159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23689308)
21. Mismatch in breast and detector size during screening and diagnostic mammography results in increased patient radiation dose.
Wells CL; Slanetz PJ; Rosen MP
Acad Radiol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):99-103. PubMed ID: 24331271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.
Conant EF; Zuckerman SP; McDonald ES; Weinstein SP; Korhonen KE; Birnbaum JA; Tobey JD; Schnall MD; Hubbard RA
Radiology; 2020 May; 295(2):285-293. PubMed ID: 32154771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation.
Bernardi D; Gentilini MA; De Nisi M; Pellegrini M; Fantò C; Valentini M; Sabatino V; Luparia A; Houssami N
Breast; 2020 Apr; 50():135-140. PubMed ID: 31607526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.
Pattacini P; Nitrosi A; Giorgi Rossi P; Iotti V; Ginocchi V; Ravaioli S; Vacondio R; Braglia L; Cavuto S; Campari C;
Radiology; 2018 Aug; 288(2):375-385. PubMed ID: 29869961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of two digital mammography systems: are there any differences?
Evans T; Burlton B; Devenish G; Stevens G; Lewis M; Gower Thomas K
Clin Radiol; 2016 Jan; 71(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 26683090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study.
Zackrisson S; Lång K; Rosso A; Johnson K; Dustler M; Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Sartor H; Timberg P; Tingberg A; Andersson I
Lancet Oncol; 2018 Nov; 19(11):1493-1503. PubMed ID: 30322817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Assessing the use of digital radiography and a real-time interactive pulmonary nodule analysis system for large population lung cancer screening.
Xu Y; Ma D; He W
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Apr; 81(4):e451-6. PubMed ID: 21621935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Mammography Dose Survey Using International Quality Standards.
Boujemaa S; Bosmans H; Bentayeb F
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Dec; 50(4):529-535. PubMed ID: 31420271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.
Kuhl CK; Strobel K; Bieling H; Leutner C; Schild HH; Schrading S
Radiology; 2017 May; 283(2):361-370. PubMed ID: 28221097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
