227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34817195)
1. Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.
Amir T; Hogan MP; Jacobs S; Sevilimedu V; Sung J; Jochelson MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 May; 218(5):797-808. PubMed ID: 34817195
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)?
Bicchierai G; Amato F; Vanzi B; De Benedetto D; Boeri C; Vanzi E; Di Naro F; Bianchi S; Cirone D; Cozzi D; Miele V; Nori J
Breast; 2020 Dec; 54():15-24. PubMed ID: 32889303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.
Zuley ML; Bandos AI; Abrams GS; Ganott MA; Gizienski TA; Hakim CM; Kelly AE; Nair BE; Sumkin JH; Waheed U; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2020 Jul; 27(7):969-976. PubMed ID: 31495761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia.
Hogan MP; Amir T; Sevilimedu V; Sung J; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Jun; 216(6):1486-1491. PubMed ID: 33787291
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
Sung JS; Lebron L; Keating D; D'Alessio D; Comstock CE; Lee CH; Pike MC; Ayhan M; Moskowitz CS; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
Radiology; 2019 Oct; 293(1):81-88. PubMed ID: 31453765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of background parenchymal enhancement levels on the diagnosis of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in evaluations of breast cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
Yuen S; Monzawa S; Gose A; Yanai S; Yata Y; Matsumoto H; Ichinose Y; Tashiro T; Yamagami K
Breast Cancer; 2022 Jul; 29(4):677-687. PubMed ID: 35220511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis--Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
Chou CP; Lewin JM; Chiang CL; Hung BH; Yang TL; Huang JS; Liao JB; Pan HB
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Dec; 84(12):2501-8. PubMed ID: 26456307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of the applicability of BI-RADS® MRI for the interpretation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Travieso-Aja MM; Maldonado-Saluzzi D; Naranjo-Santana P; Fernández-Ruiz C; Severino-Rondón W; Rodríguez Rodríguez M; Luzardo OP
Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2019; 61(6):477-488. PubMed ID: 31262509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Contamination artifact that mimics in-situ carcinoma on contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Gluskin J; Click M; Fleischman R; Dromain C; Morris EA; Jochelson MS
Eur J Radiol; 2017 Oct; 95():147-154. PubMed ID: 28987661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.
Dromain C; Thibault F; Muller S; Rimareix F; Delaloge S; Tardivon A; Balleyguier C
Eur Radiol; 2011 Mar; 21(3):565-74. PubMed ID: 20839001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement.
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Jeunehomme F; Muller S; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2005 Jul; 40(7):397-404. PubMed ID: 15973130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study.
Dromain C; Thibault F; Diekmann F; Fallenberg EM; Jong RA; Koomen M; Hendrick RE; Tardivon A; Toledano A
Breast Cancer Res; 2012 Jun; 14(3):R94. PubMed ID: 22697607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Utility of Targeted Ultrasound to Predict Malignancy Among Lesions Detected on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.
Coffey K; Sung J; Comstock C; Askin G; Jochelson MS; Morris EA; D'Alessio D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Sep; 217(3):595-604. PubMed ID: 33025811
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Clinical study of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and the evaluation of blood and lymphatic microvessel density.
Brandan ME; Cruz-Bastida JP; Rosado-Méndez IM; Villaseñor-Navarro Y; Pérez-Ponce H; Galván HA; Trujillo-Zamudio FE; Sánchez-Suárez P; Benítez-Bribiesca L
Br J Radiol; 2016 Sep; 89(1065):20160232. PubMed ID: 27376457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.
Sudhir R; Sannapareddy K; Potlapalli A; Krishnamurthy PB; Buddha S; Koppula V
Br J Radiol; 2021 Feb; 94(1118):20201046. PubMed ID: 33242249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Architecture distortion score (ADS) in malignancy risk stratification of architecture distortion on contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Goh Y; Chan CW; Pillay P; Lee HS; Pan HB; Hung BH; Quek ST; Chou CP
Eur Radiol; 2021 May; 31(5):2657-2666. PubMed ID: 33125555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
