193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34549605)
1. Multiple Bilateral Circumscribed Masses at Screening Breast Ultrasound: Outcomes of New or Enlarging Masses at Follow-Up.
Wolfson S; Heller SL; Gao Y
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 Mar; 218(3):435-443. PubMed ID: 34549605
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up.
Berg WA; Zhang Z; Cormack JB; Mendelson EB
Radiology; 2013 Sep; 268(3):673-83. PubMed ID: 23616634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Application of the downgrade criteria to supplemental screening ultrasound for women with negative mammography but dense breasts.
Kim SY; Kim MJ; Moon HJ; Yoon JH; Kim EK
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Nov; 95(44):e5279. PubMed ID: 27858896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Outcomes of Return to Routine Screening for BI-RADS 3 Lesions Detected at Supplemental Automated Whole-Breast Ultrasound in Women With Dense Breasts: A Prospective Study.
Barr RG; DeSivestri A; Golatta M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Dec; 217(6):1313-1321. PubMed ID: 34259039
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Clinical significance of interval changes in breast lesions initially categorized as probably benign on breast ultrasound.
Jang JY; Kim SM; Kim JH; Jang M; La Yun B; Lee JY; Lee SH; Kim B
Medicine (Baltimore); 2017 Mar; 96(12):e6415. PubMed ID: 28328843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Retroareolar masses and intraductal abnormalities detected on screening ultrasound: can biopsy be avoided?
Guo Y; Raghu M; Durand M; Hooley R
Br J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 91(1090):20170816. PubMed ID: 29338316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast cancer detection using sonography in women with mammographically dense breasts.
Okello J; Kisembo H; Bugeza S; Galukande M
BMC Med Imaging; 2014 Dec; 14():41. PubMed ID: 25547239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.
Neuschler EI; Butler R; Young CA; Barke LD; Bertrand ML; Böhm-Vélez M; Destounis S; Donlan P; Grobmyer SR; Katzen J; Kist KA; Lavin PT; Makariou EV; Parris TM; Schilling KJ; Tucker FL; Dogan BE
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):398-412. PubMed ID: 29178816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Circumscribed Masses on Breast MRI: Can MRI Features Guide Management?
Myers KS; Shey E; Ambinder EB; Mullen LA; Panigrahi B; Di Carlo PA; Yenokyan G; Oluyemi ET
J Breast Imaging; 2023 May; 5(3):306-314. PubMed ID: 38416892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging of Breast Masses: Adjunct Tool to Decrease the Number of False-Positive Biopsy Results.
Lee SC; Tchelepi H; Grant E; Desai B; Luo C; Groshen S; Hovanessian-Larsen L
J Ultrasound Med; 2019 Sep; 38(9):2259-2273. PubMed ID: 30597640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Breast: Multimodality Imaging Findings and Review of the Literature.
Guldogan N; Esen G; Kayadibi Y; Taskin F; Alfatli AO; Boy FNS; Balci P; Bugdayci O; Tokat F; Ozturk T; Tunaci M; Arikan AE
Acad Radiol; 2023 Jun; 30(6):1107-1117. PubMed ID: 36357304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Imaging of Intracystic Papillary Carcinoma.
Speer ME; Adrada BE; Arribas EM; Hess KR; Middleton LP; Whitman GJ
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2019; 48(4):348-352. PubMed ID: 30072190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Does power Doppler ultrasonography improve the BI-RADS category assessment and diagnostic accuracy of solid breast lesions?
Tozaki M; Fukuma E
Acta Radiol; 2011 Sep; 52(7):706-10. PubMed ID: 21596798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Aliasing artifact depicted on ultrasound (US)-elastography for breast cystic lesions mimicking solid masses.
Cho N; Moon WK; Chang JM; Kim SJ; Lyou CY; Choi HY
Acta Radiol; 2011 Feb; 52(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 21498318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Sonographic characteristics of breast cancers detected by supplemental screening US: Comparison with breast cancers seen on screening mammography.
Cho N; Moon WK; Chang JM; Yi A; Koo HR; Han BK
Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):969-76. PubMed ID: 20942730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of Ultrasound Features and BI-RADS Categories of Malignant Breast Masses in Women ≤40.
Gity M; Jafari M; Olfatbakhsh A; Rezaei Kalantari K; Hashemi E; Sari F
Arch Iran Med; 2021 May; 24(5):383-389. PubMed ID: 34196203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS.
Heinig J; Witteler R; Schmitz R; Kiesel L; Steinhard J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 32(4):573-8. PubMed ID: 18421795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.
Barr RG; Zhang Z; Cormack JB; Mendelson EB; Berg WA
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):701-12. PubMed ID: 23962417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.
Rahbar G; Sie AC; Hansen GC; Prince JS; Melany ML; Reynolds HE; Jackson VP; Sayre JW; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1999 Dec; 213(3):889-94. PubMed ID: 10580971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A New Practical Decision Rule to Better Differentiate BI-RADS 3 or 4 Breast Masses on Breast Ultrasound.
Pfob A; Barr RG; Duda V; Büsch C; Bruckner T; Spratte J; Nees J; Togawa R; Ho C; Fastner S; Riedel F; Schaefgen B; Hennigs A; Sohn C; Heil J; Golatta M
J Ultrasound Med; 2022 Feb; 41(2):427-436. PubMed ID: 33942358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
