135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29606632)
1. Patient Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risk in Imaging-Detected Low-Risk Scenarios and Thresholds for Desired Intervention: A Multi-Institution Survey.
Grimm LJ; Shelby RA; Knippa EE; Langman EL; Miller LS; Whiteside BE; Soo MSC
J Am Coll Radiol; 2018 Jun; 15(6):911-919. PubMed ID: 29606632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions.
Chung CS; Giess CS; Gombos EC; Frost EP; Yeh ED; Raza S; Birdwell RL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Apr; 202(4):922-7. PubMed ID: 24660725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review.
Patterson SK; Neal CH; Jeffries DO; Joe A; Klein K; Bailey J; Pinsky R; Paramagul C; Watcharotone K
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Sep; 147(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 25151294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Is stereotactic large-core needle biopsy beneficial prior to surgical treatment in BI-RADS 5 lesions?
Hoorntje LE; Peeters PH; Mali WP; Borel Rinkes IH
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Jul; 86(2):165-70. PubMed ID: 15319568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Frequency of Breast Cancer Thoughts and Lifetime Risk Estimates: A Multi-Institutional Survey of Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.
Grimm LJ; Shelby RA; Knippa EE; Langman EL; Miller LS; Whiteside BA; Soo MS
J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Oct; 16(10):1393-1400. PubMed ID: 30826236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice.
Mendez A; Cabanillas F; Echenique M; Malekshamran K; Perez I; Ramos E
Cancer; 2004 Feb; 100(4):710-4. PubMed ID: 14770425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.
Varas X; Leborgne JH; Leborgne F; Mezzera J; Jaumandreu S; Leborgne F
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):691-5. PubMed ID: 12185047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI.
Strigel RM; Burnside ES; Elezaby M; Fowler AM; Kelcz F; Salkowski LR; DeMartini WB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1392-1399. PubMed ID: 28792802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Comparing Mammography Abnormality Features to Genetic Variants in the Prediction of Breast Cancer in Women Recommended for Breast Biopsy.
Burnside ES; Liu J; Wu Y; Onitilo AA; McCarty CA; Page CD; Peissig PL; Trentham-Dietz A; Kitchner T; Fan J; Yuan M
Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):62-9. PubMed ID: 26514439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
