224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24951218)
1. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.
Partyka L; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jul; 203(1):216-22. PubMed ID: 24951218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings.
Ray KM; Turner E; Sickles EA; Joe BN
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):538-42. PubMed ID: 26148173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.
Brandt KR; Craig DA; Hoskins TL; Henrichsen TL; Bendel EC; Brandt SR; Mandrekar J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Feb; 200(2):291-8. PubMed ID: 23345348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M
Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Additional US or DBT after digital mammography: which one is the best combination?
Elizalde A; Pina L; Etxano J; Slon P; Zalazar R; Caballeros M
Acta Radiol; 2016 Jan; 57(1):13-8. PubMed ID: 25523063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.
Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):273-81. PubMed ID: 24450665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.
Freer PE; Niell B; Rafferty EA
Radiology; 2015 May; 275(2):377-83. PubMed ID: 25575115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis.
Lourenco AP; Barry-Brooks M; Baird GL; Tuttle A; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):337-42. PubMed ID: 25247407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis.
Chen SC; Carton AK; Albert M; Conant EF; Schnall MD; Maidment AD
Acad Radiol; 2007 Feb; 14(2):229-38. PubMed ID: 17236995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography.
Kim SA; Chang JM; Cho N; Yi A; Moon WK
Korean J Radiol; 2015; 16(2):229-38. PubMed ID: 25741187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy.
Schrading S; Distelmaier M; Dirrichs T; Detering S; Brolund L; Strobel K; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Mar; 274(3):654-62. PubMed ID: 25386875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening.
Waldherr C; Cerny P; Altermatt HJ; Berclaz G; Ciriolo M; Buser K; Sonnenschein MJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):226-31. PubMed ID: 23255766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review.
Hakim CM; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Gur D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):W172-6. PubMed ID: 20651178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening for dense breasts: digital breast tomosynthesis.
Destounis SV; Morgan R; Arieno A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Feb; 204(2):261-4. PubMed ID: 25615747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis.
Clauser P; Carbonaro LA; Pancot M; Girometti R; Bazzocchi M; Zuiani C; Sardanelli F
Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2830-9. PubMed ID: 25903704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection.
Houssami N; Skaane P
Breast; 2013 Apr; 22(2):101-108. PubMed ID: 23422255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care.
Kopans DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):299-308. PubMed ID: 24450669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
