BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28189505)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.
    Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M
    Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: Comparison of the diagnostic performance and radiation dose with two-view DM with or without MLO-DBT.
    Kang HJ; Chang JM; Lee J; Song SE; Shin SU; Kim WH; Bae MS; Moon WK
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 Nov; 85(11):2042-2048. PubMed ID: 27776658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Analysis of computer-aided detection techniques and signal characteristics for clustered microcalcifications on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Samala RK; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Helvie MA
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Oct; 61(19):7092-7112. PubMed ID: 27648708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.
    Chan HP; Helvie MA; Petrick N; Sahiner B; Adler DD; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Blane CE; Joynt LK; Wilson TE; Hadjiiski LM; Goodsitt MM
    Acad Radiol; 2001 Jun; 8(6):454-66. PubMed ID: 11394537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Quantitative comparison of clustered microcalcifications in for-presentation and for-processing mammograms in full-field digital mammography.
    Wang J; Nishikawa RM; Yang Y
    Med Phys; 2017 Jul; 44(7):3726-3738. PubMed ID: 28477395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study.
    Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Zuiani C; Martincich L; Londero V; Caramia E; Clauser P; Campanino PP; Regini E; Luparia A; Castellano I; Bergamasco L; Sapino A; Fonio P; Bazzocchi M; Gandini G
    Clin Radiol; 2016 Sep; 71(9):889-95. PubMed ID: 27210245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.
    Wallis MG; Moa E; Zanca F; Leifland K; Danielsson M
    Radiology; 2012 Mar; 262(3):788-96. PubMed ID: 22274840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test.
    Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Van Ongeval C; Aerts G; Stalmans D; Zanca F; Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Dance DR; Young KC; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 May; 60(10):3939-58. PubMed ID: 25909596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Staging of breast cancer and the advanced applications of digital mammogram: what the physician needs to know?
    Helal MH; Mansour SM; Zaglol M; Salaleldin LA; Nada OM; Haggag MA
    Br J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 90(1071):20160717. PubMed ID: 28055247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography.
    Kim SA; Chang JM; Cho N; Yi A; Moon WK
    Korean J Radiol; 2015; 16(2):229-38. PubMed ID: 25741187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of JPEG2000 data compression on an automated system for detecting clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms.
    Penedo M; Lado MJ; Tahoces PG; Souto M; Vidal JJ
    IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2006 Apr; 10(2):354-61. PubMed ID: 16617624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Zooming method (x 2.0) of digital mammography vs digital magnification view (x 1.8) in full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of microcalcifications.
    Kim MJ; Youk JH; Kang DR; Choi SH; Kwak JY; Son EJ; Kim EK
    Br J Radiol; 2010 Jun; 83(990):486-92. PubMed ID: 19752171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Initial Clinical Experience with Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    Lee YZ; Puett C; Inscoe CR; Jia B; Kim C; Walsh R; Yoon S; Kim SJ; Kuzmiak CM; Zeng D; Lu J; Zhou O
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Oct; 26(10):1363-1372. PubMed ID: 30660473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Selective-diffusion regularization for enhancement of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
    Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM
    Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):6003-14. PubMed ID: 21158312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views.
    Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Zelakiewicz S; Schmitz A; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Nees AV; Neal CH; Carson P; Lu Y; Hadjiiski L; Wei J
    Radiology; 2014 Dec; 273(3):675-85. PubMed ID: 25007048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Physics, Artifacts, and Quality Control Considerations.
    Tirada N; Li G; Dreizin D; Robinson L; Khorjekar G; Dromi S; Ernst T
    Radiographics; 2019; 39(2):413-426. PubMed ID: 30768362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
    Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.
    Uematsu T
    Jpn J Radiol; 2009 May; 27(4):168-75. PubMed ID: 19499307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.