154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25896757)
1. Limitations of mammography in the diagnosis of breast diseases compared with ultrasonography: a single-center retrospective analysis of 274 cases.
Zhao H; Zou L; Geng X; Zheng S
Eur J Med Res; 2015 Apr; 20(1):49. PubMed ID: 25896757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. To evaluate the role of sonography as an adjunct to mammography in women with dense breasts.
Masroor I; Ahmed MN; Pasha S
J Pak Med Assoc; 2009 May; 59(5):298-301. PubMed ID: 19438134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.
Kolb TM; Lichy J; Newhouse JH
Radiology; 2002 Oct; 225(1):165-75. PubMed ID: 12355001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 201Tl scintigraphy in the evaluation of palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation with mammography and ultrasonography.
Vural G; Atasever T; Ozdemir A; Oznur I; Karabacak NI; Gökçora N; Işik S; Unlü M
Nuklearmedizin; 1997 Dec; 36(8):282-8. PubMed ID: 17068879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sensitivity of imaging for multifocal-multicentric breast carcinoma.
Bozzini A; Renne G; Meneghetti L; Bandi G; Santos G; Vento AR; Menna S; Andrighetto S; Viale G; Cassano E; Bellomi M
BMC Cancer; 2008 Sep; 8():275. PubMed ID: 18826585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Comparative analysis of early diagnostic tools for breast cancer].
Shen SJ; Sun Q; Xu YL; Zhou YD; Guan JH; Mao F; Lin Y; Wang XJ; Han SM
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2012 Nov; 34(11):877-80. PubMed ID: 23291142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Berg WA; Gutierrez L; NessAiver MS; Carter WB; Bhargavan M; Lewis RS; Ioffe OB
Radiology; 2004 Dec; 233(3):830-49. PubMed ID: 15486214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computer-aided detection system performance on current and previous digital mammograms in patients with contralateral metachronous breast cancer.
Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Chang JM
Acta Radiol; 2012 May; 53(4):376-81. PubMed ID: 22403080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Diagnostic value of full-field digital mammography for breast carcinoma].
Ding JH; Peng WJ; Jiang ZX; Xu LH; Hu DT; Zheng XJ
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2009 Nov; 31(11):854-7. PubMed ID: 20137352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Fine needle aspiration biopsy of breast lesions: institutional experience].
Medina-Franco H; Abarca-Pérez L; Cortés-González R; Soto-Germes S; Ulloa JA; Uribe N
Rev Invest Clin; 2005; 57(3):394-8. PubMed ID: 16187698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost.
Corsetti V; Houssami N; Ferrari A; Ghirardi M; Bellarosa S; Angelini O; Bani C; Sardo P; Remida G; Galligioni E; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2008 Mar; 44(4):539-44. PubMed ID: 18267357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography.
Zonderland HM; Coerkamp EG; Hermans J; van de Vijver MJ; van Voorthuisen AE
Radiology; 1999 Nov; 213(2):413-22. PubMed ID: 10551221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Usefulness of scintimammography as an adjunct to mammography and ultrasound in the diagnosis of breast diseases.
Gupta R; Collier D; Abdeen S; Roberts L; Hussein AY; Al-Bader I; Syed GM
Australas Radiol; 2006 Dec; 50(6):539-42. PubMed ID: 17107524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The diagnosis of breast cancer in women younger than 40.
Foxcroft LM; Evans EB; Porter AJ
Breast; 2004 Aug; 13(4):297-306. PubMed ID: 15325664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Application of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to digitalized mammograms for identifying microcalcifications].
Bazzocchi M; Facecchia I; Zuiani C; Londero V; Smania S; Bottigli U; Delogu P
Radiol Med; 2001 May; 101(5):334-40. PubMed ID: 11438784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Mammography and mammary ultrasonography: which examination sequence is preferable?].
Müller-Schimpfle M; Stern W; Stoll P; Kaiser JW; Claussen CD
Rofo; 1997 Oct; 167(4):348-54. PubMed ID: 9417262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast disease: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Ying X; Lin Y; Xia X; Hu B; Zhu Z; He P
Breast J; 2012; 18(2):130-8. PubMed ID: 22356352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up.
Corsetti V; Houssami N; Ghirardi M; Ferrari A; Speziani M; Bellarosa S; Remida G; Gasparotti C; Galligioni E; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2011 May; 47(7):1021-6. PubMed ID: 21211962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Clinical value of mammography, ultrasound and MR imaging during the first year after breast conserving therapy of breast cancer].
Birrenbach S; Miller S; Stern W; Xydeas T; Pietsch-Breitfeld B; Belka C; Fersis N; Claussen CD; Müller-Schimpfle M
Rofo; 2004 Oct; 176(10):1423-30. PubMed ID: 15383973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Diagnostic imaging in non-palpable breast lesions. Targeted++ ultrasonography versus direct radiologic magnification].
Burke P; Di Virgilio MR; Luparia E; Piacenza M; Sabia A; Baù MG; Frigerio A
Radiol Med; 1993 Mar; 85(3):199-202. PubMed ID: 8493367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
