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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25058131)

  • 21. [Second reading of breast imaging at the hospital department of radiology: reasonable or waste of money?].
    Teifke A; Vomweg TW; Hlawatsch A; Nasresfahani A; Kern A; Victor A; Schmidt M; Bittinger F; Düber C
    Rofo; 2006 Mar; 178(3):330-6. PubMed ID: 16508842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. BI-RADS: what do we need to know? Advantages and limitations.
    Kanso H; Hourani R; Aoun N; Ghossain M
    J Med Liban; 2009; 57(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 19623882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Sonographic characteristics of breast cancers detected by supplemental screening US: Comparison with breast cancers seen on screening mammography.
    Cho N; Moon WK; Chang JM; Yi A; Koo HR; Han BK
    Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):969-76. PubMed ID: 20942730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Experience with a quality control system for mammography in a private practice setting].
    Krohn BR
    Radiologe; 2003 Apr; 43(4):306-9. PubMed ID: 12721647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. ACR BI-RADS for breast imaging communication: a roadmap for the rest of radiology.
    Langlotz CP
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 Dec; 6(12):861-3. PubMed ID: 19945041
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A set of shear wave elastography quantitative parameters combined with ultrasound BI-RADS to assess benign and malignant breast lesions.
    Shi XQ; Li JL; Wan WB; Huang Y
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2015 Apr; 41(4):960-6. PubMed ID: 25701532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Breast imaging in general practice.
    Houssami N; Brennan M; French J; Fitzgerald P
    Aust Fam Physician; 2005 Jun; 34(6):467-73. PubMed ID: 15931406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Update on screening breast ultrasonography.
    Merry GM; Mendelson EB
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2014 May; 52(3):527-37. PubMed ID: 24792654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Predictive value for malignancy of suspicious breast masses of BI-RADS categories 4 and 5 using ultrasound elastography and MR diffusion-weighted imaging.
    Satake H; Nishio A; Ikeda M; Ishigaki S; Shimamoto K; Hirano M; Naganawa S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jan; 196(1):202-9. PubMed ID: 21178068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome.
    Raza S; Chikarmane SA; Neilsen SS; Zorn LM; Birdwell RL
    Radiology; 2008 Sep; 248(3):773-81. PubMed ID: 18647850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Controversies on the management of high-risk lesions at core biopsy from a radiology/pathology perspective.
    Georgian-Smith D; Lawton TJ
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):999-1012. PubMed ID: 20868897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. BI-RADS update.
    Mercado CL
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2014 May; 52(3):481-7. PubMed ID: 24792650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Standardized diagnosis and reporting of breast cancer.
    Thomassin-Naggara I; Tardivon A; Chopier J
    Diagn Interv Imaging; 2014; 95(7-8):759-66. PubMed ID: 25017150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation.
    Elverici E; Barça AN; Aktaş H; Özsoy A; Zengin B; Çavuşoğlu M; Araz L
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2015; 21(3):189-94. PubMed ID: 25835079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Value of the US BI-RADS final assessment following mastectomy: BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.
    Gweon HM; Son EJ; Youk JH; Kim JA; Chung J
    Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):255-60. PubMed ID: 22302210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Automated breast ultrasound vs. handheld ultrasound: BI-RADS classification, duration of the examination and patient comfort].
    Prosch H; Halbwachs C; Strobl C; Reisner LM; Hondl M; Weber M; Mostbeck GH
    Ultraschall Med; 2011 Oct; 32(5):504-10. PubMed ID: 21630181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not to be?
    Oztekin PS; Kosar PN
    Breast J; 2014; 20(6):622-31. PubMed ID: 25200378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Computer aided classification system for breast ultrasound based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).
    Shen WC; Chang RF; Moon WK
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Nov; 33(11):1688-98. PubMed ID: 17681678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.
    Lehman C; Holt S; Peacock S; White E; Urban N
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jul; 179(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 12076896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Focal asymmetric densities seen at mammography: US and pathologic correlation.
    Samardar P; de Paredes ES; Grimes MM; Wilson JD
    Radiographics; 2002; 22(1):19-33. PubMed ID: 11796895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.