These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

74 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24862234)

  • 21. [Fine-needle biopsy and core biopsy in nonpalpable breast lesions. How does one judge with mammography?].
    Tardivon A; Corvellec-Rudelli A; Bazile V; Guinebretière JM
    Arch Anat Cytol Pathol; 1998; 46(4):227-32. PubMed ID: 9754382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Recent trends in the management of breast cancer. 2. Occult breast lesions: when and how to perform a biopsy for mammographic abnormalities.
    Robidoux A
    Can J Surg; 1992 Aug; 35(4):366-70. PubMed ID: 1498736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [Suspected non-palpable changes in the breast diagnosed by mammography. Radiological biopsy criteria and technic in marking the biopsy area].
    Natvig NL; Sager EM; Kåresen R
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 1982 Jun; 102(17-18):956-9. PubMed ID: 6297118
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Clip or marker migration 5-10 weeks after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: report of two cases.
    Birdwell RL; Jackman RJ
    Radiology; 2003 Nov; 229(2):541-4. PubMed ID: 14595153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Contribution of hook-guided breast biopsy to the pathological diagnosis of mammographic lesions.
    Jortay AM; Daled H; Faverly D
    Acta Chir Belg; 1999 Feb; 99(1):26-9. PubMed ID: 10090960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Women and breast cancer: is it really possible for the public to be well informed?
    Baines CJ
    CMAJ; 1992 Jun; 146(12):2147-8. PubMed ID: 1611570
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Mammography screening and indeterminate core biopsy diagnoses.
    Makretsov NA; Carter BA; Hayes MM
    Maturitas; 2012 Nov; 73(3):177-9. PubMed ID: 22902241
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Breast Biopsies are Minimally Painful, Exceed Patient Expectations, and Do Not Represent a Genuine Lasting Harm for Most Women.
    Mosier A; Semerad D; Smith D; Rim A; Hammond B
    Breast J; 2016 Sep; 22(5):590-2. PubMed ID: 27346578
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography.
    Weaver DL; Rosenberg RD; Barlow WE; Ichikawa L; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BM; Key CR; Maygarden SJ; Ballard-Barbash R
    Cancer; 2006 Feb; 106(4):732-42. PubMed ID: 16411214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Localising non-palpable lesions within the breast using the needle and wire technique.
    Hodgson J
    Radiogr Today; 1989 Apr; 55(623):13-6. PubMed ID: 2590426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A doctor talks about screening mammography.
    Robb-Nicholson C
    Harv Womens Health Watch; 2010 Feb; 17(6):4-5. PubMed ID: 20429119
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices.
    Barratt A; Howard K; Irwig L; Salkeld G; Houssami N
    BMJ; 2005 Apr; 330(7497):936. PubMed ID: 15755755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Diagnosis of breast tumors by scintigraphy versus mammography].
    García-Fernández R; Maravilla A; Pichardo-Romero P; Rubio V; Iwasaki-Otake L; Arévila-Ceballos N
    Rev Invest Clin; 1998; 50(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 9608791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Compliance with recommended follow-up after fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: a retrospective study.
    Pal S; Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL
    Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):71-4. PubMed ID: 8816523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Patient perceptions of breast biopsy procedures for screen-detected lesions.
    Geller BM; Oppenheimer RG; Mickey RM; Worden JK
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Apr; 190(4):1063-9. PubMed ID: 15118643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The missing mammographic abnormality.
    Zammit C; Yiangou C; Sinnett HD
    Br J Surg; 2000 Mar; 87(3):374; author reply 374-5. PubMed ID: 10755835
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Should women be informed of breast density?
    Fajardo LL
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 Jan; 10(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 23290666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [The reliability of mammography].
    Dronkers DJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1979 Jun; 123(23):955-8. PubMed ID: 460446
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Making the diagnosis.
    Marchant DJ
    Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am; 1994 Dec; 21(4):607-20. PubMed ID: 7731637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.