BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26514439)

  • 1. Comparing Mammography Abnormality Features to Genetic Variants in the Prediction of Breast Cancer in Women Recommended for Breast Biopsy.
    Burnside ES; Liu J; Wu Y; Onitilo AA; McCarty CA; Page CD; Peissig PL; Trentham-Dietz A; Kitchner T; Fan J; Yuan M
    Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):62-9. PubMed ID: 26514439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.
    McCarthy AM; Keller B; Kontos D; Boghossian L; McGuire E; Bristol M; Chen J; Domchek S; Armstrong K
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Jan; 17(1):1. PubMed ID: 25567532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Improving breast cancer risk prediction by using demographic risk factors, abnormality features on mammograms and genetic variants.
    Feld SI; Woo KM; Alexandridis R; Wu Y; Liu J; Peissig P; Onitilo AA; Cox J; Page CD; Burnside ES
    AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2018; 2018():1253-1262. PubMed ID: 30815167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: initial experience.
    Burnside ES; Rubin DL; Fine JP; Shachter RD; Sisney GA; Leung WK
    Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):666-73. PubMed ID: 16926323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prevalence and Predictive Value of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Correlation with Study Indication.
    Chikarmane SA; Tai R; Meyer JE; Giess CS
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Apr; 24(4):435-441. PubMed ID: 27955878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Nonmasslike enhancement at breast MR imaging: the added value of mammography and US for lesion categorization.
    Thomassin-Naggara I; Trop I; Chopier J; David J; Lalonde L; Darai E; Rouzier R; Uzan S
    Radiology; 2011 Oct; 261(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 21771958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case-control study.
    Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Petersen K; Lillholm M; Nielsen MB; Lynge E; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
    BMC Cancer; 2016 Jul; 16():414. PubMed ID: 27387546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.
    Giger ML; Inciardi MF; Edwards A; Papaioannou J; Drukker K; Jiang Y; Brem R; Brown JB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jun; 206(6):1341-50. PubMed ID: 27043979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Preliminary evaluation of the publicly available Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software tool: comparison of fully automated area and volumetric density measures in a case-control study with digital mammography.
    Keller BM; Chen J; Daye D; Conant EF; Kontos D
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Aug; 17():117. PubMed ID: 26303303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
    Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Discriminatory power of common genetic variants in personalized breast cancer diagnosis.
    Wu Y; Abbey CK; Liu J; Ong I; Peissig P; Onitilo AA; Fan J; Yuan M; Burnside ES
    Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2016 Feb; 9787():. PubMed ID: 27279675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
    Jeffers AM; Sieh W; Lipson JA; Rothstein JH; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL
    Radiology; 2017 Feb; 282(2):348-355. PubMed ID: 27598536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A logistic regression model based on the national mammography database format to aid breast cancer diagnosis.
    Chhatwal J; Alagoz O; Lindstrom MJ; Kahn CE; Shaffer KA; Burnside ES
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Apr; 192(4):1117-27. PubMed ID: 19304723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
    Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Breast Imaging Outcomes following Abnormal Thermography.
    Neal CH; Flynt KA; Jeffries DO; Helvie MA
    Acad Radiol; 2018 Mar; 25(3):273-278. PubMed ID: 29275941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Role of Clinical and Imaging Risk Factors in Predicting Breast Cancer Diagnosis Among BI-RADS 4 Cases.
    Hsu W; Zhou X; Petruse A; Chau N; Lee-Felker S; Hoyt A; Wenger N; Elashoff D; Naeim A
    Clin Breast Cancer; 2019 Feb; 19(1):e142-e151. PubMed ID: 30366654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Development and evaluation of a case-based reasoning classifier for prediction of breast biopsy outcome with BI-RADS lexicon.
    Bilska-Wolak AO; Floyd CE
    Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2090-100. PubMed ID: 12349930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.