131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28881248)
1. Value of a short-term imaging follow-up after a benign result in a one-stop breast unit: Is it still useful?
Daroles J; Borget I; Suciu V; Mazouni C; Delaloge S; Balleyguier C
Eur J Cancer; 2017 Nov; 85():23-30. PubMed ID: 28881248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Computer-aided detection in mammography: downstream effect on diagnostic testing, ductal carcinoma in situ treatment, and costs.
Fenton JJ; Lee CI; Xing G; Baldwin LM; Elmore JG
JAMA Intern Med; 2014 Dec; 174(12):2032-4. PubMed ID: 25347134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Follow-up interval for probably benign breast lesions on screening ultrasound in women at average risk for breast cancer with dense breasts.
Moon HJ; Kim MJ; Yoon JH; Kim EK
Acta Radiol; 2018 Sep; 59(9):1045-1050. PubMed ID: 29231050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy.
Cho N; Han W; Han BK; Bae MS; Ko ES; Nam SJ; Chae EY; Lee JW; Kim SH; Kang BJ; Song BJ; Kim EK; Moon HJ; Kim SI; Kim SM; Kang E; Choi Y; Kim HH; Moon WK
JAMA Oncol; 2017 Nov; 3(11):1495-1502. PubMed ID: 28655029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.
Mango VL; Goel A; Mema E; Kwak E; Ha R
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2019 Jun; 49(7):e216-e221. PubMed ID: 30632645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A cost-effective handheld breast scanner for use in low-resource environments: a validation study.
Broach RB; Geha R; Englander BS; DeLaCruz L; Thrash H; Brooks AD
World J Surg Oncol; 2016 Oct; 14(1):277. PubMed ID: 27793162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Utility of short-interval follow-up mammography after a benign-concordant stereotactic breast biopsy result.
Maldonado S; Gandhi N; Ha T; Choi P; Khalkhali I; Kalantari BN; Dauphine C
Breast; 2018 Dec; 42():50-53. PubMed ID: 30172804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.
Trentham-Dietz A; Ergun MA; Alagoz O; Stout NK; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Dittus K; James TA; Vacek PM; Herschorn SD; Burnside ES; Tosteson ANA; Weaver DL; Sprague BL
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Feb; 168(1):229-239. PubMed ID: 29185118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Retroareolar masses and intraductal abnormalities detected on screening ultrasound: can biopsy be avoided?
Guo Y; Raghu M; Durand M; Hooley R
Br J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 91(1090):20170816. PubMed ID: 29338316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dutch digital breast cancer screening: implications for breast cancer care.
Timmers JM; den Heeten GJ; Adang EM; Otten JD; Verbeek AL; Broeders MJ
Eur J Public Health; 2012 Dec; 22(6):925-9. PubMed ID: 22158996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Utility of 6-month follow-up imaging after a concordant benign breast biopsy result.
Salkowski LR; Fowler AM; Burnside ES; Sisney GA
Radiology; 2011 Feb; 258(2):380-7. PubMed ID: 21079199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radial scars diagnosed on breast core biopsy: Frequency of atypia and carcinoma on excision and implications for management.
Donaldson AR; Sieck L; Booth CN; Calhoun BC
Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():201-207. PubMed ID: 27371970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The value of 6-month interval imaging after benign radiologic-pathologic concordant minimally invasive breast biopsy.
Manjoros DT; Collett AE; Alberty-Oller JJ; Frazier TG; Barrio AV
Ann Surg Oncol; 2013 Oct; 20(10):3163-8. PubMed ID: 23975288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Focal breast pain: imaging evaluation and outcomes.
Owen WA; Brazeal HA; Shaw HL; Lee MV; Appleton CM; Holley SO
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():148-155. PubMed ID: 30825809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Expected 10-year treatment cost of breast cancer detected within and outside a public screening program in Norway.
Moger TA; Bjørnelv GM; Aas E
Eur J Health Econ; 2016 Jul; 17(6):745-54. PubMed ID: 26239280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population.
Morris EA; Liberman L; Ballon DJ; Robson M; Abramson AF; Heerdt A; Dershaw DD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Sep; 181(3):619-26. PubMed ID: 12933450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Macaskill P
Lancet Oncol; 2013 Jun; 14(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 23623721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Rapid Access to Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammogRaphy in women recalled from breast cancer screening: the RACER trial study design.
Neeter LMFH; Houben IPL; Nelemans PJ; Van Nijnatten TJA; Pijnappel RM; Frotscher C; Osinga-de Jong M; Sanders F; Van Dalen T; Raat HPJ; Essers BAB; Wildberger JE; Smidt ML; Lobbes MBI
Trials; 2019 Dec; 20(1):759. PubMed ID: 31870414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
