162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24446230)
21. Breast MRI contrast enhancement kinetics of normal parenchyma correlate with presence of breast cancer.
Wu S; Berg WA; Zuley ML; Kurland BF; Jankowitz RC; Nishikawa R; Gur D; Sumkin JH
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Jul; 18(1):76. PubMed ID: 27449059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Padula S; Altomari F; Moriconi E; Pronio AM; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):670-80. PubMed ID: 17446524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Breast MRI in the evaluation of locally recurrent or new breast cancer in the postoperative patient: correlation of morphology and enhancement features with the BI-RADS category.
Seely JM; Nguyen ET; Jaffey J
Acta Radiol; 2007 Oct; 48(8):838-45. PubMed ID: 17851971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The challenge of imaging dense breast parenchyma: is magnetic resonance mammography the technique of choice? A comparative study with x-ray mammography and whole-breast ultrasound.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Dominelli V; Cagioli S; Karatasiou A; Pronio A; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Invest Radiol; 2009 Jul; 44(7):412-21. PubMed ID: 19448554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings.
Leung JW; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Mar; 188(3):667-75. PubMed ID: 17312052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities.
Byng JW; Boyd NF; Fishell E; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 1994 Oct; 39(10):1629-38. PubMed ID: 15551535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for breast disease diagnosis].
Wang Q; Hu GD; Kuang J; Li JM
Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao; 2009 Feb; 29(2):292-4. PubMed ID: 19246303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Correlation between breast density in mammography and background enhancement in MR mammography.
Cubuk R; Tasali N; Narin B; Keskiner F; Celik L; Guney S
Radiol Med; 2010 Apr; 115(3):434-41. PubMed ID: 20082222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Computing mammographic density from a multiple regression model constructed with image-acquisition parameters from a full-field digital mammographic unit.
Lu LJ; Nishino TK; Khamapirad T; Grady JJ; Leonard MH; Brunder DG
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(16):4905-21. PubMed ID: 17671343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Could parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) represent a new breast cancer risk factor? Correlation with known radiology risk factors.
Savaridas SL; Taylor DB; Gunawardana D; Phillips M
Clin Radiol; 2017 Dec; 72(12):1085.e1-1085.e9. PubMed ID: 28870431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: multimodality imaging and histopathologic assessment.
Choi BB; Shu KS
Acta Radiol; 2012 Feb; 53(1):5-11. PubMed ID: 22090465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3-T MRI.
Elsamaloty H; Elzawawi MS; Mohammad S; Herial N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Apr; 192(4):1142-8. PubMed ID: 19304726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Use of dynamic phase subtraction (DPS) map in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast.
Ogura A; Hayakawa K; Yoshida S; Maeda F; Saeki F; Syukutani A
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2011; 35(6):749-52. PubMed ID: 22082548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Normal breast parenchyma: contrast enhancement kinetics at dynamic MR mammography--influence of anthropometric measures and menopausal status.
Hegenscheid K; Schmidt CO; Seipel R; Laqua R; Ohlinger R; Kühn JP; Hosten N; Puls R
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):72-80. PubMed ID: 23023963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma.
Ng AK; Garber JE; Diller LR; Birdwell RL; Feng Y; Neuberg DS; Silver B; Fisher DC; Marcus KJ; Mauch PM
J Clin Oncol; 2013 Jun; 31(18):2282-8. PubMed ID: 23610104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Optimized density-weighted imaging for dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D-MR mammography.
Gutberlet M; Roth A; Hahn D; Köstler H
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2011 Feb; 33(2):328-39. PubMed ID: 21274974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Application of time-resolved angiography with stochastic trajectories (TWIST)-Dixon in dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) breast MRI.
Le Y; Kipfer H; Majidi S; Holz S; Dale B; Geppert C; Kroeker R; Lin C
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2013 Nov; 38(5):1033-42. PubMed ID: 24038452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer?
Colin C; Prince V; Valette PJ
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Mar; 82(3):404-11. PubMed ID: 20133095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. High cancer yield and positive predictive value: outcomes at a center routinely using preoperative breast MRI for staging.
Gutierrez RL; DeMartini WB; Silbergeld JJ; Eby PR; Peacock S; Javid SH; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jan; 196(1):W93-9. PubMed ID: 21178040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
