728 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26341750)
1. 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]
2. Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review.
Patterson SK; Neal CH; Jeffries DO; Joe A; Klein K; Bailey J; Pinsky R; Paramagul C; Watcharotone K
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Sep; 147(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 25151294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Palpable breast masses with probably benign morphology at sonography: can biopsy be deferred?
Park YM; Kim EK; Lee JH; Ryu JH; Han SS; Choi SJ; Lee SJ; Yoon HK
Acta Radiol; 2008 Dec; 49(10):1104-11. PubMed ID: 18855166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome.
Raza S; Chikarmane SA; Neilsen SS; Zorn LM; Birdwell RL
Radiology; 2008 Sep; 248(3):773-81. PubMed ID: 18647850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. [Neddle-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer].
Becerra-Alcántara GI; Círigo-Villagómez LL; Ramos-Medina F; Robledo-Martínez H; Mar-Merinos CG; Panzi-Altamirano RM
Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2015 Jul; 83(7):400-7. PubMed ID: 26422910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?
Graf O; Helbich TH; Fuchsjaeger MH; Hopf G; Morgun M; Graf C; Mallek R; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2004 Dec; 233(3):850-6. PubMed ID: 15486217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Risk of malignancy in palpable solid breast masses considered probably benign or low suspicion: implications for management.
Giess CS; Smeglin LZ; Meyer JE; Ritner JA; Birdwell RL
J Ultrasound Med; 2012 Dec; 31(12):1943-9. PubMed ID: 23197547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Palpable breast abnormalities in women under age 40.
Lee MV; Shaw HL; Chi T; Brazeal HA; Holley SO; Appleton CM
Breast J; 2018 Sep; 24(5):798-805. PubMed ID: 29687544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Palpable masses in breast during lactation.
Obenauer S; Dammert S
Clin Imaging; 2007; 31(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 17189838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Ultrasound follow-up of palpable solid, probably benign breast lesions (BI-RADS category III)].
Graf O; Helbich TH; Fuchsjäger MH; Hopf G; Morgun M; Graf C; Mallek R
Rofo; 2004 Sep; 176(9):1251-6. PubMed ID: 15346259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Shear-wave elastography and greyscale assessment of palpable probably benign masses: is biopsy always required?
Giannotti E; Vinnicombe S; Thomson K; McLean D; Purdie C; Jordan L; Evans A
Br J Radiol; 2016 Jun; 89(1062):20150865. PubMed ID: 27007593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Histologic work-up of non-palpable breast lesions classified as probably benign at initial mammography and/or ultrasound (BI-RADS category 3).
Gruber R; Jaromi S; Rudas M; Pfarl G; Riedl CC; Flöry D; Graf O; Sickles EA; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Mar; 82(3):398-403. PubMed ID: 22429299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Outcome of men presenting with clinical breast problems: the role of mammography and ultrasound.
Patterson SK; Helvie MA; Aziz K; Nees AV
Breast J; 2006; 12(5):418-23. PubMed ID: 16958958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Role of combined BI-RADS assessment using mammography and sonography for evaluation of incidental hypermetabolic lesions in the breast on 18F-FDG PET-CT.
Lim S; Lee EH; Park JM; Chang YW; Kim HH; Jeong SH
Acta Radiol; 2013 Dec; 54(10):1117-24. PubMed ID: 23864064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predictive value for malignancy of suspicious breast masses of BI-RADS categories 4 and 5 using ultrasound elastography and MR diffusion-weighted imaging.
Satake H; Nishio A; Ikeda M; Ishigaki S; Shimamoto K; Hirano M; Naganawa S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jan; 196(1):202-9. PubMed ID: 21178068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS.
Heinig J; Witteler R; Schmitz R; Kiesel L; Steinhard J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 32(4):573-8. PubMed ID: 18421795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.
Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Ljung BM; Grady D
Ann Intern Med; 2003 Aug; 139(4):274-84. PubMed ID: 12965983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not to be?
Oztekin PS; Kosar PN
Breast J; 2014; 20(6):622-31. PubMed ID: 25200378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
