223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29302783)
1. Does patient age affect the PPV
Hu Y; Yang Y; Gu R; Jin L; Shen S; Liu F; Wang H; Mei J; Jiang X; Liu Q; Su F
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jun; 28(6):2492-2498. PubMed ID: 29302783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of age on PPV of sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5.
Fu CY; Hsu HH; Yu JC; Hsu GC; Hsu KF; Chan DC; Ku CH; Lu TC; Chu CH
Ultraschall Med; 2011 Jan; 32 Suppl 1():S8-13. PubMed ID: 20603785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Ultrasound positive predictive values by BI-RADS categories 3-5 for solid masses: An independent reader study.
Stavros AT; Freitas AG; deMello GGN; Barke L; McDonald D; Kaske T; Wolverton D; Honick A; Stanzani D; Padovan AH; Moura APC; de Campos MCV
Eur Radiol; 2017 Oct; 27(10):4307-4315. PubMed ID: 28396996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficiency of Categories 4 and 5 of the Second Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Diagnosing Breast Lesions.
Zou X; Wang J; Lan X; Lin Q; Han F; Liu L; Li A
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 42(9):2065-71. PubMed ID: 27262521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Utility of the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Category 4 Breast Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Study in China.
Gu Y; Tian JW; Ran HT; Ren WD; Chang C; Yuan JJ; Kang CS; Deng YB; Wang H; Luo BM; Guo SL; Zhou Q; Xue ES; Zhan WW; Zhou Q; Li J; Zhou P; Zhang CQ; Chen M; Gu Y; Xu JF; Chen W; Zhang YH; Wang HQ; Li JC; Wang HY; Jiang YX
Acad Radiol; 2022 Jan; 29 Suppl 1():S26-S34. PubMed ID: 32768352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prediction for Breast Cancer in BI-RADS Category 4 Lesion Categorized by Age and Breast Composition of Women in Songklanagarind Hospital.
Noonpradej S; Wangkulangkul P; Woodtichartpreecha P; Laohawiriyakamol S
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2021 Feb; 22(2):531-536. PubMed ID: 33639670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of the positive predictive value (PPV3) of ACR BI-RADS category 4 and 5 based on the outcomes of Invasive Diagnostic Office in an outpatient clinic.
Koziełek K; Stranz-Walczak N; Gajdzis P; Karmelita-Katulska K
Pol J Radiol; 2019; 84():e185-e189. PubMed ID: 31481989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Role of BI-RADS Ultrasound Subcategories 4A to 4C in Predicting Breast Cancer.
Spinelli Varella MA; Teixeira da Cruz J; Rauber A; Varella IS; Fleck JF; Moreira LF
Clin Breast Cancer; 2018 Aug; 18(4):e507-e511. PubMed ID: 29066139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications.
Loving VA; DeMartini WB; Eby PR; Gutierrez RL; Peacock S; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Dec; 195(6):1472-7. PubMed ID: 21098212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Value of the US BI-RADS final assessment following mastectomy: BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.
Gweon HM; Son EJ; Youk JH; Kim JA; Chung J
Acta Radiol; 2012 Apr; 53(3):255-60. PubMed ID: 22302210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Subcategorization of Ultrasonographic BI-RADS Category 4: Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Diagnosing Breast Lesions and Influence of Clinical Factors on Positive Predictive Value.
He P; Cui LG; Chen W; Yang RL
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2019 May; 45(5):1253-1258. PubMed ID: 30799123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. An audit of the results of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of mammography versus ultrasound screen-detected breast lesions.
Rhee SJ; Han BK; Ko ES; Choi JS; Ko EY
J Clin Ultrasound; 2017 Jun; 45(5):261-266. PubMed ID: 28182285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Predictors of Invasive Breast Cancer in Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy.
Shin YJ; Kim SM; Yun B; Jang M; Kim B; Lee SH
J Ultrasound Med; 2019 Feb; 38(2):481-488. PubMed ID: 30069893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Utilizing size-based thresholds of stiffness gradient to reclassify BI-RADS category 3-4b lesions increases diagnostic performance.
Shang J; Ruan LT; Wang YY; Zhang XJ; Dang Y; Liu B; Wang WL; Song Y; Chang SJ
Clin Radiol; 2019 Apr; 74(4):306-313. PubMed ID: 30755314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
