390 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27139264)
1. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.
Zuley ML; Bandos AI; Ganott MA; Sumkin JH; Kelly AE; Catullo VJ; Rathfon GY; Lu AH; Gur D
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):89-95. PubMed ID: 23143023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.
Tagliafico AS; Tagliafico G; Cavagnetto F; Calabrese M; Houssami N
Br J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 86(1031):20130255. PubMed ID: 24029631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Breast tomosynthesis for the clarification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions can decrease follow-up examinations and enables immediate cancer diagnosis.
Bahrs SD; Otto V; Hattermann V; Klumpp B; Hahn M; Nikolaou K; Siegmann-Luz K
Acta Radiol; 2018 Oct; 59(10):1176-1183. PubMed ID: 29451022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Digital breast tomosynthesis and breast ultrasound: Additional roles in dense breasts with category 0 at conventional digital mammography.
Lee WK; Chung J; Cha ES; Lee JE; Kim JH
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):291-296. PubMed ID: 26499000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.
Brandt KR; Craig DA; Hoskins TL; Henrichsen TL; Bendel EC; Brandt SR; Mandrekar J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Feb; 200(2):291-8. PubMed ID: 23345348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.
Liberman L; Abramson AF; Squires FB; Glassman JR; Morris EA; Dershaw DD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9648759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Offit LR; Chikarmane SA; Lacson RC; Giess CS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2023 Sep; 221(3):313-322. PubMed ID: 37095672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis.
Ezeana CF; Puppala M; Wang L; Chang JC; Wong STC
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Aug; 153():110361. PubMed ID: 35617870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories.
Bent CK; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Sayre JW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 May; 194(5):1378-83. PubMed ID: 20410428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [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]
18. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.
Zuley ML; Guo B; Catullo VJ; Chough DM; Kelly AE; Lu AH; Rathfon GY; Lee Spangler M; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Bandos AI
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):664-71. PubMed ID: 24475859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
