479 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30150038)
1. Imaging Phenotypes in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer on Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Fifth Edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Marino MA; Riedl CC; Bernathova M; Bernhart C; Baltzer PAT; Helbich TH; Pinker K
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():150-159. PubMed ID: 30150038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Inter- and Intra-Observer Agreement in Ultrasound BI-RADS Classification and Real-Time Elastography Tsukuba Score Assessment of Breast Lesions.
Schwab F; Redling K; Siebert M; Schötzau A; Schoenenberger CA; Zanetti-Dällenbach R
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Nov; 42(11):2622-2629. PubMed ID: 27503826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Current Status and Future of BI-RADS in Multimodality Imaging, From the
Eghtedari M; Chong A; Rakow-Penner R; Ojeda-Fournier H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Apr; 216(4):860-873. PubMed ID: 33295802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Association of BRCA Mutation Types, Imaging Features, and Pathologic Findings in Patients With Breast Cancer With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations.
Ha SM; Chae EY; Cha JH; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Oct; 209(4):920-928. PubMed ID: 28796549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Inter-Observer Variability and Diagnostic Performance of the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound of Static versus Video Images.
Youk JH; Jung I; Yoon JH; Kim SH; Kim YM; Lee EH; Jeong SH; Kim MJ
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 42(9):2083-8. PubMed ID: 27324292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study.
Cozzi A; Pinker K; Hidber A; Zhang T; Bonomo L; Lo Gullo R; Christianson B; Curti M; Rizzo S; Del Grande F; Mann RM; Schiaffino S
Radiology; 2024 Apr; 311(1):e232133. PubMed ID: 38687216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. BI-RADS
Spak DA; Plaxco JS; Santiago L; Dryden MJ; Dogan BE
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2017 Mar; 98(3):179-190. PubMed ID: 28131457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Use of BI-RADS to interpret magnetic resonance mammography for breast cancer].
Kharuzhyk SA; Shimanets SV; Karman AV; Shapoval EV
Vestn Rentgenol Radiol; 2014; (4):46-59. PubMed ID: 25775888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density.
Riedl CC; Luft N; Bernhart C; Weber M; Bernathova M; Tea MK; Rudas M; Singer CF; Helbich TH
J Clin Oncol; 2015 Apr; 33(10):1128-35. PubMed ID: 25713430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Differential Diagnosis of Breast Category 3 and 4 Nodules Through BI-RADS Classification in Conjunction with Shear Wave Elastography.
Wang M; Yang Z; Liu C; Yan J; Zhang W; Sun J; Cui G
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 43(3):601-606. PubMed ID: 27988221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Is a one-year follow-up an efficient method for better management of MRI BI-RADS(®) 3 lesions?
Boisserie-Lacroix M; Ziadé C; Hurtevent-Labrot G; Ferron S; Brouste V; Lippa N
Breast; 2016 Jun; 27():1-7. PubMed ID: 27212693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women.
Venturini E; Losio C; Panizza P; Rodighiero MG; Fedele I; Tacchini S; Schiani E; Ravelli S; Cristel G; Panzeri MM; De Cobelli F; Del Maschio A
Radiology; 2013 Aug; 268(2):347-55. PubMed ID: 23579052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The challenge of imaging dense breast parenchyma: is magnetic resonance mammography the technique of choice? A comparative study with x-ray mammography and whole-breast ultrasound.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Roselli A; Dominelli V; Cagioli S; Karatasiou A; Pronio A; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Invest Radiol; 2009 Jul; 44(7):412-21. PubMed ID: 19448554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A Cross-Sectional Observational Study to Compare the Role of Ultrasound with Mammography in Women Identified at High Risk for Breast Cancer in a Population in China.
An P; Zhong S; Zhang R; Hou X; Xi R; Wang Y
Med Sci Monit; 2020 Jun; 26():e919777. PubMed ID: 32576809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. US and MRI in the evaluation of mammographic BI-RADS 4 and 5 microcalcifications.
Hrkac Pustahija A; Ivanac G; Brkljacic B
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2018 Jul; 24(4):187-194. PubMed ID: 30091708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not to be?
Oztekin PS; Kosar PN
Breast J; 2014; 20(6):622-31. PubMed ID: 25200378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Interobserver Variability Between Breast Imagers Using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS MRI Lexicon.
Grimm LJ; Anderson AL; Baker JA; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Yoon SC; Ghate SV
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 May; 204(5):1120-4. PubMed ID: 25905951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
