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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33240542)

  • 1. Breast imaging at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital: A clinically relevant audit.
    Warnich I; Viljoen IM; Kuehnast M
    SA J Radiol; 2020; 24(1):1921. PubMed ID: 33240542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Proposed biopsy performance benchmarks for MRI based on an audit of a large academic center.
    Sedora Román NI; Mehta TS; Sharpe RE; Slanetz PJ; Venkataraman S; Fein-Zachary V; Dialani V
    Breast J; 2018 May; 24(3):319-324. PubMed ID: 28833841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Simulation Screening Mammography Module Created for Instruction and Assessment: Radiology Residents vs National Benchmarks.
    Poot JD; Chetlen AL
    Acad Radiol; 2016 Nov; 23(11):1454-1462. PubMed ID: 27637285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.
    Lee CS; Moy L; Hughes D; Golden D; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Hemingway J; Geras A; Duszak R; Rosenkrantz AB
    Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):518-528. PubMed ID: 34156300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.
    Tunçbilek I; Ozdemir A; Gültekin S; Oğur T; Erman R; Yüce C
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Dec; 13(4):183-7. PubMed ID: 18092288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
    Medical Advisory Secretariat
    Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2007; 7(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 23074501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An audit of breast cancer in patients 40 years and younger in two Johannesburg academic hospitals.
    Chaane N; Kuehnast M; Rubin G
    SA J Radiol; 2024; 28(1):2772. PubMed ID: 38628265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Audit: Pitfalls, Challenges, and Future Considerations.
    Lam DL; Lee JM
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2021 Jan; 59(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 33223000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Breast Cancer Screening with Abbreviated Breast MRI: 3-year Outcome Analysis.
    Kwon MR; Choi JS; Won H; Ko EY; Ko ES; Park KW; Han BK
    Radiology; 2021 Apr; 299(1):73-83. PubMed ID: 33620293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis, digital mammography, and ultrasonography.
    Su X; Lin Q; Cui C; Xu W; Wei Z; Fei J; Li L
    Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 24(4):562-570. PubMed ID: 27837442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Adjusting mammography--audit recommendations in a lower-incidence Taiwanese population.
    Chen CY; Tzeng WS; Tsai CC; Mak CW; Chen CH; Chou MC
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Sep; 5(9):978-85. PubMed ID: 18755438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Complete internal audit of a mammography service in a reference institution for breast imaging.
    Badan GM; Roveda Júnior D; Ferreira CA; de Noronha Junior OA
    Radiol Bras; 2014; 47(2):74-8. PubMed ID: 25741052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
    Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Variability in Individual Radiologist BI-RADS 3 Usage at a Large Academic Center: What's the Cause and What Should We Do About It?
    Ambinder EB; Mullen LA; Falomo E; Myers K; Hung J; Lee B; Harvey SC
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Jul; 26(7):915-922. PubMed ID: 30268720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.
    Cilotti A; Iacconi C; Marini C; Moretti M; Mazzotta D; Traino C; Naccarato AG; Piagneri V; Giaconi C; Bevilacqua G; Bartolozzi C
    Radiol Med; 2007 Mar; 112(2):272-86. PubMed ID: 17361370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. BI-RADS 3 (short-interval follow-up) assessment rate at diagnostic mammography: Correlation with recall rates and utilization as a performance benchmark.
    Kirshenbaum K; Harris K; Harmon J; Monge J; Dabbous F; Liu Y
    Breast J; 2020 Jul; 26(7):1284-1288. PubMed ID: 32291841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.