556 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28683503)
21. Costs associated with evaluation of incidental breast lesions identified on computed tomography.
Schramm D; Jasaabuu C; Bach AG; Tennstedt O; Spielmann RP; Surov A
Br J Radiol; 2016; 89(1059):20140847. PubMed ID: 26648250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Rate of malignancy in MRI-detected probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions.
Spick C; Szolar DH; Baltzer PA; Tillich M; Reittner P; Preidler KW; Pinker-Domenig K; Helbich TH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Mar; 202(3):684-9. PubMed ID: 24555608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Second reading of breast imaging at the hospital department of radiology: reasonable or waste of money?].
Teifke A; Vomweg TW; Hlawatsch A; Nasresfahani A; Kern A; Victor A; Schmidt M; Bittinger F; Düber C
Rofo; 2006 Mar; 178(3):330-6. PubMed ID: 16508842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Prevalence and Predictive Value of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Correlation with Study Indication.
Chikarmane SA; Tai R; Meyer JE; Giess CS
Acad Radiol; 2017 Apr; 24(4):435-441. PubMed ID: 27955878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification--a pilot study.
Wenkel E; Heckmann M; Heinrich M; Schwab SA; Uder M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz WA; Janka R
Rofo; 2008 Sep; 180(9):804-8. PubMed ID: 18704878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Performance of users in tropical areas with the BI-RADS classification of breast lesions for predicting malignancy].
Gonsu Kamga JE; Moifo B; Sando Z; Guegang Goudjou E; Nko'o Amvene S; Gonsu Fotsin J
Med Sante Trop; 2013; 23(4):439-44. PubMed ID: 24334372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound.
Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Mar; 206(3):666-72. PubMed ID: 26901026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Imaging and Histopathologic Features of BI-RADS 3 Lesions Upgraded during Imaging Surveillance.
Michaels A; Chung CS; Birdwell RL; Frost EP; Giess CS
Breast J; 2017 Jan; 23(1):10-16. PubMed ID: 27612001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A preliminary study to propose a diagnostic algorithm for PET/CT-detected incidental breast lesions: application of BI-RADS lexicon for US in combination with SUVmax.
Bakhshayeshkaram M; Salehi Y; Abbasi M; Hashemi Beni R; Seifi S; Hassanzad M; Jamaati HR; Aghahosseini F
Eur Radiol; 2019 Oct; 29(10):5507-5516. PubMed ID: 30887201
[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. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography.
Lehman CD; Rutter CM; Eby PR; White E; Buist DS; Taplin SH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):511-5. PubMed ID: 18212240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Benign (BI-RADS 2) lesions in breast MRI.
Spick C; Szolar DH; Tillich M; Reittner P; Preidler KW; Baltzer PA
Clin Radiol; 2015 Apr; 70(4):395-9. PubMed ID: 25649442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions.
Chung CS; Giess CS; Gombos EC; Frost EP; Yeh ED; Raza S; Birdwell RL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Apr; 202(4):922-7. PubMed ID: 24660725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography: Does it really suffer from low specificity? A retrospective analysis stratified by mammographic BI-RADS classes.
Benndorf M; Baltzer PA; Vag T; Gajda M; Runnebaum IB; Kaiser WA
Acta Radiol; 2010 Sep; 51(7):715-21. PubMed ID: 20707656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Concordance of BI-RADS Assessments and Management Recommendations for Breast MRI in Community Practice.
Lee AY; Ichikawa L; Lee JM; Lee CI; DeMartini WB; Joe BN; Wernli KJ; Sprague BL; Herschorn SD; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jan; 206(1):211-6. PubMed ID: 26700354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [Analysis of the results of mammography screening in Dubrovnik-Neretva County in the 2006-2009 period].
Dzono-Boban A; Mratović MC; Masanović M
Acta Med Croatica; 2010 Dec; 64(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 21692270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Does power Doppler ultrasonography improve the BI-RADS category assessment and diagnostic accuracy of solid breast lesions?
Tozaki M; Fukuma E
Acta Radiol; 2011 Sep; 52(7):706-10. PubMed ID: 21596798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not to be?
Oztekin PS; Kosar PN
Breast J; 2014; 20(6):622-31. PubMed ID: 25200378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
