BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25467641)

  • 1. Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience.
    Thomassin-Naggara I; Perrot N; Dechoux S; Ribeiro C; Chopier J; de Bazelaire C
    Eur J Radiol; 2015 Feb; 84(2):235-41. PubMed ID: 25467641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.
    Wallis MG; Moa E; Zanca F; Leifland K; Danielsson M
    Radiology; 2012 Mar; 262(3):788-96. PubMed ID: 22274840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature.
    Carbonaro LA; Di Leo G; Clauser P; Trimboli RM; Verardi N; Fedeli MP; Girometti R; Tafà A; Bruscoli P; Saguatti G; Bazzocchi M; Sardanelli F
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 Apr; 85(4):808-14. PubMed ID: 26971428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study.
    Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Zuiani C; Martincich L; Londero V; Caramia E; Clauser P; Campanino PP; Regini E; Luparia A; Castellano I; Bergamasco L; Sapino A; Fonio P; Bazzocchi M; Gandini G
    Clin Radiol; 2016 Sep; 71(9):889-95. PubMed ID: 27210245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
    Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography, magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women.
    Tang W; Hu FX; Zhu H; Wang QF; Gu YJ; Peng WJ
    Clin Hemorheol Microcirc; 2017; 66(2):105-116. PubMed ID: 28211806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
    Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.
    Skaane P; Bandos AI; Gullien R; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Izadi M; Jebsen IN; Jahr G; Krager M; Niklason LT; Hofvind S; Gur D
    Radiology; 2013 Apr; 267(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 23297332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Ruppel P; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Bezzon E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Mar; 23(3):664-72. PubMed ID: 22976919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
    Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
    Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
    Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.
    Zuley ML; Guo B; Catullo VJ; Chough DM; Kelly AE; Lu AH; Rathfon GY; Lee Spangler M; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Bandos AI
    Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):664-71. PubMed ID: 24475859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
    Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography.
    Morel JC; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Peacock C; Evans DR; Rahim R; Goligher J; Michell MJ
    Clin Radiol; 2014 Nov; 69(11):1112-6. PubMed ID: 25100302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.