370 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26520874)
21. Impact of the Kaiser score on clinical decision-making in BI-RADS 4 mammographic calcifications examined with breast MRI.
Wengert GJ; Pipan F; Almohanna J; Bickel H; Polanec S; Kapetas P; Clauser P; Pinker K; Helbich TH; Baltzer PAT
Eur Radiol; 2020 Mar; 30(3):1451-1459. PubMed ID: 31797077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Surgical biopsy is still necessary for BI-RADS 4 calcifications found on digital mammography that are technically too faint for stereotactic core biopsy.
Jeffries DO; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Joe AI; Pinsky RW; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Dec; 154(3):557-61. PubMed ID: 26589316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the imaging and histopathological features.
Mun HS; Shin HJ; Kim HH; Cha JH; Kim H
Clin Radiol; 2013 Jan; 68(1):e27-35. PubMed ID: 23177096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Digital Mammography Has Persistently Increased High-Grade and Overall DCIS Detection Without Altering Upgrade Rate.
Neal CH; Joe AI; Patterson SK; Pujara AC; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):912-918. PubMed ID: 33594910
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative detection of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: a comparison with low-energy image and magnetic resonance imaging.
Wang L; Wang P; Shao H; Li J; Yang Q
Eur Radiol; 2024 May; 34(5):3342-3351. PubMed ID: 37853174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial.
Bazzocchi M; Zuiani C; Panizza P; Del Frate C; Soldano F; Isola M; Sardanelli F; Giuseppetti GM; Simonetti G; Lattanzio V; Del Maschio A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jun; 186(6):1723-32. PubMed ID: 16714666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Independent evaluation of computer classification of malignant and benign calcifications in full-field digital mammograms.
Rana RS; Jiang Y; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Liu B
Acad Radiol; 2007 Mar; 14(3):363-70. PubMed ID: 17307670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Computer-aided heterogeneity analysis in breast MR imaging assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ: Correlating histologic grade and receptor status.
Chou SS; Gombos EC; Chikarmane SA; Giess CS; Jayender J
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2017 Dec; 46(6):1748-1759. PubMed ID: 28371110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Can Occult Invasive Disease in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Be Predicted Using Computer-extracted Mammographic Features?
Shi B; Grimm LJ; Mazurowski MA; Baker JA; Marks JR; King LM; Maley CC; Hwang ES; Lo JY
Acad Radiol; 2017 Sep; 24(9):1139-1147. PubMed ID: 28506510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.
Menell JH; Morris EA; Dershaw DD; Abramson AF; Brogi E; Liberman L
Breast J; 2005; 11(6):382-90. PubMed ID: 16297080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Positive enhancement integral values in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma: ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive ductal carcinoma.
Nadrljanski M; Maksimović R; Plešinac-Karapandžić V; Nikitović M; Marković-Vasiljković B; Milošević Z
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1363-7. PubMed ID: 24894697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Assessment of the extent of microcalcifications to predict the size of a ductal carcinoma in situ: comparison between tomosynthesis and conventional mammography.
Berger N; Schwizer SD; Varga Z; Rageth C; Frauenfelder T; Boss A
Clin Imaging; 2016; 40(6):1269-1273. PubMed ID: 27677056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Prediction of Underestimation Using Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Patients Diagnosed as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ on Preoperative Core Biopsy.
Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Park SY; Ahn SH; Son BH; Chung IY; Lee JW; Ko BS; Kim JS; Chae EY; Cha JH; Kim HH
Clin Breast Cancer; 2022 Apr; 22(3):e374-e386. PubMed ID: 34776365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project.
Evans A; Clements K; Maxwell A; Bishop H; Hanby A; Lawrence G; Pinder SE;
Clin Radiol; 2010 Mar; 65(3):181-4. PubMed ID: 20152272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Assessment of intraductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) using grating-based X-ray phase-contrast CT at conventional X-ray sources: An experimental ex-vivo study.
Hellerhoff K; Birnbacher L; Sztrókay-Gaul A; Grandl S; Auweter S; Willner M; Marschner M; Mayr D; Reiser MF; Pfeiffer F; Herzen J
PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0210291. PubMed ID: 30625220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis on assessment of the lesions in dense breast: a preliminary study].
Li Y; Ye ZX; Wu T; An YH; Liu PF; Bao RX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2013 Jan; 35(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 23648297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Patterns of aggressiveness: risk of progression to invasive breast cancer by mammographic features of calcifications in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ.
Lilleborge M; Falk RS; Hovda T; Holmen MM; Ursin G; Hofvind S
Acta Radiol; 2022 May; 63(5):586-595. PubMed ID: 33887963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [The role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ].
Nadrljanski M; Milosević Z; Plesinac-Karapandzić V; Goldner B
Srp Arh Celok Lek; 2013; 141(5-6):402-8. PubMed ID: 23858817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.
Sumkin JH; Ganott MA; Chough DM; Catullo VJ; Zuley ML; Shinde DD; Hakim CM; Bandos AI; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2015 Dec; 22(12):1477-82. PubMed ID: 26391857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. MR imaging appearance of noncalcified and calcified DCIS.
Scott-Moncrieff A; Sullivan ME; Mendelson EB; Wang L
Breast J; 2018 May; 24(3):343-349. PubMed ID: 29139591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
