130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37768863)
1. Synthetic Mammography: Benefits, Drawbacks, and Pitfalls.
Chikarmane SA; Offit LR; Giess CS
Radiographics; 2023 Oct; 43(10):e230018. PubMed ID: 37768863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening.
Ratanaprasatporn L; Chikarmane SA; Giess CS
Radiographics; 2017; 37(7):1913-1927. PubMed ID: 29131762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.
Freer PE; Riegert J; Eisenmenger L; Ose D; Winkler N; Stein MA; Stoddard GJ; Hess R
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(2):501-509. PubMed ID: 28780702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography.
Giess CS; Raza S; Denison CM; Yeh ED; Gombos EC; Frost EP; Bay CP; Chikarmane SA
Clin Imaging; 2021 Jul; 75():90-96. PubMed ID: 33508756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.
Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Ko ES; Hahn SY; Shin JH; Kim MJ
Eur Radiol; 2016 Aug; 26(8):2538-46. PubMed ID: 26628063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Image acquisition principles and artifacts.
Sujlana PS; Mahesh M; Vedantham S; Harvey SC; Mullen LA; Woods RW
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():188-195. PubMed ID: 30236642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.
Horvat JV; Keating DM; Rodrigues-Duarte H; Morris EA; Mango VL
Radiographics; 2019; 39(2):307-318. PubMed ID: 30681901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Conspicuity of Screen-Detected Malignancies on Full Field Digital Mammography vs. Synthetic Mammography.
Chikarmane SA; Yeh ED; Wang A; Ratanaprasatporn L; Giess CS
Acad Radiol; 2020 Jun; 27(6):757-763. PubMed ID: 31307930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Synthesized Digital Mammography Imaging.
Freer PE; Winkler N
Radiol Clin North Am; 2017 May; 55(3):503-512. PubMed ID: 28411676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography.
Lai YC; Ray KM; Lee AY; Hayward JH; Freimanis RI; Lobach IV; Joe BN
Radiology; 2018 Dec; 289(3):630-638. PubMed ID: 30277445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.
Zuckerman SP; Sprague BL; Weaver DL; Herschorn SD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2020 Dec; 297(3):545-553. PubMed ID: 33048032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prospective Comparison of Synthesized Mammography with DBT and Full-Field Digital Mammography with DBT Uncovers Recall Disagreements That may Impact Cancer Detection.
Huang ML; Hess K; Ma J; Santiago L; Scoggins ME; Arribas E; Adrada BE; Le-Petross HT; Leung JWT; Yang W; Geiser W; Candelaria RP
Acad Radiol; 2022 Jul; 29(7):1039-1045. PubMed ID: 34538550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Choi Y; Woo OH; Shin HS; Cho KR; Seo BK; Choi GY
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():12-17. PubMed ID: 30703693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Is There a Difference in the Diagnostic Outcomes of Calcifications Initially Identified on Synthetic Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Screening?
Zhu H; Polat D; Evans P; Mootz A; Blackburn T; Xi Y; Dogan BE
Eur J Radiol; 2020 Dec; 133():109365. PubMed ID: 33142193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Cohen EO; Tso HH; Phalak KA; Mayo RC; Leung JWT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Aug; 211(2):445-451. PubMed ID: 29792742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of 2D Synthetic Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in the Detection of Microcalcifications at Screening.
Dodelzon K; Simon K; Dou E; Levy AD; Michaels AY; Askin G; Katzen JT
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jun; 214(6):1436-1444. PubMed ID: 32255687
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Synthesizing mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis.
Wei J; Chan HP; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Neal CH; Lu Y; Hadjiiski LM; Zhou C
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Feb; 64(4):045011. PubMed ID: 30625429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Detection of noncalcified breast cancer in patients with extremely dense breasts using digital breast tomosynthesis compared with full-field digital mammography.
Yi A; Chang JM; Shin SU; Chu AJ; Cho N; Noh DY; Moon WK
Br J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 92(1093):20180101. PubMed ID: 30235008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
