197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34565679)
21. Audit of data from examination image headers collected for quality assurance in the ECOG-ACRIN EA1151 tomosynthesis mammographic imaging screening trial (TMIST).
Maki AK; Mawdsley GE; Mainprize JG; Pisano E; Shen SZ; Alonzo-Proulx O; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7427-7440. PubMed ID: 37824821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. CHARACTERISATION OF TLDS-200 AND OSLDS AT LOW X-RAY ENERGIES AND DETERMINATION OF EYE LENS DOSE, THYROID DOSE AND MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE DURING STANDARD MAMMOGRAPHY AND TOMOSYNTHESIS.
Pirchio R; Stefanic A; Rojas RR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 186(4):469-478. PubMed ID: 31329992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Patient-derived heterogeneous breast phantoms for advanced dosimetry in mammography and tomosynthesis.
Caballo M; Rabin C; Fedon C; Rodríguez-Ruiz A; Diaz O; Boone JM; Dance DR; Sechopoulos I
Med Phys; 2022 Aug; 49(8):5423-5438. PubMed ID: 35635844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations for dosimetry in x-ray breast imaging: Part I - Macroscopic scales.
Massera RT; Tomal A; Thomson RM
Med Phys; 2024 Feb; 51(2):1105-1116. PubMed ID: 38156766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more?
Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Gubern-Merida A; Imhof-Tas M; Lardenoije S; Wanders AJT; Andersson I; Zackrisson S; Lång K; Dustler M; Karssemeijer N; Mann RM; Sechopoulos I
Eur Radiol; 2018 May; 28(5):1938-1948. PubMed ID: 29230524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Eye radiation dose from breast cancer screening using full field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
M Ali RMK; Hogg P
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Jan; 30(1):141-144. PubMed ID: 38035424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Estimated risk of radiation-induced cancer following breast screening employing tomosynthesis and digital mammography.
Alves MS; Ferro AGL; Moreira MCL; Santos WS; Neves LP; Perini AP; Belinato W; Souza DN
J Radiol Prot; 2021 Jun; 41(2):. PubMed ID: 33498015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; Del Sarto D; Fantacci ME; Russo P
Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065024. PubMed ID: 33535193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Dosimetry in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Evaluated by Monte Carlo Technique.
Alves MS; Belinato W; Santos WS; Galeano DC; Neves LP; Perini AP; N Souza D
Health Phys; 2021 Jul; 121(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 33867436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Mean glandular dose in digital mamography in women with breast implants.
Couto LS; Freitas-Junior R; Correa RS; Peixoto JE; Almeida CD; Rodrigues DCN; Glassman LM; Soares LR
J Radiol Prot; 2019 Apr; 39(2):498-510. PubMed ID: 30812019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting.
Nicosia L; Bozzini AC; Pesapane F; Rotili A; Marinucci I; Signorelli G; Frassoni S; Bagnardi V; Origgi D; De Marco P; Abiuso I; Sangalli C; Balestreri N; Corso G; Cassano E
Cancers (Basel); 2023 Apr; 15(9):. PubMed ID: 37173880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A survey on mean glandular dose in mammography examination and the factors affecting it in Shahid Sadoughi Hospital, Yazd, Iran.
Asadollahzadeh N; Razavi S; Zare MH
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2024 Jun; 200(9):809-821. PubMed ID: 38811346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Cancer risk estimation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis using GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations and voxel phantoms.
Ferreira P; Baptista M; Di Maria S; Vaz P
Phys Med; 2016 May; 32(5):717-23. PubMed ID: 27133140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ; Schopphoven S; Jeukens CR; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(20):7893-907. PubMed ID: 26407015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Automated Breast Density Computation in Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Influence on Mean Glandular Dose and BIRADS Density Categorization.
Castillo-García M; Chevalier M; Garayoa J; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; García-Pinto D; Valverde J
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jul; 24(7):802-810. PubMed ID: 28214227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
