography?
McLaughlin CT; Neal CH; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):917-22. PubMed ID: 25247961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Microcalcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic-pathologic correlation.
Holland R; Hendriks JH
Semin Diagn Pathol; 1994 Aug; 11(3):181-92. PubMed ID: 7831529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
