240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34782698)
1. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use.
Neeter LMFH; Raat HPJ; Meens-Koreman SD; van Stiphout RSA; Timmermans SMEC; Duvivier KM; Smidt ML; Wildberger JE; Nelemans PJ; Lobbes MBI
Sci Rep; 2021 Nov; 11(1):22224. PubMed ID: 34782698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reversal of the hanging protocol of Contrast Enhanced Mammography leads to similar diagnostic performance yet decreased reading times.
van Geel K; Kok EM; Krol JP; Houben IPL; Thibault FE; Pijnappel RM; van Merriënboer JJG; Lobbes MBI
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Aug; 117():62-68. PubMed ID: 31307654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dynamic contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer and detection of tumor size.
Tekinhatun M; Sabir N; Erdem E; Yilmaz S; Ufuk F
Turk J Med Sci; 2024; 54(1):249-261. PubMed ID: 38812642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of single-view contrast-enhanced mammography as novel reading strategy: a non-inferiority feasibility study.
Lobbes MBI; Hecker J; Houben IPL; Pluymakers R; Jeukens C; Laji UC; Gommers S; Wildberger JE; Nelemans PJ
Eur Radiol; 2019 Nov; 29(11):6211-6219. PubMed ID: 31073859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Value of contrast-enhanced mammography combined with the Kaiser score for clinical decision-making regarding tomosynthesis BI-RADS 4A lesions.
Rong X; Kang Y; Xue J; Han P; Li Z; Yang G; Shi G
Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7439-7447. PubMed ID: 35639141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Breast cancer diagnosis from contrast-enhanced mammography using multi-feature fusion neural network.
Qian N; Jiang W; Guo Y; Zhu J; Qiu J; Yu H; Huang X
Eur Radiol; 2024 Feb; 34(2):917-927. PubMed ID: 37610440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation, Performance, and Use for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening.
Covington MF
Radiol Clin North Am; 2021 Jan; 59(1):113-128. PubMed ID: 33222993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Current Status of Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Comprehensive Review.
Kornecki A
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2022 Feb; 73(1):141-156. PubMed ID: 34492211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Pötsch N; Vatteroni G; Clauser P; Helbich TH; Baltzer PAT
Radiology; 2022 Oct; 305(1):94-103. PubMed ID: 36154284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Improving the Diagnostic Accuracy of Breast BI-RADS 4 Microcalcification-Only Lesions Using Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.
Long R; Cao K; Cao M; Li XT; Gao F; Zhang FD; Yu YZ; Sun YS
Clin Breast Cancer; 2021 Jun; 21(3):256-262.e2. PubMed ID: 33243676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening.
Coffey K; Jochelson MS
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Nov; 156():110513. PubMed ID: 36108478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI.
Wienbeck S; Fischer U; Luftner-Nagel S; Lotz J; Uhlig J
Eur Radiol; 2018 Sep; 28(9):3731-3741. PubMed ID: 29594402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography with MRI Utilizing an Enriched Reader Study: A Breast Cancer Study (CONTRRAST Trial).
Phillips J; Mehta TS; Portnow LH; Fishman MDC; Zhang Z; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2023 Nov; 309(2):e230530. PubMed ID: 37962503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Conventional Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study.
Kim G; Phillips J; Cole E; Brook A; Mehta T; Slanetz P; Fishman MDC; Karimova E; Mehta R; Lotfi P; Resteghini N; Raj S; Dialani V
J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Oct; 16(10):1456-1463. PubMed ID: 31092346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Girometti R; Linda A; Conte P; Lorenzon M; De Serio I; Jerman K; Londero V; Zuiani C
Radiol Med; 2021 Nov; 126(11):1407-1414. PubMed ID: 34302599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.
Garayoa J; Chevalier M; Castillo M; Mahillo-Fernández I; Amallal El Ouahabi N; Estrada C; Tejerina A; Benitez O; Valverde J
Eur Radiol; 2018 Feb; 28(2):565-572. PubMed ID: 28812190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study.
Clauser P; Baltzer PAT; Kapetas P; Hoernig M; Weber M; Leone F; Bernathova M; Helbich TH
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2020 Aug; 52(2):589-595. PubMed ID: 32061002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
