150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32966111)
21. Pathology results of architectural distortion on detected with digital breast tomosynthesis without definite sonographic correlate.
Walcott-Sapp S; Garreau J; Johnson N; Thomas KA
Am J Surg; 2019 May; 217(5):857-861. PubMed ID: 30777292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.
Freer PE; Niell B; Rafferty EA
Radiology; 2015 May; 275(2):377-83. PubMed ID: 25575115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Digital Mammography Stereotactic Biopsy versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsy: Differences in Biopsy Targets, Pathologic Results, and Discordance Rates.
Rochat CJ; Baird GL; Lourenco AP
Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):518-527. PubMed ID: 31961261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Choice of imaging method in the work-up of non-calcified breast lesions identified on tomosynthesis screening.
Porembka JH; Baydoun S; Mootz AR; Xi Y; Dogan BE
Eur J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 131():109203. PubMed ID: 32771916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Architectural Distortion on Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Pathologic Outcomes and Indicators of Malignancy.
Wadhwa A; Majidi SS; Cherian S; Dykstra DS; Deitch SG; Hansen C; Bhave S; Koch KM
J Breast Imaging; 2021 Jan; 3(1):34-43. PubMed ID: 38424835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Diagnostic accuracy of tomosynthesis-guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy of ultrasound occult lesions.
Bohan S; Ramli Hamid MT; Chan WY; Vijayananthan A; Ramli N; Kaur S; Rahmat K
Sci Rep; 2021 Jan; 11(1):129. PubMed ID: 33420200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.
Dibble EH; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Ward RC; Maynard AS; Mainiero MB
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jan; 28(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 28710582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as an adjunct for tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion.
Patel BK; Naylor ME; Kosiorek HE; Lopez-Alvarez YM; Miller AM; Pizzitola VJ; Pockaj BA
Clin Imaging; 2017; 46():44-52. PubMed ID: 28723585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis.
Clauser P; Carbonaro LA; Pancot M; Girometti R; Bazzocchi M; Zuiani C; Sardanelli F
Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2830-9. PubMed ID: 25903704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Cohen EO; Tso HH; Phalak KA; Mayo RC; Leung JWT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Aug; 211(2):445-451. PubMed ID: 29792742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography.
Kim SA; Chang JM; Cho N; Yi A; Moon WK
Korean J Radiol; 2015; 16(2):229-38. PubMed ID: 25741187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Abdullah P; Alabousi M; Ramadan S; Zawawi I; Zawawi M; Bhogadi Y; Freitas V; Patlas MN; Alabousi A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Aug; 217(2):314-325. PubMed ID: 32966115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis in combination with 2D mammography for the characterisation of mammographic abnormalities.
Sanmugasiva VV; Ramli Hamid MT; Fadzli F; Rozalli FI; Yeong CH; Ab Mumin N; Rahmat K
Sci Rep; 2020 Nov; 10(1):20628. PubMed ID: 33244075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Digital breast tomosynthesis and breast ultrasound: Additional roles in dense breasts with category 0 at conventional digital mammography.
Lee WK; Chung J; Cha ES; Lee JE; Kim JH
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Jan; 85(1):291-296. PubMed ID: 26499000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. DETECTION OF BREAST CANCERS REPRESENTED AS ARCHITECTURAL DISTORTION: A COMPARISON OF FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS.
Babkina TM; Gurando AV; Kozarenko TM; Gurando VR; Telniy VV; Pominchuk DV
Wiad Lek; 2021; 74(7):1674-1679. PubMed ID: 34459770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Assessment of MRI-detected lesions on screening tomosynthesis in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.
Choudhery S; Polley E; Conners AL
Clin Imaging; 2020 Jan; 59(1):50-55. PubMed ID: 31760277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.
Zuley ML; Bandos AI; Abrams GS; Ganott MA; Gizienski TA; Hakim CM; Kelly AE; Nair BE; Sumkin JH; Waheed U; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2020 Jul; 27(7):969-976. PubMed ID: 31495761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
