307 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32427557)
1. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cancer Yield Exceeds 2% for BI-RADS 3 Probably Benign Findings in Women Older Than 60 Years in the National Mammography Database.
Lee CS; Berg JM; Berg WA
Radiology; 2021 Jun; 299(3):550-558. PubMed ID: 33787333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.
Barr RG; Zhang Z; Cormack JB; Mendelson EB; Berg WA
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):701-12. PubMed ID: 23962417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018.
Elezaby MA; Mao L; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Berg WA; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Lee CS
J Am Coll Radiol; 2022 May; 19(5):604-614. PubMed ID: 35358482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Why Start Now? Retrospective Study Evaluating Baseline Screening Mammography in Patients Age 60 and Older.
Chieh AY; Willis JG; Carroll CM; Mobley AA; Li Y; Li M; Woodard S
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2024; 53(1):62-67. PubMed ID: 37704485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A Single-Center Audit of BI-RADS 3 Assessment Category Utilization in Mammography and Breast Ultrasound.
Common J; Abdullah P; Alabousi A
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2023 Feb; 74(1):69-77. PubMed ID: 36041944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.
Varas X; Leborgne JH; Leborgne F; Mezzera J; Jaumandreu S; Leborgne F
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):691-5. PubMed ID: 12185047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Offit LR; Chikarmane SA; Lacson RC; Giess CS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2023 Sep; 221(3):313-322. PubMed ID: 37095672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Outcomes of Return to Routine Screening for BI-RADS 3 Lesions Detected at Supplemental Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound in Women With Dense Breasts: A Prospective Study.
Barr RG; DeSivestri A; Golatta M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Dec; 217(6):1313-1321. PubMed ID: 34259039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Growing BI-RADS category 3 lesions on follow-up breast ultrasound: malignancy rates and worrisome features.
Ha SM; Chae EY; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ; Kim HH
Br J Radiol; 2018 Jul; 91(1087):20170787. PubMed ID: 29658793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Characteristics, Malignancy Rate, and Follow-up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Identified at Breast MR Imaging: Implications for MR Image Interpretation and Management.
Chikarmane SA; Birdwell RL; Poole PS; Sippo DA; Giess CS
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):707-15. PubMed ID: 27089027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
