132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26683090)
1. A comparison of two digital mammography systems: are there any differences?
Evans T; Burlton B; Devenish G; Stevens G; Lewis M; Gower Thomas K
Clin Radiol; 2016 Jan; 71(1):27-31. PubMed ID: 26683090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Digital mammography screening with photon-counting technique: can a high diagnostic performance be realized at low mean glandular dose?
Weigel S; Berkemeyer S; Girnus R; Sommer A; Lenzen H; Heindel W
Radiology; 2014 May; 271(2):345-55. PubMed ID: 24495234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital Mammography Screening: Does Age Influence the Detection Rates of Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Grade Ductal Carcinoma in Situ?
Weigel S; Hense HW; Heidrich J; Berkemeyer S; Heindel W; Heidinger O
Radiology; 2016 Mar; 278(3):707-13. PubMed ID: 26505802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ.
Weigel S; Heindel W; Heidinger O; Berkemeyer S; Hense HW
Radiology; 2014 Apr; 271(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 24475843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Macaskill P
Lancet Oncol; 2013 Jun; 14(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 23623721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
Bluekens AM; Holland R; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Radiology; 2012 Dec; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study.
Duffy SW; Dibden A; Michalopoulos D; Offman J; Parmar D; Jenkins J; Collins B; Robson T; Scorfield S; Green K; Hall C; Liao XH; Ryan M; Johnson F; Stevens G; Kearins O; Sellars S; Patnick J
Lancet Oncol; 2016 Jan; 17(1):109-14. PubMed ID: 26655422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.
Luiten JD; Voogd AC; Luiten EJT; Duijm LEM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(1):307-314. PubMed ID: 28748346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer.
Meshkat B; Prichard RS; Al-Hilli Z; Bass GA; Quinn C; O'Doherty A; Rothwell J; Geraghty J; Evoy D; McDermott EW
Breast; 2015 Jun; 24(3):278-82. PubMed ID: 25771080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Impact of Digital Mammography on Cancer Detection and Recall Rates: 11.3 Million Screening Episodes in the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Alison R; Kearins O; Jenkins J; Patnick J; Given-Wilson RM
Radiology; 2019 Mar; 290(3):629-637. PubMed ID: 30526360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detection Rates of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ with Biennial Digital Mammography Screening: Radiologic Findings Support Pathologic Model of Tumor Progression.
Weigel S; Khil L; Hense HW; Decker T; Wellmann J; Heidrich J; Sommer A; Heidinger O; Heindel W
Radiology; 2018 Feb; 286(2):424-432. PubMed ID: 29106821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
Friedewald SM; Rafferty EA; Rose SL; Durand MA; Plecha DM; Greenberg JS; Hayes MK; Copit DS; Carlson KL; Cink TM; Barke LD; Greer LN; Miller DP; Conant EF
JAMA; 2014 Jun; 311(24):2499-507. PubMed ID: 25058084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
Karssemeijer N; Bluekens AM; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; Beekman M; Visser R; van Engen R; Bartels-Kortland A; Broeders MJ
Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Akhtar AL; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Nov; 205(5):1143-8. PubMed ID: 26496565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
