125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32342918)
21. 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]
22. [Breast cancer screening in urban Beijing, 2014-2019].
Yang L; Zhang X; Liu S; Li HC; Zhang Q; Wang N; Ji JF
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2020 Sep; 54(9):974-980. PubMed ID: 32907288
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Is zero underestimation feasible? Extended Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy in solid lesions - a blind study.
Zografos GC; Zagouri F; Sergentanis TN; Koulocheri D; Nonni A; Oikonomou V; Domeyer P; Kotsani M; Fotiadis C; Bramis J
World J Surg Oncol; 2007 May; 5():53. PubMed ID: 17501997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Improving Wait Times and Patient Experience Through Implementation of a Provincial Expedited Diagnostic Pathway for BI-RADS 5 Breast Lesions.
Laws A; Crocker A; Dort J; Olson D; Elwi A; Anderes S; Parker S; Estey A; Keehn A; Quan ML
Ann Surg Oncol; 2019 Oct; 26(10):3361-3367. PubMed ID: 31342368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Mammography in asymptomatic women aged 40-49 years.
Silva FX; Katz L; Souza AS; Amorim MM
Rev Saude Publica; 2014 Dec; 48(6):931-9. PubMed ID: 26039396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Melnikow J; Fenton JJ; Whitlock EP; Miglioretti DL; Weyrich MS; Thompson JH; Shah K
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):268-78. PubMed ID: 26757021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography: Does it really suffer from low specificity? A retrospective analysis stratified by mammographic BI-RADS classes.
Benndorf M; Baltzer PA; Vag T; Gajda M; Runnebaum IB; Kaiser WA
Acta Radiol; 2010 Sep; 51(7):715-21. PubMed ID: 20707656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.
Abramovici G; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 21285337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. An Abbreviated Protocol for High-risk Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Impact on Performance Metrics and BI-RADS Assessment.
Panigrahi B; Mullen L; Falomo E; Panigrahi B; Harvey S
Acad Radiol; 2017 Sep; 24(9):1132-1138. PubMed ID: 28506511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
Jeffers AM; Sieh W; Lipson JA; Rothstein JH; McGuire V; Whittemore AS; Rubin DL
Radiology; 2017 Feb; 282(2):348-355. PubMed ID: 27598536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.
McCarthy AM; Keller B; Kontos D; Boghossian L; McGuire E; Bristol M; Chen J; Domchek S; Armstrong K
Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Jan; 17(1):1. PubMed ID: 25567532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Micronucleus Assay of Buccal Mucosal Cells in Hairdressers: The Importance of Occupational Exposure.
Farhadi S; Jolehar M; Safapour F
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2018 Aug; 19(8):2131-2134. PubMed ID: 30139212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Patient navigation to improve follow-up of abnormal mammograms among disadvantaged women.
Percac-Lima S; Ashburner JM; McCarthy AM; Piawah S; Atlas SJ
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2015 Feb; 24(2):138-43. PubMed ID: 25522246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions.
Chung CS; Giess CS; Gombos EC; Frost EP; Yeh ED; Raza S; Birdwell RL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Apr; 202(4):922-7. PubMed ID: 24660725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.
Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Ljung BM; Grady D
Ann Intern Med; 2003 Aug; 139(4):274-84. PubMed ID: 12965983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
