148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35143334)
21. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus MRI as an Adjunct to Full-Field Digital Mammography for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer according to Mammographic Density.
Kim H; Yang SY; Ahn JH; Ko EY; Ko ES; Han BK; Choi JS
Korean J Radiol; 2022 Nov; 23(11):1031-1043. PubMed ID: 36126953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Assessment of disease extent on contrast-enhanced MRI in breast cancer detected at digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone.
Chudgar AV; Conant EF; Weinstein SP; Keller BM; Synnestvedt M; Yamartino P; McDonald ES
Clin Radiol; 2017 Jul; 72(7):573-579. PubMed ID: 28318506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Utility of Breast MRI for Further Evaluation of Equivocal Findings on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Niell BL; Bhatt K; Dang P; Humphrey K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Nov; 211(5):1171-1178. PubMed ID: 30207789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system to magnified 2D mammography using breast tissue specimens.
Tucker AW; Calliste J; Gidcumb EM; Wu J; Kuzmiak CM; Hyun N; Zeng D; Lu J; Zhou O; Lee YZ
Acad Radiol; 2014 Dec; 21(12):1547-52. PubMed ID: 25172412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared With Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Assessing the Tumor Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.
Lee SC; Grant E; Sheth P; Garcia AA; Desai B; Ji L; Groshen S; Hwang D; Yamashita M; Hovanessian-Larsen L
J Ultrasound Med; 2017 May; 36(5):901-911. PubMed ID: 28150325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Digital Mammography versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Impact of Breast Density on Diagnostic Performance in Population-based Screening.
Østerås BH; Martinsen ACT; Gullien R; Skaane P
Radiology; 2019 Oct; 293(1):60-68. PubMed ID: 31407968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Local Tumor Staging of Breast Cancer: Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis.
Fontaine M; Tourasse C; Pages E; Laurent N; Laffargue G; Millet I; Molinari N; Taourel P
Radiology; 2019 Jun; 291(3):594-603. PubMed ID: 30964425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Functional hemodynamic imaging markers for the prediction of pathological outcomes in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Deng B; Muldoon A; Cormier J; Mercaldo ND; Niehoff E; Moffett N; Saksena MA; Isakoff SJ; Carp SA
J Biomed Opt; 2024 Jun; 29(6):066001. PubMed ID: 38737790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparative Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Diagnosing and Treating Breast Cancer.
Yang D; Gong F
Med Sci Monit; 2023 Dec; 29():e941880. PubMed ID: 38087777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Imaging Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors with Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Bahl M; Mercaldo S; McCarthy AM; Lehman CD
Radiology; 2021 Feb; 298(2):308-316. PubMed ID: 33350890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Accuracy of Preoperative Contrast-enhanced Cone Beam Breast CT in Assessment of Residual Tumor after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Comparative Study with Breast MRI.
Wang Y; Zhao M; Ma Y; Liu A; Zhu Y; Yin L; Liang Z; Qu Z; Lu H; Ma Y; Ye Z
Acad Radiol; 2023 Sep; 30(9):1805-1815. PubMed ID: 36610931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Effectiveness of hybrid digital breast tomosynthesis/digital mammography compared to digital mammography in women presenting for routine screening at Maroondah BreastScreen: Study protocol for a co-designed, non-randomised prospective trial.
Houssami N; Lockie D; Giles M; Doncovio S; Marr G; Taylor D; Li T; Nickel B; Marinovich ML
Breast; 2024 Apr; 74():103692. PubMed ID: 38422623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The role of breast tomosynthesis in a predominantly dense breast population at a tertiary breast centre: breast density assessment and diagnostic performance in comparison with MRI.
Förnvik D; Kataoka M; Iima M; Ohashi A; Kanao S; Toi M; Togashi K
Eur Radiol; 2018 Aug; 28(8):3194-3203. PubMed ID: 29460074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Can unenhanced MRI of the breast replace contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy?
Cavallo Marincola B; Telesca M; Zaccagna F; Riemer F; Anzidei M; Catalano C; Pediconi F
Acta Radiol; 2019 Jan; 60(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 29742918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
Kaiyin M; Lingling T; Leilei T; Wenjia L; Bin J
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2023 Nov; 202(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 37615793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).
Bicchierai G; Busoni S; Tortoli P; Bettarini S; Naro FD; De Benedetto D; Savi E; Bellini C; Miele V; Nori J
Acad Radiol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):1342-1349. PubMed ID: 35065889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Take a break: should breaks be enforced during digital breast tomosynthesis reading sessions?
Partridge GJW; Taib AG; Phillips P; James JJ; Satchithananda K; Sharma N; Morel J; McAvinchey R; Valencia A; Teh W; Khan H; Muscat E; Michell MJ; Chen Y
Eur Radiol; 2024 Feb; 34(2):1388-1398. PubMed ID: 37589906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Fusco R; Raiano N; Raiano C; Maio F; Vallone P; Mattace Raso M; Setola SV; Granata V; Rubulotta MR; Barretta ML; Petrosino T; Petrillo A
Eur J Radiol; 2020 May; 126():108912. PubMed ID: 32151787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?
Nakashima K; Uematsu T; Itoh T; Takahashi K; Nishimura S; Hayashi T; Sugino T
Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):570-577. PubMed ID: 27236817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
