238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30220584)
1. A Reliability Comparison of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Mammography: Breast Density Assessment Referring to the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
Ma Y; Cao Y; Liu A; Yin L; Han P; Li H; Zhang X; Ye Z
Acad Radiol; 2019 Jun; 26(6):752-759. PubMed ID: 30220584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The role of cone-beam breast-CT for breast cancer detection relative to breast density.
Wienbeck S; Uhlig J; Luftner-Nagel S; Zapf A; Surov A; von Fintel E; Stahnke V; Lotz J; Fischer U
Eur Radiol; 2017 Dec; 27(12):5185-5195. PubMed ID: 28677053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT) and breast MRI.
Ma Y; Liu A; Zhang Y; Zhu Y; Wang Y; Zhao M; Liang Z; Qu Z; Yin L; Lu H; Ye Z
Eur Radiol; 2022 Aug; 32(8):5773-5782. PubMed ID: 35320411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Pre- and post-contrast versus post-contrast cone-beam breast CT: can we reduce radiation exposure while maintaining diagnostic accuracy?
Uhlig J; Fischer U; Biggemann L; Lotz J; Wienbeck S
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jun; 29(6):3141-3148. PubMed ID: 30488110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI.
Wienbeck S; Fischer U; Luftner-Nagel S; Lotz J; Uhlig J
Eur Radiol; 2018 Sep; 28(9):3731-3741. PubMed ID: 29594402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison between cone-beam breast-CT and full-field digital mammography for microcalcification detection depending on breast density.
Wienbeck S; Andrijevska V; Kück F; Perske C; Unterberg-Buchwald C; Fischer U; Lotz J; Kunze M
Medicine (Baltimore); 2023 Jun; 102(22):e33900. PubMed ID: 37266644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cone beam breast CT with multiplanar and three dimensional visualization in differentiating breast masses compared with mammography.
Zhao B; Zhang X; Cai W; Conover D; Ning R
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jan; 84(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 25439008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of comfort between cone beam breast computed tomography and digital mammography.
Li H; Yin L; He N; Han P; Zhu Y; Ma Y; Liu A; Lu H; Gao Z; Liu P; Wu Y; Ye Z
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Nov; 120():108674. PubMed ID: 31557718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Quantitative breast density measurement based on three-dimensional images: a study on cone-beam breast computed tomography.
Liu A; Yin L; Ma Y; Han P; Wu Y; Wu Y; Ye Z
Acta Radiol; 2022 Aug; 63(8):1023-1031. PubMed ID: 34259021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging.
Tavakoli Taba S; Baran P; Nesterets YI; Pacile S; Wienbeck S; Dullin C; Pavlov K; Maksimenko A; Lockie D; Mayo SC; Quiney HM; Dreossi D; Arfelli F; Tromba G; Lewis S; Gureyev TE; Brennan PC
Eur Radiol; 2020 May; 30(5):2740-2750. PubMed ID: 31974689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.
Irshad A; Leddy R; Ackerman S; Cluver A; Pavic D; Abid A; Lewis MC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Dec; 207(6):1366-1371. PubMed ID: 27656766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of Interradiologist Agreement Regarding Mammographic Breast Density Classification Using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Atlas.
Ekpo EU; Ujong UP; Mello-Thoms C; McEntee MF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1119-23. PubMed ID: 26999655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison Between Digital and Synthetic 2D Mammograms in Breast Density Interpretation.
Alshafeiy TI; Wadih A; Nicholson BT; Rochman CM; Peppard HR; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):W36-W41. PubMed ID: 28504593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency in breast malignancy between cone beam breast CT and mammography in dense breast].
Liu AD; Ma Y; Yin L; Han P; Li HJ; Ye ZX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2018 Aug; 40(8):604-609. PubMed ID: 30139031
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Cone-beam breast CT features associated with HER2/neu overexpression in patients with primary breast cancer.
Zhu Y; Zhang Y; Ma Y; Li H; Liu A; Han P; Yin L; Lv N; Li Z; Lu H; Liu P; Ye Z
Eur Radiol; 2020 May; 30(5):2731-2739. PubMed ID: 31900700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in determining breast density according to the fifth edition of the BI-RADS® Atlas.
Pesce K; Tajerian M; Chico MJ; Swiecicki MP; Boietti B; Frangella MJ; Benitez S
Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2020; 62(6):481-486. PubMed ID: 32493654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality.
O'Connell A; Conover DL; Zhang Y; Seifert P; Logan-Young W; Lin CF; Sahler L; Ning R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):496-509. PubMed ID: 20651210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Potential Use of American College of Radiology BI-RADS Mammography Atlas for Reporting and Assessing Lesions Detected on Dedicated Breast CT Imaging: Preliminary Study.
Jung HK; Kuzmiak CM; Kim KW; Choi NM; Kim HJ; Langman EL; Yoon S; Steen D; Zeng D; Gao F
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1395-1401. PubMed ID: 28728854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms.
Redondo A; Comas M; Macià F; Ferrer F; Murta-Nascimento C; Maristany MT; Molins E; Sala M; Castells X
Br J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 85(1019):1465-70. PubMed ID: 22993385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Persistent inter-observer variability of breast density assessment using BI-RADS® 5th edition guidelines.
Portnow LH; Georgian-Smith D; Haider I; Barrios M; Bay CP; Nelson KP; Raza S
Clin Imaging; 2022 Mar; 83():21-27. PubMed ID: 34952487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
