233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30220584)
21. Breast density (BD) assessment with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): Agreement between Quantra™ and 5th edition BI-RADS
Ekpo EU; Mello-Thoms C; Rickard M; Brennan PC; McEntee MF
Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():185-190. PubMed ID: 27769015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Dedicated Cone-beam Breast Computed Tomography and Diagnostic Mammography: Comparison of Radiation Dose, Patient Comfort, And Qualitative Review of Imaging Findings in BI-RADS 4 and 5 Lesions.
O'Connell AM; Kawakyu-O'Connor D
J Clin Imaging Sci; 2012; 2():7. PubMed ID: 22439131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A new automated method to evaluate 2D mammographic breast density according to BI-RADS® Atlas Fifth Edition recommendations.
Balleyguier C; Arfi-Rouche J; Boyer B; Gauthier E; Helin V; Loshkajian A; Ragusa S; Delaloge S
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jul; 29(7):3830-3838. PubMed ID: 30770972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of malignant calcification identification between breast cone-beam computed tomography and digital mammography.
Liu A; Ma Y; Yin L; Zhu Y; Lu H; Li H; Ye Z
Acta Radiol; 2023 Mar; 64(3):962-970. PubMed ID: 35815702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Review of clinical studies and first clinical experiences with a commercially available cone-beam breast CT in Europe.
Wienbeck S; Lotz J; Fischer U
Clin Imaging; 2017; 42():50-59. PubMed ID: 27875762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Head-to-head comparison of cone-beam breast computed tomography and mammography in the diagnosis of primary breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yang L; Zhou Z; Wang J; Lin Q; Dong Y; Guo Z; Shi F
Eur J Radiol; 2024 Feb; 171():111292. PubMed ID: 38211395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Breast lesion shape and margin evaluation: BI-RADS based metrics understate radiologists' actual levels of agreement.
Rawashdeh M; Lewis S; Zaitoun M; Brennan P
Comput Biol Med; 2018 May; 96():294-298. PubMed ID: 29673997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort.
Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of Visual Assessment of Breast Density in BI-RADS 4th and 5th Editions With Automated Volumetric Measurement.
Youk JH; Kim SJ; Son EJ; Gweon HM; Kim JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Sep; 209(3):703-708. PubMed ID: 28657850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.
Youk JH; Gweon HM; Son EJ; Kim JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 May; 206(5):1056-62. PubMed ID: 26934689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT: Analysis of optimal acquisition time for discrimination of breast lesion malignancy.
Uhlig J; Fischer U; Surov A; Lotz J; Wienbeck S
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Feb; 99():9-16. PubMed ID: 29362157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Contrast-enhanced cone beam breast CT features of breast cancers: correlation with immunohistochemical receptors and molecular subtypes.
Ma Y; Liu A; O'Connell AM; Zhu Y; Li H; Han P; Yin L; Lu H; Ye Z
Eur Radiol; 2021 Apr; 31(4):2580-2589. PubMed ID: 33009590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.
Sacchetto D; Morra L; Agliozzo S; Bernardi D; Björklund T; Brancato B; Bravetti P; Carbonaro LA; Correale L; Fantò C; Favettini E; Martincich L; Milanesio L; Mombelloni S; Monetti F; Morrone D; Pellegrini M; Pesce B; Petrillo A; Saguatti G; Stevanin C; Trimboli RM; Tuttobene P; Valentini M; Marra V; Frigerio A; Bert A; Sardanelli F
Eur Radiol; 2016 Jan; 26(1):175-83. PubMed ID: 25929945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Breast density assessment and organised breast cancer screening].
Bambara AT; Ouédraogo NA; Ouédraogo PA; Bénao OLB; Ouédraogo W; Savadogo LGB; Ousséini D; Rabiou C
Bull Cancer; 2023 Sep; 110(9):903-911. PubMed ID: 37468338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.
Komolafe TE; Zhang C; Olagbaju OA; Yuan G; Du Q; Li M; Zheng J; Yang X
Sensors (Basel); 2022 May; 22(9):. PubMed ID: 35591290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Accuracy of Preoperative Contrast-enhanced Cone Beam Breast CT in Assessment of Residual Tumor after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Comparative Study with Breast MRI.
Wang Y; Zhao M; Ma Y; Liu A; Zhu Y; Yin L; Liang Z; Qu Z; Lu H; Ma Y; Ye Z
Acad Radiol; 2023 Sep; 30(9):1805-1815. PubMed ID: 36610931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Comparison of breast density assessment between human eye and automated software on digital and synthetic mammography: Impact on breast cancer risk.
Le Boulc'h M; Bekhouche A; Kermarrec E; Milon A; Abdel Wahab C; Zilberman S; Chabbert-Buffet N; Thomassin-Naggara I
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2020 Dec; 101(12):811-819. PubMed ID: 32819886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
