121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38424858)
1. Assessing the Positive Predictive Value of Architectural Distortion Detected with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in BI-RADS 4 Cases.
Dou E; Ksepka M; Dodelzon K; Shingala PY; Katzen JT
J Breast Imaging; 2020 Nov; 2(6):552-560. PubMed ID: 38424858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis.
Ezeana CF; Puppala M; Wang L; Chang JC; Wong STC
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Aug; 153():110361. PubMed ID: 35617870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Architectural distortion outcome: digital breast tomosynthesis-detected versus digital mammography-detected.
Ahmed SA; Samy M; Ali AM; Hassan RA
Radiol Med; 2022 Jan; 127(1):30-38. PubMed ID: 34665431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Outcome of Architectural Distortion Detected Only at Breast Tomosynthesis versus 2D Mammography.
Alshafeiy TI; Nguyen JV; Rochman CM; Nicholson BT; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
Radiology; 2018 Jul; 288(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 29584593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Pathologic Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Digital 2D Versus Tomosynthesis Mammography.
Bahl M; Lamb LR; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Nov; 209(5):1162-1167. PubMed ID: 28834441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital tomosynthesis spot view in architectural distortions: outcomes in management and radiation dose.
Fiaschetti V; Ubaldi N; De Fazio S; Ricci A; Maspes F; Cossu E
Radiol Med; 2023 Jan; 128(1):35-48. PubMed ID: 36534241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.
Partyka L; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jul; 203(1):216-22. PubMed ID: 24951218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Tomosynthesis-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy of Architectural Distortion Without a Sonographic Correlate: A Retrospective Review.
Ambinder EB; Plotkin A; Euhus D; Mullen LA; Oluyemi E; Di Carlo P; Philip M; Panigrahi B; Cimino-Mathews A; Myers KS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Oct; 217(4):845-854. PubMed ID: 33147055
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Architectural Distortion on Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Pathologic Outcomes and Indicators of Malignancy.
Wadhwa A; Majidi SS; Cherian S; Dykstra DS; Deitch SG; Hansen C; Bhave S; Koch KM
J Breast Imaging; 2021 Jan; 3(1):34-43. PubMed ID: 38424835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Malignant Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Choudhery S; Johnson MP; Larson NB; Anderson T
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Aug; 217(2):295-303. PubMed ID: 32966111
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Positive Predictive Value of Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsies of Architectural Distortions Seen on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and without an Ultrasound Correlate.
Vijayaraghavan GR; Newburg A; Vedantham S
J Clin Imaging Sci; 2019; 9():53. PubMed ID: 31819830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Offit LR; Chikarmane SA; Lacson RC; Giess CS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2023 Sep; 221(3):313-322. PubMed ID: 37095672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. BI-RADS 3 on dense breast screening ultrasound after digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis.
Dibble EH; Singer TM; Baird GL; Lourenco AP
Clin Imaging; 2021 Dec; 80():315-321. PubMed ID: 34482242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Challenge of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-Detected Architectural Distortion of the Breast: Inter-reader Variability and Imaging Characteristics That May Improve Positive Predictive Value.
Feliciano-Rivera YZ; Net J; Velamuri S; Pluguez-Turull C; Yepes MM
J Breast Imaging; 2022 Jun; 4(3):263-272. PubMed ID: 38416967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.
Dibble EH; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Ward RC; Maynard AS; Mainiero MB
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jan; 28(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 28710582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pathological outcome of sonographically occult architectural distortions (AD) visible only on digital breast tomosynthesis, and comparison with AD visible also on 2D mammography.
Linda A; Tarricone R; Londero V; Girometti R; Zuiani C
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Jan; 146():110075. PubMed ID: 34864616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.
Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Kim GR; Ko ES; Park KW
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):319-329. PubMed ID: 29931560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Management of Architectural Distortion on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis With Nonmalignant Pathology at Biopsy.
Villa-Camacho JC; Bahl M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 Jul; 219(1):46-54. PubMed ID: 35107312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]