These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
302 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]
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]