These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33125555)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
    Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study.
    Dromain C; Thibault F; Diekmann F; Fallenberg EM; Jong RA; Koomen M; Hendrick RE; Tardivon A; Toledano A
    Breast Cancer Res; 2012 Jun; 14(3):R94. PubMed ID: 22697607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound.
    Patel BK; Garza SA; Eversman S; Lopez-Alvarez Y; Kosiorek H; Pockaj BA
    Clin Imaging; 2017; 46():78-84. PubMed ID: 28750354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
    Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Dromain C; Balleyguier C; Adler G; Garbay JR; Delaloge S
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 69(1):34-42. PubMed ID: 18790584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Initial Experience of Tomosynthesis-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Biopsies of Tomosynthesis-Detected (2D Mammography and Ultrasound Occult) Architectural Distortions.
    Patel BK; Covington M; Pizzitola VJ; Lorans R; Giurescu M; Eversman W; Lewin J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jun; 210(6):1395-1400. PubMed ID: 29570367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of the applicability of BI-RADS® MRI for the interpretation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Travieso-Aja MM; Maldonado-Saluzzi D; Naranjo-Santana P; Fernández-Ruiz C; Severino-Rondón W; Rodríguez Rodríguez M; Luzardo OP
    Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2019; 61(6):477-488. PubMed ID: 31262509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Pathologic Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Digital 2D Versus Tomosynthesis Mammography.
    Bahl M; Lamb LR; Lehman CD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Nov; 209(5):1162-1167. PubMed ID: 28834441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Outcome of Architectural Distortion Detected Only at Breast Tomosynthesis versus 2D Mammography.
    Alshafeiy TI; Nguyen JV; Rochman CM; Nicholson BT; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
    Radiology; 2018 Jul; 288(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 29584593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Diekmann F; Freyer M; Diekmann S; Fallenberg EM; Fischer T; Bick U; Pöllinger A
    Eur J Radiol; 2011 Apr; 78(1):112-21. PubMed ID: 19931350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
    Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: A pilot study.
    Jochelson MS; Pinker K; Dershaw DD; Hughes M; Gibbons GF; Rahbar K; Robson ME; Mangino DA; Goldman D; Moskowitz CS; Morris EA; Sung JS
    Eur J Radiol; 2017 Dec; 97():37-43. PubMed ID: 29153365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer.
    Ali-Mucheru M; Pockaj B; Patel B; Pizzitola V; Wasif N; Stucky CC; Gray R
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 23(Suppl 5):649-655. PubMed ID: 27638679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Imaging Features of Nonmalignant and Malignant Architectural Distortion Detected by Tomosynthesis.
    Vijapura C; Yang L; Xiong J; Fajardo LL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Dec; 211(6):1397-1404. PubMed ID: 30240306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. A comprehensive analysis of imaging features and clinical characteristics to differentiate malignant from non-malignant mammographic architectural distortion.
    Zhang S; Shao Z; Yi H; Liu P; Liu F; Lu H; Lim GH; Xu W
    Gland Surg; 2024 May; 13(5):669-683. PubMed ID: 38845839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management.
    Pujara AC; Hui J; Wang LC
    Clin Imaging; 2019; 54():133-137. PubMed ID: 30639524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.