355 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28806573)
1. Digital breast Tomosynthesis vacuum assisted biopsy for Tomosynthesis-detected Sonographically occult lesions.
Ariaratnam NS; Little ST; Whitley MA; Ferguson K
Clin Imaging; 2018; 47():4-8. PubMed ID: 28806573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy.
Schrading S; Distelmaier M; Dirrichs T; Detering S; Brolund L; Strobel K; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Mar; 274(3):654-62. PubMed ID: 25386875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Initial Experience of Tomosynthesis-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Biopsies of Tomosynthesis-Detected (2D Mammography and Ultrasound Occult) Architectural Distortions.
Patel BK; Covington M; Pizzitola VJ; Lorans R; Giurescu M; Eversman W; Lewin J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jun; 210(6):1395-1400. PubMed ID: 29570367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Tomosynthesis-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy of Architectural Distortion Without a Sonographic Correlate: A Retrospective Review.
Ambinder EB; Plotkin A; Euhus D; Mullen LA; Oluyemi E; Di Carlo P; Philip M; Panigrahi B; Cimino-Mathews A; Myers KS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Oct; 217(4):845-854. PubMed ID: 33147055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Upright Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-guided versus Prone Stereotactic Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy.
Bahl M; Maunglay M; D'Alessandro HA; Lehman CD
Radiology; 2019 Feb; 290(2):298-304. PubMed ID: 30511909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Pathological outcome of sonographically occult architectural distortions (AD) visible only on digital breast tomosynthesis, and comparison with AD visible also on 2D mammography.
Linda A; Tarricone R; Londero V; Girometti R; Zuiani C
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Jan; 146():110075. PubMed ID: 34864616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.
Freer PE; Niell B; Rafferty EA
Radiology; 2015 May; 275(2):377-83. PubMed ID: 25575115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsies with secondary analysis of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions.
Cohen EO; Korhonen KE; Sun J; Leung JWT
Eur Radiol; 2023 Sep; 33(9):6189-6203. PubMed ID: 37042980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Digital Mammography Stereotactic Biopsy versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsy: Differences in Biopsy Targets, Pathologic Results, and Discordance Rates.
Rochat CJ; Baird GL; Lourenco AP
Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):518-527. PubMed ID: 31961261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Guiding vacuum-assisted biopsy in prone position: digital breast tomosynthesis vs stereotactic.
Scaperrotta GP; Boffelli G; Depretto C; Di Leo G; Liguori A; Monaco CG; Borelli A; Ferranti C
Tumori; 2022 Aug; 108(4):326-330. PubMed ID: 34041978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis.
Clauser P; Carbonaro LA; Pancot M; Girometti R; Bazzocchi M; Zuiani C; Sardanelli F
Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2830-9. PubMed ID: 25903704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy: a single-institution experience in Japan.
Ido M; Saito M; Banno H; Ito Y; Goto M; Ando T; Kousaka J; Mouri Y; Fujii K; Imai T; Nakano S; Suzuki K; Murotani K
BMC Med Imaging; 2023 Jan; 23(1):2. PubMed ID: 36604648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings.
Ray KM; Turner E; Sickles EA; Joe BN
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):538-42. PubMed ID: 26148173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast Microcalcifications: Diagnostic Outcomes According to Image-Guided Biopsy Method.
Bae S; Yoon JH; Moon HJ; Kim MJ; Kim EK
Korean J Radiol; 2015; 16(5):996-1005. PubMed ID: 26357494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital breast tomosynthesis and breast ultrasound: Additional roles in dense breasts with category 0 at conventional digital mammography.
Lee WK; Chung J; Cha ES; Lee JE; Kim JH
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):291-296. PubMed ID: 26499000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of Diagnostic Mammography-Guided Biopsy and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Suspicious Breast Calcifications: Results in 1354 Biopsies.
Nguyen DL; Boron A; Oluyemi ET; Myers KS; Mullen LA; Ambinder EB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2023 Feb; 220(2):212-223. PubMed ID: 36102725
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Ultrasonography as a Guiding Method in Breast Micro-Calcification Vacuum-Assisted Biopsies.
Keränen AK; Haapea M; Rissanen T
Ultraschall Med; 2016 Oct; 37(5):497-502. PubMed ID: 27737482
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Outcome of Architectural Distortion Detected Only at Breast Tomosynthesis versus 2D Mammography.
Alshafeiy TI; Nguyen JV; Rochman CM; Nicholson BT; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
Radiology; 2018 Jul; 288(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 29584593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
