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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2633731)

  • 1. Evaluation of the mammographic lesion.
    Osborne JM; Robert D
    Australas Radiol; 1989 Nov; 33(4):320-7. PubMed ID: 2633731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Usefulness of the routine magnification view after breast conservation therapy for carcinoma.
    DiPiro PJ; Meyer JE; Shaffer K; Denison CM; Frenna TH; Rolfs AT
    Radiology; 1996 Feb; 198(2):341-3. PubMed ID: 8596828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of magnification and paddle compression techniques in the assessment of mammographic screening detected abnormalities.
    Hayes R; Michell M; Nunnerley HB
    Clin Radiol; 1991 Sep; 44(3):158-60. PubMed ID: 1914389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breast MR Imaging for Equivocal Mammographic Findings: Help or Hindrance?
    Giess CS; Chikarmane SA; Sippo DA; Birdwell RL
    Radiographics; 2016; 36(4):943-56. PubMed ID: 27284757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Computerized analysis of multiple-mammographic views: potential usefulness of special view mammograms in computer-aided diagnosis.
    Huo Z; Giger ML; Vyborny CJ
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Dec; 20(12):1285-92. PubMed ID: 11811828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficacy of step-oblique mammography for confirmation and localization of densities seen on only one standard mammographic view.
    Pearson KL; Sickles EA; Frankel SD; Leung JW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Mar; 174(3):745-52. PubMed ID: 10701619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
    Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
    Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Correspondence in texture features between two mammographic views.
    Gupta S; Markey MK
    Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1598-606. PubMed ID: 16013719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in the assessment of clustered breast microcalcifications.
    Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1980 Oct; 137(1 Pt 1):9-14. PubMed ID: 7422866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The diagnostic contribution of direct radiographic enlargement and of echography in the study of breast neoplasms].
    Cressa C; Gozzi G; Tonutti M; Macorig D; Tessa I
    Radiol Med; 1994 Apr; 87(4):405-11. PubMed ID: 8190922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Additional images and subsequent palpation--indispensable conditions for efficient diagnosis using mammography].
    Hüppe JR
    Z Lymphol; 1986 Dec; 10(2):63-76. PubMed ID: 3825243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses.
    Faulk RM; Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1992 Oct; 185(1):87-90. PubMed ID: 1523339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
    Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Equivocal mammographic findings: evaluation with spot compression.
    Berkowitz JE; Gatewood OM; Gayler BW
    Radiology; 1989 May; 171(2):369-71. PubMed ID: 2704800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Invasive breast cancer: mammographic measurement.
    Flanagan FL; McDermott MB; Barton PT; Pilgram TK; Dehdashti F; Wick MR; Monsees BS
    Radiology; 1996 Jun; 199(3):819-23. PubMed ID: 8638011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns.
    Al Mousa DS; Brennan PC; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Tan J; Mello-Thoms C
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1386-93. PubMed ID: 25172414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The art of mammographic positioning.
    Eklund GW; Cardenosa G
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1992 Jan; 30(1):21-53. PubMed ID: 1732927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Magnification views of mammography decrease biopsy rates.
    Madan AK; Nguyen MT; Wakabayashi MN; Beech DJ
    Am Surg; 2001 Jul; 67(7):687-9. PubMed ID: 11450790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Computer-aided segmentation, form analysis and classification of 2975 breast microcalcifications using 7-fold microfocus magnification mammography].
    Grunert JH; Khalifa R; Gmelin E
    Rofo; 2004 Dec; 176(12):1759-65. PubMed ID: 15573286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Microfocal spot magnification mammography using xeroradiographic and screen-film recording systems.
    Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1979 Jun; 131(3):599-607. PubMed ID: 441362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.