316 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32427557)
21. Follow-up results of BI-RADS 3 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective study.
Aslan Ö; Oktay A; Eroğlu F
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2024 May; 30(3):175-182. PubMed ID: 38293846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [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]
24. 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]
25. Comparison of Mammography and Mammography with Supplemental Whole-Breast US Tomography for Cancer Detection in Patients with Dense Breasts.
Yamashita MW; Larsen LH; Perez J; Edwards AV; Papaioannou J; Jiang Y
Radiology; 2024 Jun; 311(3):e231680. PubMed ID: 38888480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.
Orel SG; Kay N; Reynolds C; Sullivan DC
Radiology; 1999 Jun; 211(3):845-50. PubMed ID: 10352614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Gastounioti A; McCarthy AM; Pantalone L; Synnestvedt M; Kontos D; Conant EF
Radiology; 2019 May; 291(2):320-327. PubMed ID: 30888933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study.
Cozzi A; Pinker K; Hidber A; Zhang T; Bonomo L; Lo Gullo R; Christianson B; Curti M; Rizzo S; Del Grande F; Mann RM; Schiaffino S
Radiology; 2024 Apr; 311(1):e232133. PubMed ID: 38687216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Outcome of Imaging and Biopsy of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions: Follow-Up Compliance, Biopsy, and Malignancy Rates in a Large Patient Cohort.
Polat DS; Merchant K; Hayes J; Omar L; Compton L; Dogan BE
J Ultrasound Med; 2023 Jun; 42(6):1285-1296. PubMed ID: 36445017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Can Ultrasound Elastography Help Better Manage Mammographic BI-RADS Category 4 Breast Lesions?
Gu Y; Tian J; Ran H; Ren W; Chang C; Yuan J; Kang C; Deng Y; Wang H; Luo B; Guo S; Zhou Q; Xue E; Zhan W; Zhou Q; Li J; Zhou P; Zhang C; Chen M; Gu Y; Xu J; Chen W; Zhang Y; Li J; Wang H; Jiang Y
Clin Breast Cancer; 2022 Jun; 22(4):e407-e416. PubMed ID: 34815174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Surveillance of probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions in mammography: what is the right follow-up protocol?
Buch KA; Qureshi MM; Carpentier B; Cunningham DA; Stone M; Jaffe C; Quinn M; Gonzalez C; LaVoye J; Hines N; Bloch BN
Breast J; 2015; 21(2):168-74. PubMed ID: 25669425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Application of the downgrade criteria to supplemental screening ultrasound for women with negative mammography but dense breasts.
Kim SY; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Kim EK
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Nov; 95(44):e5279. PubMed ID: 27858896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Recall rate of screening ultrasound with automated breast volumetric scanning (ABVS) in women with dense breasts: a first quarter experience.
Arleo EK; Saleh M; Ionescu D; Drotman M; Min RJ; Hentel K
Clin Imaging; 2014; 38(4):439-444. PubMed ID: 24768327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [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]
37. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.
Liberman L; Abramson AF; Squires FB; Glassman JR; Morris EA; Dershaw DD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9648759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Outcomes of screening mammography in women less than 40 prior to fertility treatment: a retrospective pilot study.
Greenwood HI; Greenwood EA; Lee AY; Price ER
Clin Imaging; 2020 Feb; 59(2):109-113. PubMed ID: 31812882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.
Hwang JY; Han BK; Ko EY; Shin JH; Hahn SY; Nam MY
Yonsei Med J; 2015 Sep; 56(5):1352-8. PubMed ID: 26256979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy.
Bérubé M; Curpen B; Ugolini P; Lalonde L; Ouimet-Oliva D
Can Assoc Radiol J; 1998 Aug; 49(4):223-8. PubMed ID: 9709675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
