154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29748047)
1. Impact of Immediate Interpretation of Screening Tomosynthesis Mammography on Performance Metrics.
Winkler NS; Freer P; Anzai Y; Hu N; Stein M
Acad Radiol; 2019 Feb; 26(2):210-214. PubMed ID: 29748047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis.
Cohen EO; Lesslie M; Weaver O; Phalak K; Tso H; Perry R; Leung JWT
J Am Coll Radiol; 2021 Feb; 18(2):280-293. PubMed ID: 32861601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.
Bahl M; Mercaldo S; Vijapura CA; McCarthy AM; Lehman CD
Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):477-484. PubMed ID: 29967957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Screening Digital Mammography Recall Rate: Does It Change with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Experience?
DiPrete O; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):838-844. PubMed ID: 29173123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.
Aujero MP; Gavenonis SC; Benjamin R; Zhang Z; Holt JS
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):70-76. PubMed ID: 28221096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.
Ghate SV; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R; Gimenez EI; Rosen EL
Radiology; 2005 Apr; 235(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 15798165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
Friedewald SM; Rafferty EA; Rose SL; Durand MA; Plecha DM; Greenberg JS; Hayes MK; Copit DS; Carlson KL; Cink TM; Barke LD; Greer LN; Miller DP; Conant EF
JAMA; 2014 Jun; 311(24):2499-507. PubMed ID: 25058084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.
McDonald ES; Oustimov A; Weinstein SP; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
JAMA Oncol; 2016 Jun; 2(6):737-43. PubMed ID: 26893205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Akhtar AL; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Nov; 205(5):1143-8. PubMed ID: 26496565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Performance of Screening Breast MRI After Negative Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus After Negative Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women at Higher Than Average Risk for Breast Cancer.
Roark AA; Dang PA; Niell BL; Halpern EF; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Feb; 212(2):271-279. PubMed ID: 30540208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Tomosynthesis Impact on Breast Cancer Screening in Patients Younger Than 50 Years Old.
Rose SL; Shisler JL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jun; 210(6):1401-1404. PubMed ID: 29629810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of Arrival of Prior Mammograms on Recall Negation for Screening Mammograms Performed With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Clinical Setting.
Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2018 Sep; 15(9):1293-1299. PubMed ID: 30196816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial.
Houssami N; Bernardi D; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Macaskill P
Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Apr; 47():94-99. PubMed ID: 28192742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography.
Honig EL; Mullen LA; Amir T; Alvin MD; Jones MK; Ambinder EB; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Nov; 26(11):1505-1512. PubMed ID: 30772138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.
Ho TH; Bissell MCS; Lee CI; Lee JM; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Wernli KJ; Henderson LM; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
J Am Coll Radiol; 2023 Mar; 20(3):299-310. PubMed ID: 36273501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
