213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25669425)
1. Surveillance of probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions in mammography: what is the right follow-up protocol?
Buch KA; Qureshi MM; Carpentier B; Cunningham DA; Stone M; Jaffe C; Quinn M; Gonzalez C; LaVoye J; Hines N; Bloch BN
Breast J; 2015; 21(2):168-74. PubMed ID: 25669425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.
Varas X; Leborgne JH; Leborgne F; Mezzera J; Jaumandreu S; Leborgne F
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):691-5. PubMed ID: 12185047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions.
Chung CS; Giess CS; Gombos EC; Frost EP; Yeh ED; Raza S; Birdwell RL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Apr; 202(4):922-7. PubMed ID: 24660725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound.
Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Mar; 206(3):666-72. PubMed ID: 26901026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Imaging and Histopathologic Features of BI-RADS 3 Lesions Upgraded during Imaging Surveillance.
Michaels A; Chung CS; Birdwell RL; Frost EP; Giess CS
Breast J; 2017 Jan; 23(1):10-16. PubMed ID: 27612001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Linked claims and medical records for cancer case management : evaluation of mammography abnormalities.
Eberl MM; Watroba N; Reinhardt M; Pomerantz J; Serghany J; Broffman G; Fox CH; Mahoney MC; Edge SB
Cancer; 2007 Aug; 110(3):518-24. PubMed ID: 17577210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice.
Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E
Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):710-4. PubMed ID: 14770425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].
Hauth EA; Khan K; Wolfgarten B; Betzler A; Kimmig R; Forsting M
Radiologe; 2008 Mar; 48(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 17265008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Stereotactic Mammotome breast biopsy: routine clinical experience and correlation with BI-RADS--classification and histopathology].
Michel SC; Löw R; Singer G; Otto R; Hohl M; Kubik RA
Praxis (Bern 1994); 2007 Sep; 96(39):1459-74. PubMed ID: 17966279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. MR imaging in probably benign lesions (BI-RADS category 3) of the breast.
Gökalp G; Topal U
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Mar; 57(3):436-44. PubMed ID: 16316732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Diagnostic mammography and sonography: concordance of the breast imaging reporting assessments and final clinical outcome].
Lorenzen J; Wedel AK; Lisboa BW; Löning T; Adam G
Rofo; 2005 Nov; 177(11):1545-51. PubMed ID: 16302136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.
Orel SG; Kay N; Reynolds C; Sullivan DC
Radiology; 1999 Jun; 211(3):845-50. PubMed ID: 10352614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of rate of development and rate of change for benign and malignant breast calcifications at the lumpectomy bed.
Giess CS; Keating DM; Osborne MP; Mester J; Rosenblatt R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Sep; 175(3):789-93. PubMed ID: 10954468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is a one-year follow-up an efficient method for better management of MRI BI-RADS(®) 3 lesions?
Boisserie-Lacroix M; Ziadé C; Hurtevent-Labrot G; Ferron S; Brouste V; Lippa N
Breast; 2016 Jun; 27():1-7. PubMed ID: 27212693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?
Berg WA; D'Orsi CJ; Jackson VP; Bassett LW; Beam CA; Lewis RS; Crewson PE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):871-80. PubMed ID: 12202727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
