159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29245142)
1. The chest radiologist's role in invasive breast cancer detection.
Margolies LR; Salvatore M; Yip R; Tam K; Bertolini A; Henschke C; Yankelevitz D
Clin Imaging; 2018; 50():13-19. PubMed ID: 29245142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Focal Breast Lesions in Clinical CT Examinations of the Chest: A Retrospective Analysis.
Krug KB; Houbois C; Grinstein O; Borggrefe J; Puesken M; Hanstein B; Malter W; Maintz D; Hellmich M
Rofo; 2017 Oct; 189(10):977-989. PubMed ID: 28683503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The Effect of California's Breast Density Notification Legislation on Breast Cancer Screening.
Chau SL; Alabaster A; Luikart K; Brenman LM; Habel LA
J Prim Care Community Health; 2017 Apr; 8(2):55-62. PubMed ID: 27799412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Automated Breast Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening of Women With Dense Breasts: Reader Study of Mammography-Negative and Mammography-Positive Cancers.
Giger ML; Inciardi MF; Edwards A; Papaioannou J; Drukker K; Jiang Y; Brem R; Brown JB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Jun; 206(6):1341-50. PubMed ID: 27043979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The general radiologist's role in breast cancer risk assessment: breast density measurement on chest CT.
Margolies L; Salvatore M; Eber C; Jacobi A; Lee IJ; Liang M; Tang W; Xu D; Zhao S; Kale M; Wisnivesky J; Henschke CI; Yankelevitz D
Clin Imaging; 2015; 39(6):979-82. PubMed ID: 26210389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
Jeffers AM; Sieh W; Lipson JA; Rothstein JH; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL
Radiology; 2017 Feb; 282(2):348-355. PubMed ID: 27598536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case-control study.
Winkel RR; von Euler-Chelpin M; Nielsen M; Petersen K; Lillholm M; Nielsen MB; Lynge E; Uldall WY; Vejborg I
BMC Cancer; 2016 Jul; 16():414. PubMed ID: 27387546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mammography in asymptomatic women aged 40-49 years.
Silva FX; Katz L; Souza AS; Amorim MM
Rev Saude Publica; 2014 Dec; 48(6):931-9. PubMed ID: 26039396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.
Kerlikowske K; Zhu W; Tosteson AN; Sprague BL; Tice JA; Lehman CD; Miglioretti DL;
Ann Intern Med; 2015 May; 162(10):673-81. PubMed ID: 25984843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. MRI for the assessment of malignancy in BI-RADS 4 mammographic microcalcifications.
Bennani-Baiti B; Dietzel M; Baltzer PA
PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0188679. PubMed ID: 29190656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of chest irradiation.
Sung JS; Lee CH; Morris EA; Oeffinger KC; Dershaw DD
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):65-71. PubMed ID: 21325032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Classification of fatty and dense breast parenchyma: comparison of automatic volumetric density measurement and radiologists' classification and their inter-observer variation.
Østerås BH; Martinsen AC; Brandal SH; Chaudhry KN; Eben E; Haakenaasen U; Falk RS; Skaane P
Acta Radiol; 2016 Oct; 57(10):1178-85. PubMed ID: 26792823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
