151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38655858)
1. The Impact of Mammographic, Radiologist, and Patient Factors on the Likelihood of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Assessment at Diagnostic Mammography.
Chesebro AL; Abbasi N; Lacson R; Chikarmane SA; Licaros ARL; Giess CS
J Breast Imaging; 2024 May; 6(3):246-253. PubMed ID: 38655858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Gastounioti A; McCarthy AM; Pantalone L; Synnestvedt M; Kontos D; Conant EF
Radiology; 2019 May; 291(2):320-327. PubMed ID: 30888933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Patient, Radiologist, and Examination Characteristics Affecting Screening Mammography Recall Rates in a Large Academic Practice.
Giess CS; Wang A; Ip IK; Lacson R; Pourjabbar S; Khorasani R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Apr; 16(4 Pt A):411-418. PubMed ID: 30037704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Why Start Now? Retrospective Study Evaluating Baseline Screening Mammography in Patients Age 60 and Older.
Chieh AY; Willis JG; Carroll CM; Mobley AA; Li Y; Li M; Woodard S
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2024; 53(1):62-67. PubMed ID: 37704485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Variability in Individual Radiologist BI-RADS 3 Usage at a Large Academic Center: What's the Cause and What Should We Do About It?
Ambinder EB; Mullen LA; Falomo E; Myers K; Hung J; Lee B; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Jul; 26(7):915-922. PubMed ID: 30268720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Utilization and Cancer Yield of Probably Benign Assessment Category in the National Mammography Database: 2009 to 2018.
Elezaby MA; Mao L; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Berg WA; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Lee CS
J Am Coll Radiol; 2022 May; 19(5):604-614. PubMed ID: 35358482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.
Gard CC; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Taplin SH; Rutter CM
Breast J; 2015; 21(5):481-9. PubMed ID: 26133090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Imaging and Histopathologic Features of BI-RADS 3 Lesions Upgraded during Imaging Surveillance.
Michaels A; Chung CS; Birdwell RL; Frost EP; Giess CS
Breast J; 2017 Jan; 23(1):10-16. PubMed ID: 27612001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories.
Martin KE; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Paramagul C; Blane CE; Klein KA; Sonnad SS; Chan HP
Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):656-65. PubMed ID: 16857974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.
Timmers JM; Verbeek AL; IntHout J; Pijnappel RM; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2013 Sep; 23(9):2413-9. PubMed ID: 23591619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. BI-RADS Category 5 Assessments at Diagnostic Breast Imaging:Outcomes Analysis Based on Lesion Descriptors.
Yao MM; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Lee CS
Acad Radiol; 2019 Aug; 26(8):1048-1052. PubMed ID: 30195413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Weinstein SP; Schnall MD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2017 Dec; 285(3):778-787. PubMed ID: 28715278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Measuring mammographic density: comparing a fully automated volumetric assessment versus European radiologists' qualitative classification.
Sartor H; Lång K; Rosso A; Borgquist S; Zackrisson S; Timberg P
Eur Radiol; 2016 Dec; 26(12):4354-4360. PubMed ID: 27011371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic Evaluation of Recalled Noncalcified Lesions Using Ultrasound Alone Versus Ultrasound Plus Additional Mammographic Views: A Prospective Study.
Porembka JH; Seiler SJ; Sharifi A; Mootz AR; Knippa E; Evans WP; Chen H; Xi Y; Dogan BE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 Jun; 218(6):977-987. PubMed ID: 34910533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast Density Estimation with Fully Automated Volumetric Method: Comparison to Radiologists' Assessment by BI-RADS Categories.
Singh T; Sharma M; Singla V; Khandelwal N
Acad Radiol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):78-83. PubMed ID: 26521687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography.
Lehman CD; Rutter CM; Eby PR; White E; Buist DS; Taplin SH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):511-5. PubMed ID: 18212240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
