272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28834447)
41. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. High-spatial-resolution 3-T breast MRI of nonmasslike enhancement lesions: an analysis of their features as significant predictors of malignancy.
Uematsu T; Kasami M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 May; 198(5):1223-30. PubMed ID: 22528918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Grading System to Categorize Breast MRI in BI-RADS 5th Edition: A Multivariate Study of Breast Mass Descriptors in Terms of Probability of Malignancy.
Fujiwara K; Yamada T; Kanemaki Y; Okamoto S; Kojima Y; Tsugawa K; Nakajima Y
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Mar; 210(3):W118-W127. PubMed ID: 29381382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Quantitative evaluation of Kaiser score in diagnosing breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for patients with high-grade background parenchymal enhancement.
Wang H; Gao L; Chen X; Wang SJ
Quant Imaging Med Surg; 2023 Oct; 13(10):6384-6394. PubMed ID: 37869283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions.
Eby PR; DeMartini WB; Gutierrez RL; Saini MH; Peacock S; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Sep; 193(3):861-7. PubMed ID: 19696303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. The correlation of background parenchymal enhancement in the contralateral breast with patient and tumor characteristics of MRI-screen detected breast cancers.
Vreemann S; Gubern-Mérida A; Borelli C; Bult P; Karssemeijer N; Mann RM
PLoS One; 2018; 13(1):e0191399. PubMed ID: 29351560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation.
Elverici E; Barça AN; Aktaş H; Özsoy A; Zengin B; Çavuşoğlu M; Araz L
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2015; 21(3):189-94. PubMed ID: 25835079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Diagnostic performance of initial enhancement analysis using ultra-fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast lesions.
Goto M; Sakai K; Yokota H; Kiba M; Yoshida M; Imai H; Weiland E; Yokota I; Yamada K
Eur Radiol; 2019 Mar; 29(3):1164-1174. PubMed ID: 30088064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement Is Not Associated with Breast Cancer.
Bennani-Baiti B; Dietzel M; Baltzer PA
PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158573. PubMed ID: 27379395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Motion artifacts, lesion type, and parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI: what does really influence diagnostic accuracy?
Clauser P; Dietzel M; Weber M; Kaiser CG; Baltzer PA
Acta Radiol; 2019 Jan; 60(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 29667880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. 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]
53. 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]
54. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome.
Raza S; Chikarmane SA; Neilsen SS; Zorn LM; Birdwell RL
Radiology; 2008 Sep; 248(3):773-81. PubMed ID: 18647850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Scoring system based on BI-RADS lexicon to predict probability of malignancy in suspicious microcalcifications.
Youk JH; Son EJ; Kim JA; Moon HJ; Kim MJ; Choi CH; Kim EK
Ann Surg Oncol; 2012 May; 19(5):1491-8. PubMed ID: 22173328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Quantitative Assessment of Breast Parenchymal Uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT: Correlation with Age, Background Parenchymal Enhancement, and Amount of Fibroglandular Tissue on MRI.
Leithner D; Baltzer PA; Magometschnigg HF; Wengert GJ; Karanikas G; Helbich TH; Weber M; Wadsak W; Pinker K
J Nucl Med; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1518-1522. PubMed ID: 27230924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. 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]
59. Nonmass Enhancement Breast Lesions: Diagnostic Performance of Kinetic Assessment on Ultrafast and Standard Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Comparison With Morphologic Evaluation.
Mori N; Sheth D; Abe H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Aug; 215(2):511-518. PubMed ID: 32452698
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
