BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

298 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27769015)

  • 21. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
    Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
    Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Added Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Combined with Digital Mammography According to Reader Agreement: Changes in BI-RADS Rate and Follow-Up Management.
    Galati F; Marzocca F; Bassetti E; Luciani ML; Tan S; Catalano C; Pediconi F
    Breast Care (Basel); 2017 Sep; 12(4):218-222. PubMed ID: 29070984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
    Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
    Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
    Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening.
    Brandt KR; Scott CG; Ma L; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Jensen MR; Whaley DH; Wu FF; Malkov S; Hruska CB; Norman AD; Heine J; Shepherd J; Pankratz VS; Kerlikowske K; Vachon CM
    Radiology; 2016 Jun; 279(3):710-9. PubMed ID: 26694052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
    Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
    Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Potential Use of American College of Radiology BI-RADS Mammography Atlas for Reporting and Assessing Lesions Detected on Dedicated Breast CT Imaging: Preliminary Study.
    Jung HK; Kuzmiak CM; Kim KW; Choi NM; Kim HJ; Langman EL; Yoon S; Steen D; Zeng D; Gao F
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1395-1401. PubMed ID: 28728854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of variability in breast density assessment by BI-RADS category according to the level of experience.
    Eom HJ; Cha JH; Kang JW; Choi WJ; Kim HJ; Go E
    Acta Radiol; 2018 May; 59(5):527-532. PubMed ID: 28766978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
    Jeffers AM; Sieh W; Lipson JA; Rothstein JH; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL
    Radiology; 2017 Feb; 282(2):348-355. PubMed ID: 27598536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparing Mammographic Density Assessed by Digital Breast Tomosynthesis or Digital Mammography: The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Tice JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Joe BN; Ho TH; Kerlikowske K
    Radiology; 2022 Feb; 302(2):286-292. PubMed ID: 34812671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Fully automated measurements of volumetric breast density adapted for BIRADS 5th edition: a comparison with visual assessment.
    Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Eun NL; Kim JA
    Acta Radiol; 2021 Sep; 62(9):1148-1154. PubMed ID: 32910685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Diagnostic Efficacy of Synthesized 2D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Multi-ethnic Malaysian Population.
    Mumin NA; Rahmat K; Fadzli F; Ramli MT; Westerhout CJ; Ramli N; Rozalli FI; Ng KH
    Sci Rep; 2019 Feb; 9(1):1459. PubMed ID: 30728394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.
    Sacchetto D; Morra L; Agliozzo S; Bernardi D; Björklund T; Brancato B; Bravetti P; Carbonaro LA; Correale L; Fantò C; Favettini E; Martincich L; Milanesio L; Mombelloni S; Monetti F; Morrone D; Pellegrini M; Pesce B; Petrillo A; Saguatti G; Stevanin C; Trimboli RM; Tuttobene P; Valentini M; Marra V; Frigerio A; Bert A; Sardanelli F
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Jan; 26(1):175-83. PubMed ID: 25929945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort.
    Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
    Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.
    Balleyguier C; Arfi-Rouche J; Boyer B; Gauthier E; Helin V; Loshkajian A; Ragusa S; Delaloge S
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Jul; 29(7):3830-3838. PubMed ID: 30770972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography.
    Chae EY; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ
    Br J Radiol; 2016 Jun; 89(1062):20150743. PubMed ID: 27072391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective.
    Mohamed AA; Luo Y; Peng H; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
    J Digit Imaging; 2018 Aug; 31(4):387-392. PubMed ID: 28932980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.