145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33247894)
1. Use of Palpation Imaging in Diagnosis of Breast Diseases: A Way to Improve the Detection Rate.
Ding Y; Sun C; Zhou Q; Cheng C; Yan C; Wang B
Med Sci Monit; 2020 Nov; 26():e927553. PubMed ID: 33247894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast disease: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Ying X; Lin Y; Xia X; Hu B; Zhu Z; He P
Breast J; 2012; 18(2):130-8. PubMed ID: 22356352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions by mechanical imaging.
Egorov V; Kearney T; Pollak SB; Rohatgi C; Sarvazyan N; Airapetian S; Browning S; Sarvazyan A
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Nov; 118(1):67-80. PubMed ID: 19306059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Comparative analysis of early diagnostic tools for breast cancer].
Shen SJ; Sun Q; Xu YL; Zhou YD; Guan JH; Mao F; Lin Y; Wang XJ; Han SM
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2012 Nov; 34(11):877-80. PubMed ID: 23291142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Triple approach in the diagnosis of dominant breast masses: combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle aspiration.
Kaufman Z; Shpitz B; Shapiro M; Rona R; Lew S; Dinbar A
J Surg Oncol; 1994 Aug; 56(4):254-7. PubMed ID: 8057655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Electrical impedance scanning in the differentiation of suspicious breast lesions: comparison with mammography, ultrasound and histopathology].
Fuchsjäger MH; Helbich TH; Ringl H; Funovics MA; Rudas M; Riedl C; Pfarl G
Rofo; 2002 Dec; 174(12):1522-9. PubMed ID: 12471524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria.
Wedegärtner U; Bick U; Wörtler K; Rummeny E; Bongartz G
Eur Radiol; 2001; 11(9):1645-50. PubMed ID: 11511885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions.
Kristoffersen Wiberg M; Aspelin P; Perbeck L; Boné B
Acta Radiol; 2002 May; 43(3):275-81. PubMed ID: 12100324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population.
Flobbe K; van der Linden ES; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM
Int J Cancer; 2001 May; 92(4):616-8. PubMed ID: 11304700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fine needle aspiration cytology in the management of palpable benign and malignant breast disease. Correlation with clinical and mammographic findings.
Langmuir VK; Cramer SF; Hood ME
Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(1):93-8. PubMed ID: 2916375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Role of high frequency ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable breast masses in Chinese women: alternative to mammography?
Yang WT; Mok CO; King W; Tang A; Metreweli C
J Ultrasound Med; 1996 Sep; 15(9):637-44. PubMed ID: 8866446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Differentiating between malignant and benign breast masses: factors limiting sonoelastographic strain ratio.
Stachs A; Hartmann S; Stubert J; Dieterich M; Martin A; Kundt G; Reimer T; Gerber B
Ultraschall Med; 2013 Apr; 34(2):131-6. PubMed ID: 23108926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Adjunctive diagnostic value of targeted electrical impedance imaging to conventional methods in the evaluation of breast lesions.
Szabó BK; Saracco A; Wilczek B; Boné B; Aspelin P
Acta Radiol; 2005 Dec; 46(8):782-90. PubMed ID: 16392602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Role of mammography, ultrasound and large core biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of papillary breast lesions.
Puglisi F; Zuiani C; Bazzocchi M; Valent F; Aprile G; Pertoldi B; Minisini AM; Cedolini C; Londero V; Piga A; Di Loreto C
Oncology; 2003; 65(4):311-5. PubMed ID: 14707450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study.
Fajardo LL; Pisano ED; Caudry DJ; Gatsonis CA; Berg WA; Connolly J; Schnitt S; Page DL; McNeil BJ;
Acad Radiol; 2004 Mar; 11(3):293-308. PubMed ID: 15035520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of early and delayed quantified indices of double-phase (99m)Tc MIBI scintimammography in the detection of primary breast cancer.
Kim SJ; Kim IJ; Bae YT; Kim YK; Kim DS
Acta Radiol; 2005 Apr; 46(2):148-54. PubMed ID: 15902889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Combined fine-needle aspiration, physical examination and mammography in the diagnosis of palpable breast masses: their relation to outcome for women with primary breast cancer.
Steinberg JL; Trudeau ME; Ryder DE; Fishell E; Chapman JA; McCready DR; Fish EB; Hiraki GY; Ross TM; Lickley LA
Can J Surg; 1996 Aug; 39(4):302-11. PubMed ID: 8697321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic performance of quantitative diffusion tensor imaging for the differentiation of breast lesions at 3 T MRI.
Tsougos I; Bakosis M; Tsivaka D; Athanassiou E; Fezoulidis I; Arvanitis D; Vassiou K
Clin Imaging; 2019; 53():25-31. PubMed ID: 30308430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Evaluation of scintimammography as an additional test to conventional mammography in detection of breast cancer].
Cwikła JB; Buscombe JR; Kolasińska AD; Holloway B; Hilson AJ
Ginekol Pol; 2003 May; 74(5):362-70. PubMed ID: 12931463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the diagnosis of solid breast lesions.
Zhi H; Ou B; Luo BM; Feng X; Wen YL; Yang HY
J Ultrasound Med; 2007 Jun; 26(6):807-15. PubMed ID: 17526612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
