232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26700354)
1. Concordance of BI-RADS Assessments and Management Recommendations for Breast MRI in Community Practice.
Lee AY; Ichikawa L; Lee JM; Lee CI; DeMartini WB; Joe BN; Wernli KJ; Sprague BL; Herschorn SD; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jan; 206(1):211-6. PubMed ID: 26700354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.
Lehman C; Holt S; Peacock S; White E; Urban N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jul; 179(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 12076896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.
Taplin SH; Ichikawa LE; Kerlikowske K; Ernster VL; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Carney PA; Geller BM; Urban N; Dignan MB; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2002 Feb; 222(2):529-35. PubMed ID: 11818624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI.
Strigel RM; Burnside ES; Elezaby M; Fowler AM; Kelcz F; Salkowski LR; DeMartini WB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1392-1399. PubMed ID: 28792802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions.
Eby PR; DeMartini WB; Gutierrez RL; Saini MH; Peacock S; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Sep; 193(3):861-7. PubMed ID: 19696303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Frequency of Malignancy and Imaging Characteristics of Probably Benign Lesions Seen at Breast MRI.
Grimm LJ; Anderson AL; Baker JA; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Yoon SC; Ghate SV
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Aug; 205(2):442-7. PubMed ID: 26204298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [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]
10. Characteristics, Malignancy Rate, and Follow-up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Identified at Breast MR Imaging: Implications for MR Image Interpretation and Management.
Chikarmane SA; Birdwell RL; Poole PS; Sippo DA; Giess CS
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):707-15. PubMed ID: 27089027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Frequency and Cancer Yield of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected at High-Risk Screening Breast MRI.
Edmonds CE; Lamb LR; Mercaldo SF; Sippo DA; Burk KS; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Feb; 214(2):240-248. PubMed ID: 31799867
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up.
Hambly NM; Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Brennan S; Morris EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jan; 196(1):218-24. PubMed ID: 21178070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.
Abramovici G; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 21285337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.
Geller BM; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R; Ernster VL; Yankaskas BC; Sickles EA; Carney PA; Dignan MB; Rosenberg RD; Urban N; Zheng Y; Taplin SH
Radiology; 2002 Feb; 222(2):536-42. PubMed ID: 11818625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions identified at preoperative breast MRI in patients with breast cancer: implications for management.
Lee SE; Lee JH; Han K; Kim EK; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Park VY
Eur Radiol; 2020 May; 30(5):2773-2781. PubMed ID: 32006168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography.
Lehman CD; Rutter CM; Eby PR; White E; Buist DS; Taplin SH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):511-5. PubMed ID: 18212240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. MR imaging in probably benign lesions (BI-RADS category 3) of the breast.
Gökalp G; Topal U
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Mar; 57(3):436-44. PubMed ID: 16316732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
