126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29937875)
1. Mammographic classification of breast lesions amongst women in Enugu, South East Nigeria.
Nwadike UI; Eze CU; Agwuna K; Mouka C
Afr Health Sci; 2017 Dec; 17(4):1044-1050. PubMed ID: 29937875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy.
Bérubé M; Curpen B; Ugolini P; Lalonde L; Ouimet-Oliva D
Can Assoc Radiol J; 1998 Aug; 49(4):223-8. PubMed ID: 9709675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Stereotactic Mammotome breast biopsy: routine clinical experience and correlation with BI-RADS--classification and histopathology].
Michel SC; Löw R; Singer G; Otto R; Hohl M; Kubik RA
Praxis (Bern 1994); 2007 Sep; 96(39):1459-74. PubMed ID: 17966279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Stratification of mammographic computerized analysis by BI-RADS categories.
Lederman R; Leichter I; Buchbinder S; Novak B; Bamberger P; Fields S
Eur Radiol; 2003 Feb; 13(2):347-53. PubMed ID: 12599001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Audit of mammography requests in Abakaliki, South-East Nigeria.
Eni UE; Ekwedigwe KC; Sunday-Adeoye I; Daniyan A; Isikhuemen ME
World J Surg Oncol; 2017 Mar; 15(1):56. PubMed ID: 28270153
[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. [Performance of users in tropical areas with the BI-RADS classification of breast lesions for predicting malignancy].
Gonsu Kamga JE; Moifo B; Sando Z; Guegang Goudjou E; Nko'o Amvene S; Gonsu Fotsin J
Med Sante Trop; 2013; 23(4):439-44. PubMed ID: 24334372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Classification of Mammographic Breast Microcalcifications Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network: A BI-RADS-Based Approach.
Schönenberger C; Hejduk P; Ciritsis A; Marcon M; Rossi C; Boss A
Invest Radiol; 2021 Apr; 56(4):224-231. PubMed ID: 33038095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.
Orel SG; Kay N; Reynolds C; Sullivan DC
Radiology; 1999 Jun; 211(3):845-50. PubMed ID: 10352614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Relationship between Mammographic Findings and Breast Abnormalities in a Nigerian Population.
Adedigba JA; Idowu BM; Hermans SP; Ibitoye BO; Pahwa S
J Natl Med Assoc; 2021 Feb; 113(1):77-87. PubMed ID: 32768243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.
Liberman L; Abramson AF; Squires FB; Glassman JR; Morris EA; Dershaw DD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9648759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical Outcomes of Mammographic BI-RADS 3 Lesions in the Community Hospital Setting.
Friedman P; Kerwin L; Chung J
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2016 Nov; 67(4):313-317. PubMed ID: 27523446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammographic characteristics and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) of non-palpable breast lesions.
Ventrella V; Tufaro A; Zito FA; Addante M; Stea B; Dentamaro R; D'Amico C; Paradiso A
Acta Radiol; 2011 Jul; 52(6):602-7. PubMed ID: 21565889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Non-mass lesions detected by breast US: stratification of cancer risk for clinical management.
Park KW; Park S; Shon I; Kim MJ; Han BK; Ko EY; Ko ES; Shin JH; Kwon MR; Choi JS
Eur Radiol; 2021 Mar; 31(3):1693-1706. PubMed ID: 32888070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography.
Lehman CD; Rutter CM; Eby PR; White E; Buist DS; Taplin SH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):511-5. PubMed ID: 18212240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of the Kaiser score on clinical decision-making in BI-RADS 4 mammographic calcifications examined with breast MRI.
Wengert GJ; Pipan F; Almohanna J; Bickel H; Polanec S; Kapetas P; Clauser P; Pinker K; Helbich TH; Baltzer PAT
Eur Radiol; 2020 Mar; 30(3):1451-1459. PubMed ID: 31797077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
