129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31342368)
21. Diagnostic value of breast ultrasound in mammography BI-RADS 0 and clinically indeterminate or suspicious of malignancy breast lesions.
Dobrosavljević A; Rakić S; Nikoli B; Raznatović SJ; Dikić SD; Milosević Z; Jurisić A; Skrobić M
Vojnosanit Pregl; 2016 Mar; 73(3):239-45. PubMed ID: 27295907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound.
Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Mar; 206(3):666-72. PubMed ID: 26901026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Adjunctive targeted contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the work-up of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3 and 4 lesions.
Zhang XL; Guan J; Li MZ; Liu MJ; Guo Y; Zheng YL; Yang Z; Yang JY
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2016 Aug; 60(4):485-91. PubMed ID: 27162117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Diagnostic mammography and sonography: concordance of the breast imaging reporting assessments and final clinical outcome].
Lorenzen J; Wedel AK; Lisboa BW; Löning T; Adam G
Rofo; 2005 Nov; 177(11):1545-51. PubMed ID: 16302136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of strain and acoustic radiation force impulse elastography of breast lesions by qualitative evaluation.
Zhao Q; Wang XL; Sun JW; Jiang ZP; Tao L; Zhou XL
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc; 2018; 70(1):39-50. PubMed ID: 29660916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification--a pilot study.
Wenkel E; Heckmann M; Heinrich M; Schwab SA; Uder M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz WA; Janka R
Rofo; 2008 Sep; 180(9):804-8. PubMed ID: 18704878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses.
Chan CH; Coopey SB; Freer PE; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Oct; 153(3):699-702. PubMed ID: 26341750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Breast pathology and mammography BI-RADS category correlation study - A single institute experience.
Hu S; Szymanski J; Khairy Z; Lo Y; Wang Y
Ann Diagn Pathol; 2018 Aug; 35():11-15. PubMed ID: 30072013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Imaging findings and accuracy of core needle biopsy in mucinous carcinoma of the breast.
Bode MK; Rissanen T
Acta Radiol; 2011 Mar; 52(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 21498339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Predictive value of BI-RADS classification for breast imaging in women under age 50.
Kennedy G; Markert M; Alexander JR; Avisar E
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2011 Dec; 130(3):819-23. PubMed ID: 21748292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS.
Heinig J; Witteler R; Schmitz R; Kiesel L; Steinhard J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 32(4):573-8. PubMed ID: 18421795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Second reading of breast imaging at the hospital department of radiology: reasonable or waste of money?].
Teifke A; Vomweg TW; Hlawatsch A; Nasresfahani A; Kern A; Victor A; Schmidt M; Bittinger F; Düber C
Rofo; 2006 Mar; 178(3):330-6. PubMed ID: 16508842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A Patient-Centered Approach to Wait Times in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer in the Province of Ontario.
Cordeiro E; Dixon M; Coburn N; Holloway CM
Ann Surg Oncol; 2015 Aug; 22(8):2509-16. PubMed ID: 25564166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Analysis of the results of mammography screening in Dubrovnik-Neretva County in the 2006-2009 period].
Dzono-Boban A; Mratović MC; Masanović M
Acta Med Croatica; 2010 Dec; 64(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 21692270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Comparative analysis of early diagnostic tools for breast cancer].
Shen SJ; Sun Q; Xu YL; Zhou YD; Guan JH; Mao F; Lin Y; Wang XJ; Han SM
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2012 Nov; 34(11):877-80. PubMed ID: 23291142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Nonmasslike enhancement at breast MR imaging: the added value of mammography and US for lesion categorization.
Thomassin-Naggara I; Trop I; Chopier J; David J; Lalonde L; Darai E; Rouzier R; Uzan S
Radiology; 2011 Oct; 261(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 21771958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Utilizing size-based thresholds of stiffness gradient to reclassify BI-RADS category 3-4b lesions increases diagnostic performance.
Shang J; Ruan LT; Wang YY; Zhang XJ; Dang Y; Liu B; Wang WL; Song Y; Chang SJ
Clin Radiol; 2019 Apr; 74(4):306-313. PubMed ID: 30755314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review.
Patterson SK; Neal CH; Jeffries DO; Joe A; Klein K; Bailey J; Pinsky R; Paramagul C; Watcharotone K
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Sep; 147(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 25151294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
