256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26019241)
41. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.
Kim EK; Ko KH; Oh KK; Kwak JY; You JK; Kim MJ; Park BW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 May; 190(5):1209-15. PubMed ID: 18430833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Diagnostic performance of breast technologists in reading mammograms in a clinical patient population.
van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K
Int J Clin Pract; 2010 Mar; 64(4):442-50. PubMed ID: 20456190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Using the BI-RADS lexicon in a restrictive form of double reading as a strategy for minimizing screening mammography recall rates.
Ghate SV; Baker JA; Kim CE; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Soo MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Apr; 198(4):962-70. PubMed ID: 22451567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network.
Poplack SP; Tosteson AN; Grove MR; Wells WA; Carney PA
Radiology; 2000 Dec; 217(3):832-40. PubMed ID: 11110951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography: Does it really suffer from low specificity? A retrospective analysis stratified by mammographic BI-RADS classes.
Benndorf M; Baltzer PA; Vag T; Gajda M; Runnebaum IB; Kaiser WA
Acta Radiol; 2010 Sep; 51(7):715-21. PubMed ID: 20707656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. A comparison between short-interval and regular-interval follow-up for BI-RADS category 3 lesions.
Ruamsup S; Wiratkapun C; Wibulpolprasert B; Lertsithichai P
Singapore Med J; 2010 Feb; 51(2):120-5. PubMed ID: 20358150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Changes in the Utilization of the BI-RADS Category 3 Assessment in Recalled Patients Before and After the Implementation of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Stepanek T; Constantinou N; Marshall H; Pham R; Thompson C; Dubchuk C; Plecha D
Acad Radiol; 2019 Nov; 26(11):1515-1525. PubMed ID: 30665715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Breast ultrasound diagnostic performance and outcomes for mass lesions using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 0 mammogram.
Zanello PA; Robim AF; Oliveira TM; Elias Junior J; Andrade JM; Monteiro CR; Sarmento Filho JM; Carrara HH; Muglia VF
Clinics (Sao Paulo); 2011; 66(3):443-8. PubMed ID: 21552670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Breast ultrasonographic and histopathological characteristics without any mammographic abnormalities.
Tamaki K; Ishida T; Miyashita M; Amari M; Ohuchi N; Kamada Y; Uehara K; Tamaki N; Sasano H
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2012 Mar; 42(3):168-74. PubMed ID: 22217577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Can Radiologists Predict the Presence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Breast Cancer?
Aminololama-Shakeri S; Flowers CI; McLaren CE; Wisner DJ; de Guzman J; Campbell JE; Bassett LW; Ojeda-Fournier H; Gerlach K; Hargreaves J; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN; Feig SA; Wells CJ;
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Apr; 208(4):933-939. PubMed ID: 28199152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Avoidable surgical consultations in women with a positive screening mammogram: experience from a southern region of the Dutch breast screening programme.
Schreutelkamp JL; Kwee RM; de Booij M; Adriaensen ME
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Mar; 83(3):520-3. PubMed ID: 24393718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.
Liberman L; Abramson AF; Squires FB; Glassman JR; Morris EA; Dershaw DD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9648759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Patient Compliance in the Setting of BI-RADS Category 3: What Factors Impact Compliance With Short-Term Follow-Up Recommendations?
Borders MH; Cheng L; Fitzpatrick KA; Krupinski EA
Breast J; 2017 Jan; 23(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 27859923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.
Brandt KR; Craig DA; Hoskins TL; Henrichsen TL; Bendel EC; Brandt SR; Mandrekar J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Feb; 200(2):291-8. PubMed ID: 23345348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Changes in mammographic density over time and the risk of breast cancer: An observational cohort study.
Román M; Sala M; Baré M; Posso M; Vidal C; Louro J; Sánchez M; Peñalva L; Castells X;
Breast; 2019 Aug; 46():108-115. PubMed ID: 31132476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Compliance With Screening Mammography Guidelines After a False-Positive Mammogram.
Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Sep; 13(9):1032-8. PubMed ID: 27233908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Why Start Now? Retrospective Study Evaluating Baseline Screening Mammography in Patients Age 60 and Older.
Chieh AY; Willis JG; Carroll CM; Mobley AA; Li Y; Li M; Woodard S
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2024; 53(1):62-67. PubMed ID: 37704485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
