1041 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28221097)
61. Supplemental Screening Breast US in Women with Negative Mammographic Findings: Effect of Routine Axillary Scanning.
Lee SH; Yi A; Jang MJ; Chang JM; Cho N; Moon WK
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):830-837. PubMed ID: 29083988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.
Hofvind S; Sagstad S; Sebuødegård S; Chen Y; Roman M; Lee CI
Radiology; 2018 Apr; 287(1):58-67. PubMed ID: 29239711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Abbreviated Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Supplemental Screening of Women With Dense Breasts and Average Risk.
Weinstein SP; Korhonen K; Cirelli C; Schnall MD; McDonald ES; Pantel AR; Zuckerman S; Borthakur A; Conant EF
J Clin Oncol; 2020 Nov; 38(33):3874-3882. PubMed ID: 32931396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.
Saadatmand S; Tilanus-Linthorst MM; Rutgers EJ; Hoogerbrugge N; Oosterwijk JC; Tollenaar RA; Hooning M; Loo CE; Obdeijn IM; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Sep; 105(17):1314-21. PubMed ID: 23940285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Multicentric Cancer Detected at Breast MR Imaging and Not at Mammography: Important or Not?
Iacconi C; Galman L; Zheng J; Sacchini V; Sutton EJ; Dershaw D; Morris EA
Radiology; 2016 May; 279(2):378-84. PubMed ID: 26605912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Radiologist-performed hand-held ultrasound screening at average risk of breast cancer: results from a single health screening center.
Chang JM; Koo HR; Moon WK
Acta Radiol; 2015 Jun; 56(6):652-8. PubMed ID: 24951614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk.
Miles R; Wan F; Onega TL; Lenderink-Carpenter A; O'Meara ES; Zhu W; Henderson LM; Haas JS; Hill DA; Tosteson ANA; Wernli KJ; Alford-Teaster J; Lee JM; Lehman CD; Lee CI
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2018 Jun; 27(6):748-754. PubMed ID: 29341851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. False-negative MRI breast screening in high-risk women.
Maxwell AJ; Lim YY; Hurley E; Evans DG; Howell A; Gadde S
Clin Radiol; 2017 Mar; 72(3):207-216. PubMed ID: 27932250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density.
Riedl CC; Luft N; Bernhart C; Weber M; Bernathova M; Tea MK; Rudas M; Singer CF; Helbich TH
J Clin Oncol; 2015 Apr; 33(10):1128-35. PubMed ID: 25713430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Application of the downgrade criteria to supplemental screening ultrasound for women with negative mammography but dense breasts.
Kim SY; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Kim EK
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Nov; 95(44):e5279. PubMed ID: 27858896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Interval Cancers after Negative Supplemental Screening Breast MRI Results in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
Kim GR; Cho N; Kim SY; Han W; Moon WK
Radiology; 2021 Aug; 300(2):314-323. PubMed ID: 34100684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Evaluation of Adjunctive Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women Aged 40-49 Years With Varying Breast Density Undergoing Screening Mammography: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Harada-Shoji N; Suzuki A; Ishida T; Zheng YF; Narikawa-Shiono Y; Sato-Tadano A; Ohta R; Ohuchi N
JAMA Netw Open; 2021 Aug; 4(8):e2121505. PubMed ID: 34406400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.
Rhodes DJ; Hruska CB; Phillips SW; Whaley DH; O'Connor MK
Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):106-18. PubMed ID: 21045179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results.
Kuhl CK; Schmutzler RK; Leutner CC; Kempe A; Wardelmann E; Hocke A; Maringa M; Pfeifer U; Krebs D; Schild HH
Radiology; 2000 Apr; 215(1):267-79. PubMed ID: 10751498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. The supplemental value of mammographic screening over breast MRI alone in BRCA2 mutation carriers.
Obdeijn IM; Mann RM; Loo CCE; Lobbes M; Voormolen EMC; van Deurzen CHM; de Bock G; ; Hooning MJ
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2020 Jun; 181(3):581-588. PubMed ID: 32333294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening.
Weigel S; Batzler WU; Decker T; Hense HW; Heindel W
Rofo; 2009 Dec; 181(12):1144-50. PubMed ID: 19859859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study.
Zahl PH; Gøtzsche PC; Mæhlen J
Lancet Oncol; 2011 Nov; 12(12):1118-24. PubMed ID: 21996169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
