These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30292499)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough?
    Poulos A; McLean D; Rickard M; Heard R
    Australas Radiol; 2003 Jun; 47(2):121-6. PubMed ID: 12780439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The role of self-evaluation and education of radiographers involved in a breast cancer screening program at Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka.
    Zujić PV; Božanić A; Jurković S; Šegota D; Dujmić EG; Čandrlić B; Karić M
    Radiography (Lond); 2021 Nov; 27(4):1162-1165. PubMed ID: 34217604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Breast compression and reported pain during mammographic screening.
    Moshina N; Sagstad S; Sebuødegård S; Waade GG; Gran E; Music J; Hofvind S
    Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):133-139. PubMed ID: 32052779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine.
    Autier P; Boniol M
    Eur J Cancer; 2018 Feb; 90():34-62. PubMed ID: 29272783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The impact of compression force and pressure at prevalent screening on subsequent re-attendance in a national screening program.
    Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Holen ÅS; Waade GG; Tsuruda K; Hofvind S
    Prev Med; 2018 Mar; 108():129-136. PubMed ID: 29337068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Perceptions of Australian clients towards male radiographers working in breast imaging: Quantitative results from a pilot study.
    Warren-Forward HM; Mackie B; Alchin M; Mooney T; Fitzpatrick P
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 28290337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging.
    Lo G; Scaranelo AM; Aboras H; Ghai S; Kulkarni S; Fleming R; Bukhanov K; Crystal P
    Radiology; 2017 Oct; 285(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 28586291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Mammography with and without radiolucent positioning sheets: Comparison of projected breast area, pain experience, radiation dose and technical image quality.
    Timmers J; Voorde MT; Engen RE; Landsveld-Verhoeven Cv; Pijnappel R; Greve KD; Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2015 Oct; 84(10):1903-9. PubMed ID: 26272030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Controversies surrounding screening mammography.
    Otto PM; Blecher CB
    Mo Med; 2014; 111(5):439-43. PubMed ID: 25438368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Compression force and radiation dose in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
    Waade GG; Sanderud A; Hofvind S
    Eur J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 88():41-46. PubMed ID: 28189207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Compression force variability in mammography in Ghana - A baseline study.
    Dzidzornu E; Angmorterh SK; Ofori-Manteaw BB; Aboagye S; Ofori EK; Owusu-Agyei S; Hogg P
    Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):150-155. PubMed ID: 32741566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Breast cancer screening: Does tomosynthesis augment mammography?
    Takahashi TA; Lee CI; Johnson KM
    Cleve Clin J Med; 2017 Jul; 84(7):522-527. PubMed ID: 28696192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Overview of Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.
    Lebron-Zapata L; Jochelson MS
    PET Clin; 2018 Jul; 13(3):301-323. PubMed ID: 30100072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yang Y; Rong D; Yao X; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Sep; 49(7):747-51. PubMed ID: 18608020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A qualitative analysis of staff-client interactions within a breast cancer assessment clinic.
    Nightingale JM; Murphy F; Eaton C; Borgen R
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):38-47. PubMed ID: 28290339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A review of computer aided detection in mammography.
    Katzen J; Dodelzon K
    Clin Imaging; 2018; 52():305-309. PubMed ID: 30216858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.
    Pattacini P; Nitrosi A; Giorgi Rossi P; Iotti V; Ginocchi V; Ravaioli S; Vacondio R; Braglia L; Cavuto S; Campari C;
    Radiology; 2018 Aug; 288(2):375-385. PubMed ID: 29869961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation.
    Bassett LW; Hoyt AC; Oshiro T
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):903-15. PubMed ID: 20868893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Does the patient-assisted compression mode affect the mammography quality? A within-woman randomized controlled trial.
    Perez-Leon D; Posso M; Louro J; Ejarque B; Arranz M; Arenas N; Maiques J; Martínez J; Maciá F; Román M; Rodríguez-Arana A; Castells X; Alcántara R
    Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7470-7479. PubMed ID: 35536391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.