207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7784558)
1. Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation.
Fobben ES; Rubin CZ; Kalisher L; Dembner AG; Seltzer MH; Santoro EJ
Radiology; 1995 Jul; 196(1):143-52. PubMed ID: 7784558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features.
Stomper PC; Herman S; Klippenstein DL; Winston JS; Edge SB; Arredondo MA; Mazurchuk RV; Blumenson LE
Radiology; 1995 Nov; 197(2):387-95. PubMed ID: 7480682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA enhancement: comparison with mammography and ultrasonography.
Hachiya J; Seki T; Okada M; Nitatori T; Korenaga T; Furuya Y
Radiat Med; 1991; 9(6):232-40. PubMed ID: 1668410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Benign versus malignant breast disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR imaging and Tc-99m tetrofosmin scintimammography.
Fenlon HM; Phelan NC; O'Sullivan P; Tierney S; Gorey T; Ennis JT
Radiology; 1997 Oct; 205(1):214-20. PubMed ID: 9314988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dynamic MR mammography: a technique for potentially reducing the biopsy rate for benign breast disease.
Turkat TJ; Klein BD; Polan RL; Richman RH
J Magn Reson Imaging; 1994; 4(4):563-8. PubMed ID: 7949682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles.
Stack JP; Redmond OM; Codd MB; Dervan PA; Ennis JT
Radiology; 1990 Feb; 174(2):491-4. PubMed ID: 2296657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast lesions: evaluation with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging and with T2*-weighted first-pass perfusion MR imaging.
Kvistad KA; Rydland J; Vainio J; Smethurst HB; Lundgren S; Fjøsne HE; Haraldseth O
Radiology; 2000 Aug; 216(2):545-53. PubMed ID: 10924584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast.
Nunes LW; Schnall MD; Siegelman ES; Langlotz CP; Orel SG; Sullivan D; Muenz LA; Reynolds CA; Torosian MH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Aug; 169(2):409-15. PubMed ID: 9242744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. False-positive results in dynamic MR mammography. Causes, frequency, and methods to avoid.
Kaiser WA
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 1994 Nov; 2(4):539-55. PubMed ID: 7489307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast lesion localization: a freehand, interactive MR imaging-guided technique.
Daniel BL; Birdwell RL; Ikeda DM; Jeffrey SS; Black JW; Block WF; Sawyer-Glover AM; Glover GH; Herfkens RJ
Radiology; 1998 May; 207(2):455-63. PubMed ID: 9577495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: comparison of two different doses of gadopentetate dimeglumine.
Heywang-Köbrunner SH; Haustein J; Pohl C; Beck R; Lommatzsch B; Untch M; Nathrath WB
Radiology; 1994 Jun; 191(3):639-46. PubMed ID: 8184040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Diagnostic value of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast].
Winnekendonk G; Krug B; Warm M; Göhring UJ; Mallmann P; Lackner K
Rofo; 2004 May; 176(5):688-93. PubMed ID: 15122467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography?
Müller-Schimpfle M; Stoll P; Stern W; Kurz S; Dammann F; Claussen CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 May; 168(5):1323-9. PubMed ID: 9129436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique.
Boetes C; Barentsz JO; Mus RD; van der Sluis RF; van Erning LJ; Hendriks JH; Holland R; Ruys SH
Radiology; 1994 Dec; 193(3):777-81. PubMed ID: 7972823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging.
Daniel BL; Yen YF; Glover GH; Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; Sawyer-Glover AM; Black JW; Plevritis SK; Jeffrey SS; Herfkens RJ
Radiology; 1998 Nov; 209(2):499-509. PubMed ID: 9807580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions.
Boné B; Péntek Z; Perbeck L; Veress B
Acta Radiol; 1997 Jul; 38(4 Pt 1):489-96. PubMed ID: 9240665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative signal intensity measurements in dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR mammography.
Gribbestad IS; Nilsen G; Fjøsne HE; Kvinnsland S; Haugen OA; Rinck PA
J Magn Reson Imaging; 1994; 4(3):477-80. PubMed ID: 8061451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clustered breast microcalcifications: evaluation by dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI.
Gilles R; Meunier M; Lucidarme O; Zafrani B; Guinebretière JM; Tardivon AA; Le Gal M; Vanel D; Neuenschwander S; Arriagada R
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1996; 20(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 8576489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Ductal carcinoma in situ in dynamic MR-mammography at 1.5 T].
Fischer U; Westerhof JP; Brinck U; Korabiowska M; Schauer A; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1996 Apr; 164(4):290-4. PubMed ID: 8645861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [MR mammography at 0.5 tesla. II. The capacity to differentiate malignant and benign lesions in MR mammography at 0.5 and 1.5 T].
Kuhl CK; Kreft BP; Hauswirth A; Gieseke J; Elevelt A; Reiser M; Schild HH
Rofo; 1995 Jun; 162(6):482-91. PubMed ID: 7605960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
