304 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27769015)
1. Breast density (BD) assessment with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): Agreement between Quantra™ and 5th edition BI-RADS
Ekpo EU; Mello-Thoms C; Rickard M; Brennan PC; McEntee MF
Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():185-190. PubMed ID: 27769015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quantra™ should be considered a tool for two-grade scale mammographic breast density classification.
Ekpo EU; McEntee MF; Rickard M; Brennan PC; Kunduri J; Demchig D; Mello-Thoms C
Br J Radiol; 2016; 89(1060):20151057. PubMed ID: 26882045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of Interradiologist Agreement Regarding Mammographic Breast Density Classification Using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
Ekpo EU; Ujong UP; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1119-23. PubMed ID: 26999655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Visual Assessment of Breast Density in BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions With Automated Volumetric Measurement.
Youk JH; Kim SJ; Son EJ; Gweon HM; Kim JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Sep; 209(3):703-708. PubMed ID: 28657850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The role of breast tomosynthesis in a predominantly dense breast population at a tertiary breast centre: breast density assessment and diagnostic performance in comparison with MRI.
Förnvik D; Kataoka M; Iima M; Ohashi A; Kanao S; Toi M; Togashi K
Eur Radiol; 2018 Aug; 28(8):3194-3203. PubMed ID: 29460074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.
Irshad A; Leddy R; Ackerman S; Cluver A; Pavic D; Abid A; Lewis MC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Dec; 207(6):1366-1371. PubMed ID: 27656766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.
Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Kim JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1056-62. PubMed ID: 26934689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK
Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in determining breast density according to the fifth edition of the BI-RADS® Atlas.
Pesce K; Tajerian M; Chico MJ; Swiecicki MP; Boietti B; Frangella MJ; Benitez S
Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2020; 62(6):481-486. PubMed ID: 32493654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.
Gard CC; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Taplin SH; Rutter CM
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):481-9. PubMed ID: 26133090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation.
Alshafeiy TI; Wadih A; Nicholson BT; Rochman CM; Peppard HR; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):W36-W41. PubMed ID: 28504593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A self-directed learning intervention for radiographers rating mammographic breast density.
Ekpo EU; Hogg P; Wasike E; McEntee MF
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):337-342. PubMed ID: 28965898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Changes in Breast Density Reporting Patterns of Radiologists After Publication of the 5th Edition BI-RADS Guidelines: A Single Institution Experience.
Irshad A; Leddy R; Lewis M; Cluver A; Ackerman S; Pavic D; Collins H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Oct; 209(4):943-948. PubMed ID: 28796548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Automated mammographic density measurement using Quantra™: comparison with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology synoptic scale.
Yeo I; Akwo J; Ekpo E
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2020 May; 7(3):035501. PubMed ID: 32509917
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
