163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38659408)
21. Performance of Supplemental Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: Findings From an Umbrella Review and Primary Studies Analysis.
Lobig F; Caleyachetty A; Forrester L; Morris E; Newstead G; Harris J; Blankenburg M
Clin Breast Cancer; 2023 Jul; 23(5):478-490. PubMed ID: 37202338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Supplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yuan WH; Hsu HC; Chen YY; Wu CH
Br J Cancer; 2020 Aug; 123(4):673-688. PubMed ID: 32528118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Contrast enhanced mammography: focus on frequently encountered benign and malignant diagnoses.
Yang ML; Bhimani C; Roth R; Germaine P
Cancer Imaging; 2023 Jan; 23(1):10. PubMed ID: 36691077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Detection of breast cancer presenting as a mass in women with dense breasts - digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography.
Babkina TM; Dykan IM; Gurando AV; Suleimenova DM; Kozarenko TM; Bozhok YM; Stuley VA
Exp Oncol; 2020 Sep; 42(3):215-219. PubMed ID: 32996743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [CONTRAST ENHANCED SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY IN WOMEN WITH INTERMEDIATE BREAST CANCER RISK AND DENSE BREAST].
Sklair-Levy M; Sorin V; Yagil Y; Shalmon A; Halshtok Neiman O; Samoocha D; Faermann Weidenfeld R
Harefuah; 2022 Feb; 161(2):89-94. PubMed ID: 35195969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation, Performance, and Use for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening.
Covington MF
Radiol Clin North Am; 2021 Jan; 59(1):113-128. PubMed ID: 33222993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening.
Coffey K; Jochelson MS
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Nov; 156():110513. PubMed ID: 36108478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Factors Associated With Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.
Karimi Z; Phillips J; Slanetz P; Lotfi P; Dialani V; Karimova J; Mehta T
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Feb; 216(2):340-348. PubMed ID: 32755162
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A New Diagnostic Method for Mass-Like Lesions in Dense Breasts.
Bian T; Lin Q; Cui C; Li L; Qi C; Fei J; Su X
Breast J; 2016 Sep; 22(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 27296324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI.
Wienbeck S; Fischer U; Luftner-Nagel S; Lotz J; Uhlig J
Eur Radiol; 2018 Sep; 28(9):3731-3741. PubMed ID: 29594402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.
Fallenberg EM; Schmitzberger FF; Amer H; Ingold-Heppner B; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Engelken F; Mann RM; Renz DM; Bick U; Hamm B; Dromain C
Eur Radiol; 2017 Jul; 27(7):2752-2764. PubMed ID: 27896471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.
Sumkin JH; Berg WA; Carter GJ; Bandos AI; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Kelly AE; Zuley ML; Houshmand G; Anello MI; Gur D
Radiology; 2019 Dec; 293(3):531-540. PubMed ID: 31660801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound.
Patel BK; Garza SA; Eversman S; Lopez-Alvarez Y; Kosiorek H; Pockaj BA
Clin Imaging; 2017; 46():78-84. PubMed ID: 28750354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Breast Lesions Detected via Molecular Breast Imaging: Physiological Parameters Affecting Interpretation.
Ching JG; Brem RF
Acad Radiol; 2018 Dec; 25(12):1568-1576. PubMed ID: 29580791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study.
Clauser P; Baltzer PAT; Kapetas P; Hoernig M; Weber M; Leone F; Bernathova M; Helbich TH
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2020 Aug; 52(2):589-595. PubMed ID: 32061002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Açar ÇR; Orguc S
Clin Breast Cancer; 2024 Apr; ():. PubMed ID: 38777678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography.
Aminololama-Shakeri S; Abbey CK; López JE; Hernandez AM; Gazi P; Boone JM; Lindfors KK
Br J Radiol; 2019 May; 92(1097):20181034. PubMed ID: 30810339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Gelardi F; Ragaini EM; Sollini M; Bernardi D; Chiti A
Diagnostics (Basel); 2022 Aug; 12(8):. PubMed ID: 36010240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
