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.
252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26019241)
1. 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]
2. [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]
3. 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]
4. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. [Analysis of the results of mammography screening in Dubrovnik-Neretva County in the 2006-2009 period]. Dzono-Boban A; Mratović MC; Masanović M Acta Med Croatica; 2010 Dec; 64(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 21692270 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Focal Breast Lesions in Clinical CT Examinations of the Chest: A Retrospective Analysis. Krug KB; Houbois C; Grinstein O; Borggrefe J; Puesken M; Hanstein B; Malter W; Maintz D; Hellmich M Rofo; 2017 Oct; 189(10):977-989. PubMed ID: 28683503 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI. Strigel RM; Burnside ES; Elezaby M; Fowler AM; Kelcz F; Salkowski LR; DeMartini WB AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1392-1399. PubMed ID: 28792802 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database. Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging. Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading. Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies. Abramovici G; Mainiero MB Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 21285337 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [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]
19. The Chiraiya project: a retrospective analysis of breast cancer detection gaps addressed via mobile mammography in Jammu Province, India. Gupta G; Jamwal N; Gupta R BMC Public Health; 2024 Aug; 24(1):2087. PubMed ID: 39090665 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]