BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

369 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26520874)

  • 1. Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography.
    Aminololama-Shakeri S; Abbey CK; Gazi P; Prionas ND; Nosratieh A; Li CS; Boone JM; Lindfors KK
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):297-303. PubMed ID: 26520874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography.
    Aminololama-Shakeri S; Abbey CK; López JE; Hernandez AM; Gazi P; Boone JM; Lindfors KK
    Br J Radiol; 2019 May; 92(1097):20181034. PubMed ID: 30810339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience.
    Prionas ND; Lindfors KK; Ray S; Huang SY; Beckett LA; Monsky WL; Boone JM
    Radiology; 2010 Sep; 256(3):714-23. PubMed ID: 20720067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Growth Dynamics of Mammographic Calcifications: Differentiating Ductal Carcinoma in Situ from Benign Breast Disease.
    Grimm LJ; Miller MM; Thomas SM; Liu Y; Lo JY; Hwang ES; Hyslop T; Ryser MD
    Radiology; 2019 Jul; 292(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 31112087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT: Analysis of optimal acquisition time for discrimination of breast lesion malignancy.
    Uhlig J; Fischer U; Surov A; Lotz J; Wienbeck S
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Feb; 99():9-16. PubMed ID: 29362157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade.
    Jansen SA; Newstead GM; Abe H; Shimauchi A; Schmidt RA; Karczmar GS
    Radiology; 2007 Dec; 245(3):684-91. PubMed ID: 18024450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Predicting Upstaging of DCIS to Invasive Disease: Radiologists's Predictive Performance.
    Selvakumaran V; Hou R; Baker JA; Yoon SC; Ghate SV; Walsh R; Litton TP; Lu LX; Devalapalli A; Kim C; Soo MS; Hwang ES; Lo JY; Grimm LJ
    Acad Radiol; 2020 Nov; 27(11):1580-1585. PubMed ID: 32001164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The diagnostic sensitivity of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and breast-specific gamma imaging in women with calcified and non-calcified DCIS.
    Kim JS; Lee SM; Cha ES
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):668-75. PubMed ID: 24043881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Can positron emission mammography help to identify clinically significant breast cancer in women with suspicious calcifications on mammography?
    Bitencourt AG; Lima EN; Macedo BR; Conrado JL; Marques EF; Chojniak R
    Eur Radiol; 2017 May; 27(5):1893-1900. PubMed ID: 27585658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Ploumen RAW; de Mooij CM; Gommers S; Keymeulen KBMI; Smidt ML; van Nijnatten TJA
    Eur Radiol; 2023 Aug; 33(8):5423-5435. PubMed ID: 37020070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ does not reliably predict histologic subtype.
    Slanetz PJ; Giardino AA; Oyama T; Koerner FC; Halpern EF; Moore RH; Kopans DB
    Breast J; 2001; 7(6):417-21. PubMed ID: 11843854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mixed-Methods Study to Predict Upstaging of DCIS to Invasive Disease on Mammography.
    Grimm LJ; Neely B; Hou R; Selvakumaran V; Baker JA; Yoon SC; Ghate SV; Walsh R; Litton TP; Devalapalli A; Kim C; Soo MS; Hyslop T; Hwang ES; Lo JY
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):903-911. PubMed ID: 32783550
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, digital mammography, and ultrasonography.
    Su X; Lin Q; Cui C; Xu W; Wei Z; Fei J; Li L
    Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 24(4):562-570. PubMed ID: 27837442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast ductal carcinoma in situ with micro-invasion versus ductal carcinoma in situ: a comparative analysis of clinicopathological and mammographic findings.
    Zhang M; Lin Q; Su XH; Cui CX; Bian TT; Wang CQ; Zhao J; Li LL; Ma JZ; Huang JL
    Clin Radiol; 2021 Oct; 76(10):787.e1-787.e7. PubMed ID: 34052010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Qualitative Radiogenomics: Association Between BI-RADS Calcification Descriptors and Recurrence Risk as Assessed by the Oncotype DX Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Score.
    Woodard GA; Price ER
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Apr; 212(4):919-924. PubMed ID: 30714832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessment of grating-based X-ray phase-contrast CT for differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in an experimental ex vivo set-up.
    Sztrókay A; Herzen J; Auweter SD; Liebhardt S; Mayr D; Willner M; Hahn D; Zanette I; Weitkamp T; Hellerhoff K; Pfeiffer F; Reiser MF; Bamberg F
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Feb; 23(2):381-7. PubMed ID: 22932738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening.
    Hofvind S; Iversen BF; Eriksen L; Styr BM; Kjellevold K; Kurz KD
    Acta Radiol; 2011 Jun; 52(5):481-7. PubMed ID: 21498306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mammographic features of calcifications in DCIS: correlation with oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status.
    Bae MS; Moon WK; Chang JM; Cho N; Park SY; Won JK; Jeon YK; Moon HG; Han W; Park IA
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2072-8. PubMed ID: 23512196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Imaging Features of Patients Undergoing Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.
    Grimm LJ; Ghate SV; Hwang ES; Soo MS
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1364-1371. PubMed ID: 28705686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.