216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26256979)
1. Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.
Hwang JY; Han BK; Ko EY; Shin JH; Hahn SY; Nam MY
Yonsei Med J; 2015 Sep; 56(5):1352-8. PubMed ID: 26256979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Previous imaging findings of breast cancers that occurred in combined screening negatives.
Han BK; Hahn SY; Ko EY; Shin JH; Kang SS
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Jul; 75(1):e22-8. PubMed ID: 19619968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings.
Leung JW; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Mar; 188(3):667-75. PubMed ID: 17312052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.
Zonderland HM; Pope TL; Nieborg AJ
Eur Radiol; 2004 Oct; 14(10):1743-50. PubMed ID: 15243715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [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]
10. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue.
Kaplan SS
Radiology; 2001 Dec; 221(3):641-9. PubMed ID: 11719658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
Berg WA; Blume JD; Cormack JB; Mendelson EB; Lehrer D; Böhm-Vélez M; Pisano ED; Jong RA; Evans WP; Morton MJ; Mahoney MC; Larsen LH; Barr RG; Farria DM; Marques HS; Boparai K;
JAMA; 2008 May; 299(18):2151-63. PubMed ID: 18477782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Analysis of the results of 137 subclinical breast lesions excisions. Value of ultrasonography in the early diagnosis of breast cancer].
Jacob D; Brombart JC; Muller C; Lefèbvre C; Massa F; Depoerck A
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 1997; 26(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 9091540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Padula S; Altomari F; Moriconi E; Pronio AM; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):670-80. PubMed ID: 17446524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The challenge of imaging dense breast parenchyma: is magnetic resonance mammography the technique of choice? A comparative study with x-ray mammography and whole-breast ultrasound.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Dominelli V; Cagioli S; Karatasiou A; Pronio A; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Invest Radiol; 2009 Jul; 44(7):412-21. PubMed ID: 19448554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The negative predictive value of electrical impedance scanning in BI-RADS category IV breast lesions.
Fuchsjaeger MH; Flöry D; Reiner CS; Rudas M; Riedl CC; Helbich TH
Invest Radiol; 2005 Jul; 40(7):478-85. PubMed ID: 15973141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Opportunistic breast cancer screening in Hong Kong; a revisit of the Kwong Wah Hospital experience.
Lui CY; Lam HS; Chan LK; Tam KF; Chan CM; Leung TY; Mak KL
Hong Kong Med J; 2007 Apr; 13(2):106-13. PubMed ID: 17406037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
