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.
146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31300313)
1. Lumpectomy Specimen Radiography: Does Orientation or 3-Dimensional Tomosynthesis Improve Margin Assessment? Mario J; Venkataraman S; Fein-Zachary V; Knox M; Brook A; Slanetz P Can Assoc Radiol J; 2019 Aug; 70(3):282-291. PubMed ID: 31300313 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography-Which modality provides more accurate prediction of margin status in specimen radiography? Amer HA; Schmitzberger F; Ingold-Heppner B; Kussmaul J; El Tohamy MF; Tantawy HI; Hamm B; Makowski M; Fallenberg EM Eur J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 93():258-264. PubMed ID: 28668424 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic accuracy of resection margin in specimen radiography: digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography. Romanucci G; Mercogliano S; Carucci E; Cina A; Zantedeschi E; Caneva A; Benassuti C; Fornasa F Radiol Med; 2021 Jun; 126(6):768-773. PubMed ID: 33625658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Wallis MG; Moa E; Zanca F; Leifland K; Danielsson M Radiology; 2012 Mar; 262(3):788-96. PubMed ID: 22274840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. High-Resolution Full-3D Specimen Imaging for Lumpectomy Margin Assessment in Breast Cancer. Kulkarni SA; Kulkarni K; Schacht D; Bhole S; Reiser I; Abe H; Bao J; Bethke K; Hansen N; Jaskowiak N; Khan SA; Tseng J; Chen B; Pincus J; Mueller J; Schulte L; LaBomascus B; Zhang Z; Xia D; Pan X; Wietholt C; Modgil D; Lester D; Lan L; Bohara B; Han X Ann Surg Oncol; 2021 Oct; 28(10):5513-5524. PubMed ID: 34333705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings. Bansal GJ; Young P Br J Radiol; 2015 Sep; 88(1053):20140855. PubMed ID: 26133221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system to magnified 2D mammography using breast tissue specimens. Tucker AW; Calliste J; Gidcumb EM; Wu J; Kuzmiak CM; Hyun N; Zeng D; Lu J; Zhou O; Lee YZ Acad Radiol; 2014 Dec; 21(12):1547-52. PubMed ID: 25172412 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens. Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Optical Coherence Tomography: A Novel Imaging Method for Post-lumpectomy Breast Margin Assessment-A Multi-reader Study. Ha R; Friedlander LC; Hibshoosh H; Hendon C; Feldman S; Ahn S; Schmidt H; Akens MK; Fitzmaurice M; Wilson BC; Mango VL Acad Radiol; 2018 Mar; 25(3):279-287. PubMed ID: 29174226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Svane G; Azavedo E; Lindman K; Urech M; Nilsson J; Weber N; Lindqvist L; Ullberg C Acta Radiol; 2011 Mar; 52(2):134-42. PubMed ID: 21498340 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):273-81. PubMed ID: 24450665 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can micro-computed tomography imaging improve interpretation of macroscopic margin assessment of specimen radiography in excised breast specimens? Abel TN; Bourke AG J Cancer Res Ther; 2020; 16(6):1366-1370. PubMed ID: 33342798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies. Houssami N; Macaskill P; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Ciatto S Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jul; 50(10):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 24746887 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Intraoperative micro-computed tomography (micro-CT): a novel method for determination of primary tumour dimensions in breast cancer specimens. Tang R; Saksena M; Coopey SB; Fernandez L; Buckley JM; Lei L; Aftreth O; Koerner F; Michaelson J; Rafferty E; Brachtel E; Smith BL Br J Radiol; 2016; 89(1058):20150581. PubMed ID: 26568439 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for detection of breast cancer in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgery. Urano M; Shiraki N; Kawai T; Goto T; Endo Y; Yoshimoto N; Toyama T; Shibamoto Y Breast Cancer; 2016 Sep; 23(5):706-11. PubMed ID: 26198975 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: Evidence from a population-based trial. Houssami N; Bernardi D; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Macaskill P Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Apr; 47():94-99. PubMed ID: 28192742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Imaging of lumpectomy surface with large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscopy 'Histolog® scanner' for breast margin assessment in comparison with conventional specimen radiography. Togawa R; Hederer J; Ragazzi M; Bruckner T; Fastner S; Gomez C; Hennigs A; Nees J; Pfob A; Riedel F; Schäfgen B; Stieber A; Lux MP; Heil J; Golatta M Breast; 2023 Apr; 68():194-200. PubMed ID: 36842192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]