159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37648804)
21. Adjusting for BMI in analyses of volumetric mammographic density and breast cancer risk.
Hudson S; Vik Hjerkind K; Vinnicombe S; Allen S; Trewin C; Ursin G; Dos-Santos-Silva I; De Stavola BL
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Dec; 20(1):156. PubMed ID: 30594212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Outcome of mammography examination in asymptomatic women.
Kolade-Yunusa HO; Itanyi UD
Ann Afr Med; 2021; 20(1):52-58. PubMed ID: 33727513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Breast cancer risk and measured mammographic density.
Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Byng JW; Jong RA; Fishell E; Lockwood GA; Little LE; Tritchler DL
Eur J Cancer Prev; 1998 Feb; 7 Suppl 1():S47-55. PubMed ID: 10866036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Do mammographic tumor features in breast cancer relate to breast density and invasiveness, tumor size, and axillary lymph node involvement?
Sartor H; Borgquist S; Hartman L; Olsson Å; Jawdat F; Zackrisson S
Acta Radiol; 2015 May; 56(5):536-44. PubMed ID: 24814360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Screening mammography for second breast cancers in women with history of early-stage breast cancer: factors and causes associated with non-detection.
Yeom YK; Chae EY; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ
BMC Med Imaging; 2019 Jan; 19(1):2. PubMed ID: 30611228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Mammographic compression--a need for mechanical standardization.
Branderhorst W; de Groot JE; Highnam R; Chan A; Böhm-Vélez M; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Apr; 84(4):596-602. PubMed ID: 25596915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density.
Holm J; Humphreys K; Li J; Ploner A; Cheddad A; Eriksson M; Törnberg S; Hall P; Czene K
J Clin Oncol; 2015 Mar; 33(9):1030-7. PubMed ID: 25646195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Are mammography image acquisition factors, compression pressure and paddle tilt, associated with breast cancer detection in screening?
Hudson SM; Wilkinson LS; De Stavola BL; Dos-Santos-Silva I
Br J Radiol; 2023 Oct; 96(1150):20230085. PubMed ID: 37660396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Predictors of mammographic density among women with a strong family history of breast cancer.
Moran O; Eisen A; Demsky R; Blackmore K; Knight JA; Panchal S; Ginsburg O; Zbuk K; Yaffe M; Metcalfe KA; Narod SA; Kotsopoulos J
BMC Cancer; 2019 Jun; 19(1):631. PubMed ID: 31242899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Breast cancer risk stratification for mammographic screening: A nation-wide screening cohort of 24,431 women in Singapore.
Ho PJ; Wong FY; Chay WY; Lim EH; Lim ZL; Chia KS; Hartman M; Li J
Cancer Med; 2021 Nov; 10(22):8182-8191. PubMed ID: 34708579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Preliminary investigation of mammographic density among women in Riyadh: association with breast cancer risk factors and implications for screening practices.
Albeshan SM; Hossain SZ; Mackey MG; Peat JK; Al Tahan FM; Brennan PC
Clin Imaging; 2019; 54():138-147. PubMed ID: 30639525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Mammographic density defined by higher than conventional brightness thresholds better predicts breast cancer risk.
Nguyen TL; Aung YK; Evans CF; Dite GS; Stone J; MacInnis RJ; Dowty JG; Bickerstaffe A; Aujard K; Rommens JM; Song YM; Sung J; Jenkins MA; Southey MC; Giles GG; Apicella C; Hopper JL
Int J Epidemiol; 2017 Apr; 46(2):652-661. PubMed ID: 28338721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Sensitivity of screening mammography by density and texture: a cohort study from a population-based screening program in Denmark.
von Euler-Chelpin M; Lillholm M; Vejborg I; Nielsen M; Lynge E
Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Oct; 21(1):111. PubMed ID: 31623646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Mammographic density in relation to tumor biomarkers, molecular subtypes, and mode of detection in breast cancer.
Sartor H; Zackrisson S; Elebro K; Hartman L; Borgquist S
Cancer Causes Control; 2015 Jun; 26(6):931-9. PubMed ID: 25860114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.
Chiarelli AM; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Shumak RS; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Done SJ; Yaffe MJ
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Nov; 154(2):377-87. PubMed ID: 26518019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The distribution and determinants of mammographic density measures in Western Australian aboriginal women.
McLean K; Darcey E; Cadby G; Lund H; Pilkington L; Redfern A; Thompson S; Saunders C; Wylie E; Stone J
Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Feb; 21(1):33. PubMed ID: 30819215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparative Benefit-to-Radiation Risk Ratio of Molecular Breast Imaging, Two-Dimensional Full-Field Digital Mammography with and without Tomosynthesis, and Synthetic Mammography with Tomosynthesis.
Brown M; Covington MF
Radiol Imaging Cancer; 2019 Sep; 1(1):e190005. PubMed ID: 33778669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
