153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33125555)
1. Architecture distortion score (ADS) in malignancy risk stratification of architecture distortion on contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Goh Y; Chan CW; Pillay P; Lee HS; Pan HB; Hung BH; Quek ST; Chou CP
Eur Radiol; 2021 May; 31(5):2657-2666. PubMed ID: 33125555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis--Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
Chou CP; Lewin JM; Chiang CL; Hung BH; Yang TL; Huang JS; Liao JB; Pan HB
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Dec; 84(12):2501-8. PubMed ID: 26456307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification.
Petrillo A; Fusco R; Vallone P; Filice S; Granata V; Petrosino T; Rosaria Rubulotta M; Setola SV; Mattace Raso M; Maio F; Raiano C; Siani C; Di Bonito M; Botti G
Breast J; 2020 May; 26(5):860-872. PubMed ID: 31886607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.
Partyka L; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jul; 203(1):216-22. PubMed ID: 24951218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impact of background parenchymal enhancement levels on the diagnosis of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in evaluations of breast cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
Yuen S; Monzawa S; Gose A; Yanai S; Yata Y; Matsumoto H; Ichinose Y; Tashiro T; Yamagami K
Breast Cancer; 2022 Jul; 29(4):677-687. PubMed ID: 35220511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)?
Bicchierai G; Amato F; Vanzi B; De Benedetto D; Boeri C; Vanzi E; Di Naro F; Bianchi S; Cirone D; Cozzi D; Miele V; Nori J
Breast; 2020 Dec; 54():15-24. PubMed ID: 32889303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.
Amir T; Hogan MP; Jacobs S; Sevilimedu V; Sung J; Jochelson MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 May; 218(5):797-808. PubMed ID: 34817195
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM).
Amato F; Bicchierai G; Cirone D; Depretto C; Di Naro F; Vanzi E; Scaperrotta G; Bartolotta TV; Miele V; Nori J
Radiol Med; 2019 Dec; 124(12):1229-1237. PubMed ID: 31773458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia.
Hogan MP; Amir T; Sevilimedu V; Sung J; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Jun; 216(6):1486-1491. PubMed ID: 33787291
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Malignant Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Choudhery S; Johnson MP; Larson NB; Anderson T
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Aug; 217(2):295-303. PubMed ID: 32966111
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis for lesion assessment.
Huang H; Scaduto DA; Liu C; Yang J; Zhu C; Rinaldi K; Eisenberg J; Liu J; Hoernig M; Wicklein J; Vogt S; Mertelmeier T; Fisher PR; Zhao W
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2019 Jul; 6(3):031407. PubMed ID: 30766895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.
Dromain C; Thibault F; Muller S; Rimareix F; Delaloge S; Tardivon A; Balleyguier C
Eur Radiol; 2011 Mar; 21(3):565-74. PubMed ID: 20839001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Large-scale single-center experience.
Bicchierai G; Tonelli P; Piacenti A; De Benedetto D; Boeri C; Vanzi E; Bianchi S; Cirone D; Kaur Gill M; Miele V; Nori J
Breast J; 2020 Jul; 26(7):1276-1283. PubMed ID: 31999029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Digital tomosynthesis spot view in architectural distortions: outcomes in management and radiation dose.
Fiaschetti V; Ubaldi N; De Fazio S; Ricci A; Maspes F; Cossu E
Radiol Med; 2023 Jan; 128(1):35-48. PubMed ID: 36534241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
Sung JS; Lebron L; Keating D; D'Alessio D; Comstock CE; Lee CH; Pike MC; Ayhan M; Moskowitz CS; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
Radiology; 2019 Oct; 293(1):81-88. PubMed ID: 31453765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Fusco R; Raiano N; Raiano C; Maio F; Vallone P; Mattace Raso M; Setola SV; Granata V; Rubulotta MR; Barretta ML; Petrosino T; Petrillo A
Eur J Radiol; 2020 May; 126():108912. PubMed ID: 32151787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
