148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35143334)
41. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Niklason LT; Sebuødegård S; Østerås BH; Gullien R; Gur D; Hofvind S
Radiology; 2019 Apr; 291(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 30777808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening.
Kuhl CK; Keulers A; Strobel K; Schneider H; Gaisa N; Schrading S
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Feb; 20(1):13. PubMed ID: 29426360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detection of Pathologic Complete Remission in Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-analysis.
Gu YL; Pan SM; Ren J; Yang ZX; Jiang GQ
Clin Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 17(4):245-255. PubMed ID: 28209330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. The Potential Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on the Benign Biopsy Rate in Women Recalled within the UK Breast Screening Programme.
Sharma N; McMahon M; Haigh I; Chen Y; Dall BJG
Radiology; 2019 May; 291(2):310-317. PubMed ID: 30888932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Optimization of contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Analysis using a cascaded linear system model.
Hu YH; Scaduto DA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 28044312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Detectability on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-Dimensional Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts.
Lee SH; Jang MJ; Kim SM; Yun B; Rim J; Chang JM; Kim B; Choi HY
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 20(1):58-68. PubMed ID: 30627022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M
Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. 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]
49. Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging.
Tagliafico A; Tagliafico G; Astengo D; Airaldi S; Calabrese M; Houssami N
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2013 Feb; 138(1):311-7. PubMed ID: 23338763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Assessment of MRI-detected lesions on screening tomosynthesis in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.
Choudhery S; Polley E; Conners AL
Clin Imaging; 2020 Jan; 59(1):50-55. PubMed ID: 31760277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
Chikarmane SA; Cochon LR; Khorasani R; Sahu S; Giess CS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Sep; 217(3):587-594. PubMed ID: 32966113
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Imaging characteristics of interval cancers detected on Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).
Majid SZ; Senapati GM; Lacson R; Chikarmane SA; Giess CS
Clin Imaging; 2024 Mar; 107():110063. PubMed ID: 38232642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Performance of Screening Breast MRI After Negative Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus After Negative Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women at Higher Than Average Risk for Breast Cancer.
Roark AA; Dang PA; Niell BL; Halpern EF; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Feb; 212(2):271-279. PubMed ID: 30540208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Screening Digital Mammography Recall Rate: Does It Change with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Experience?
DiPrete O; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):838-844. PubMed ID: 29173123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis for predicting response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer patients: A comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and full-field digital mammography.
Murakami R; Tani H; Kumita S; Uchiyama N
Acta Radiol Open; 2021 Dec; 10(12):20584601211063746. PubMed ID: 34992793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Accuracy in tumor size measurements: Comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography.
Şendur HN; Cerit MN; Gültekin S; Cindil E; Avdan Aslan A; Erdal ZS; Gültekin Iİ; Teke F
Clin Imaging; 2021 Jan; 69():115-119. PubMed ID: 32717538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Staging of breast cancer and the advanced applications of digital mammogram: what the physician needs to know?
Helal MH; Mansour SM; Zaglol M; Salaleldin LA; Nada OM; Haggag MA
Br J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 90(1071):20160717. PubMed ID: 28055247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Comparison of Call-Back Rates between Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Scott AM; Lashley MG; Drury NB; Dale PS
Am Surg; 2019 Aug; 85(8):855-857. PubMed ID: 32051067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
