BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29637906)

  • 1. Lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using different targets and observers.
    Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC; Wells K
    Phys Med Biol; 2018 May; 63(9):095014. PubMed ID: 29637906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of glandularity on the detection of simulated cancers in planar, tomosynthesis, and synthetic 2D imaging of the breast using a hybrid virtual clinical trial.
    Mackenzie A; Kaur S; Thomson EL; Mitchell M; Elangovan P; Warren LM; Dance DR; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2021 Nov; 48(11):6859-6868. PubMed ID: 34496038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Looney PT; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Feb; 62(3):858-877. PubMed ID: 28072582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test.
    Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Van Ongeval C; Aerts G; Stalmans D; Zanca F; Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Dance DR; Young KC; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 May; 60(10):3939-58. PubMed ID: 25909596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?
    Nakashima K; Uematsu T; Itoh T; Takahashi K; Nishimura S; Hayashi T; Sugino T
    Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):570-577. PubMed ID: 27236817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC
    Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():25-32. PubMed ID: 30738528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
    Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
    Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
    Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.
    Mackenzie A; Thomson EL; Mitchell M; Elangovan P; van Ongeval C; Cockmartin L; Warren LM; Wilkinson LS; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Dance DR; Young KC
    Eur Radiol; 2022 Feb; 32(2):806-814. PubMed ID: 34331118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system to magnified 2D mammography using breast tissue specimens.
    Tucker AW; Calliste J; Gidcumb EM; Wu J; Kuzmiak CM; Hyun N; Zeng D; Lu J; Zhou O; Lee YZ
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Dec; 21(12):1547-52. PubMed ID: 25172412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
    Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
    Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Task-based detectability in anatomical background in digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography.
    Monnin P; Damet J; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2024 Jan; 69(2):. PubMed ID: 38214048
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
    Girometti R; Linda A; Conte P; Lorenzon M; De Serio I; Jerman K; Londero V; Zuiani C
    Radiol Med; 2021 Nov; 126(11):1407-1414. PubMed ID: 34302599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Detectability on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-Dimensional Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts.
    Lee SH; Jang MJ; Kim SM; Yun B; Rim J; Chang JM; Kim B; Choi HY
    Korean J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 20(1):58-68. PubMed ID: 30627022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.
    Gilbert FJ; Tucker L; Gillan MG; Willsher P; Cooke J; Duncan KA; Michell MJ; Dobson HM; Lim YY; Purushothaman H; Strudley C; Astley SM; Morrish O; Young KC; Duffy SW
    Health Technol Assess; 2015 Jan; 19(4):i-xxv, 1-136. PubMed ID: 25599513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom.
    Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Ghammraoui B; Cheng WC; Lo JY; Glick SJ
    Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.
    Li X; Qin G; He Q; Sun L; Zeng H; He Z; Chen W; Zhen X; Zhou L
    Eur Radiol; 2020 Feb; 30(2):778-788. PubMed ID: 31691121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.
    Sudhir R; Sannapareddy K; Potlapalli A; Krishnamurthy PB; Buddha S; Koppula V
    Br J Radiol; 2021 Feb; 94(1118):20201046. PubMed ID: 33242249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.
    Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Ko ES; Hahn SY; Shin JH; Kim MJ
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Aug; 26(8):2538-46. PubMed ID: 26628063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.