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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31307654)

  • 1. Reversal of the hanging protocol of Contrast Enhanced Mammography leads to similar diagnostic performance yet decreased reading times.
    van Geel K; Kok EM; Krol JP; Houben IPL; Thibault FE; Pijnappel RM; van Merriënboer JJG; Lobbes MBI
    Eur J Radiol; 2019 Aug; 117():62-68. PubMed ID: 31307654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
    Lalji UC; Jeukens CR; Houben I; Nelemans PJ; van Engen RE; van Wylick E; Beets-Tan RG; Wildberger JE; Paulis LE; Lobbes MB
    Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2813-20. PubMed ID: 25813015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
    Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.
    Garayoa J; Chevalier M; Castillo M; Mahillo-Fernández I; Amallal El Ouahabi N; Estrada C; Tejerina A; Benitez O; Valverde J
    Eur Radiol; 2018 Feb; 28(2):565-572. PubMed ID: 28812190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. SD-CNN: A shallow-deep CNN for improved breast cancer diagnosis.
    Gao F; Wu T; Li J; Zheng B; Ruan L; Shang D; Patel B
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2018 Dec; 70():53-62. PubMed ID: 30292910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
    Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography with new reconstruction and new processing for dose reduction.
    Endo T; Morita T; Oiwa M; Suda N; Sato Y; Ichihara S; Shiraiwa M; Yoshikawa K; Horiba T; Ogawa H; Hayashi Y; Sendai T; Arai T
    Breast Cancer; 2018 Mar; 25(2):159-166. PubMed ID: 28956298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use.
    Neeter LMFH; Raat HPJ; Meens-Koreman SD; van Stiphout RSA; Timmermans SMEC; Duvivier KM; Smidt ML; Wildberger JE; Nelemans PJ; Lobbes MBI
    Sci Rep; 2021 Nov; 11(1):22224. PubMed ID: 34782698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
    Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
    Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.
    Skaane P; Diekmann F; Balleyguier C; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Abdelnoor M; Niklason L
    Eur Radiol; 2008 Jun; 18(6):1134-43. PubMed ID: 18301902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peri-lesion regions in differentiating suspicious breast calcification-only lesions specifically on contrast enhanced mammography.
    Cao K; Gao F; Long R; Zhang FD; Huang CC; Cao M; Yu YZ; Sun YS
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2024; 32(3):583-596. PubMed ID: 38306089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Radiomics Analysis for Preoperative Prediction of Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes.
    Zhu S; Wang S; Guo S; Wu R; Zhang J; Kong M; Pan L; Gu Y; Yu S
    Acad Radiol; 2024 Jun; 31(6):2228-2238. PubMed ID: 38142176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
    Nissan N; Comstock CE; Sevilimedu V; Gluskin J; Mango VL; Hughes M; Ochoa-Albiztegui RE; Sung JS; Jochelson MS
    Radiology; 2024 Oct; 313(1):e232580. PubMed ID: 39352285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
    Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications.
    Clauser P; Nagl G; Helbich TH; Pinker-Domenig K; Weber M; Kapetas P; Bernathova M; Baltzer PAT
    Eur J Radiol; 2016 Dec; 85(12):2161-2168. PubMed ID: 27842661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
    Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Diagnostic Accuracy and Incremental Value of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared With Full Field Digital Mammography in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center.
    Popat P; Nandi VPKR; Katdare A; Haria P; Thakur M; Kulkarni S
    Cureus; 2024 Sep; 16(9):e68601. PubMed ID: 39371819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Michell MJ; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Evans DR; Peacock C; Lawinski CP; Douiri A; Wilson R; Whelehan P
    Clin Radiol; 2012 Oct; 67(10):976-81. PubMed ID: 22625656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.