811 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27918707)
21. Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.
Lee JM; Ichikawa LE; Wernli KJ; Bowles E; Specht JM; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL; Lowry KP; Tosteson ANA; Stout NK; Houssami N; Onega T; Buist DSM
Radiology; 2021 Aug; 300(2):290-300. PubMed ID: 34003059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging.
Lo G; Scaranelo AM; Aboras H; Ghai S; Kulkarni S; Fleming R; Bukhanov K; Crystal P
Radiology; 2017 Oct; 285(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 28586291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.
Miglioretti DL; Ichikawa L; Smith RA; Buist DSM; Carney PA; Geller B; Monsees B; Onega T; Rosenberg R; Sickles EA; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K
Acad Radiol; 2017 Oct; 24(10):1256-1264. PubMed ID: 28551400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.
Carney PA; Sickles EA; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Brenner RJ; Feig SA; Smith RA; Rosenberg RD; Bogart TA; Browning S; Barry JW; Kelly MM; Tran KA; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2010 May; 255(2):354-61. PubMed ID: 20413750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Influence of Risk Category and Screening Round on the Performance of an MR Imaging and Mammography Screening Program in Carriers of the BRCA Mutation and Other Women at Increased Risk.
Vreemann S; Gubern-Mérida A; Schlooz-Vries MS; Bult P; van Gils CH; Hoogerbrugge N; Karssemeijer N; Mann RM
Radiology; 2018 Feb; 286(2):443-451. PubMed ID: 29040037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.
Houssami N; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BM; Muss HB; Irwig L
JAMA; 2011 Feb; 305(8):790-9. PubMed ID: 21343578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.
Bernardi D; Li T; Pellegrini M; Macaskill P; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Houssami N
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():26-31. PubMed ID: 30150047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.
Ernster VL; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Zheng Y; Weaver DL; Cutter G; Yankaskas BC; Rosenberg R; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Taplin SH; Urban N; Geller BM
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Oct; 94(20):1546-54. PubMed ID: 12381707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Screening mammographic performance by race and age in the National Mammography Database: 29,479,665 screening mammograms from 13,181,241 women.
Lee CS; Goldman L; Grimm LJ; Liu IX; Simanowith M; Rosenberg R; Zuley M; Moy L
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2024 Feb; 203(3):599-612. PubMed ID: 37897646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.
Yankaskas BC; Haneuse S; Kapp JM; Kerlikowske K; Geller B; Buist DS;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 May; 102(10):692-701. PubMed ID: 20439838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Proposed biopsy performance benchmarks for MRI based on an audit of a large academic center.
Sedora Román NI; Mehta TS; Sharpe RE; Slanetz PJ; Venkataraman S; Fein-Zachary V; Dialani V
Breast J; 2018 May; 24(3):319-324. PubMed ID: 28833841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
