227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7949682)
1. 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]
2. Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Occhiato R; Venditti F; Fraioli F; Napoli A; Kirchin MA; Passariello R
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):45-56. PubMed ID: 16126926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. MR imaging of peritoneal disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced fast multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled and spin-echo imaging.
Low RN; Sigeti JS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Nov; 163(5):1131-40. PubMed ID: 7976889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Fast multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled imaging of the liver: pulse sequence optimization and comparison with spin-echo MR imaging.
Low RN; Francis IR; Herfkens RJ; Jeffrey RB; Glazer GM; Foo TK; Shimakawa A; Pelc NJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Mar; 160(3):501-9. PubMed ID: 8381572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. MR imaging of the gastrointestinal tract with i.v., gadolinium and diluted barium oral contrast media compared with unenhanced MR imaging and CT.
Low RN; Francis IR
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Oct; 169(4):1051-9. PubMed ID: 9308464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Breast neoplasms: T2* susceptibility-contrast, first-pass perfusion MR imaging.
Kuhl CK; Bieling H; Gieseke J; Ebel T; Mielcarek P; Far F; Folkers P; Elevelt A; Schild HH
Radiology; 1997 Jan; 202(1):87-95. PubMed ID: 8988196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Dynamic contrast-enhanced breath-hold MR imaging of thoracic malignancy using cardiac compensation.
Low RN; Sigeti JS; Song SY; Shimakawa A; Pelc NJ
J Magn Reson Imaging; 1996; 6(4):625-31. PubMed ID: 8835956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Rectal carcinoma: prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging.
Okizuka H; Sugimura K; Yoshizako T; Kaji Y; Wada A
J Magn Reson Imaging; 1996; 6(3):465-71. PubMed ID: 8724412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The role of fat-suppression technique and gadopentetate dimeglumine in magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraocular tumors and simulating lesions.
De Potter P; Flanders AE; Shields JA; Shields CL; Gonzales CF; Rao VM
Arch Ophthalmol; 1994 Mar; 112(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 8129659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR imaging versus Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography.
Helbich TH; Becherer A; Trattnig S; Leitha T; Kelkar P; Seifert M; Gnant M; Staudenherz A; Rudas M; Wolf G; Mostbeck GH
Radiology; 1997 Feb; 202(2):421-9. PubMed ID: 9015068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dynamic 3D-MR mammography: is there a benefit of sophisticated evaluation of enhancement curves for clinical routine?
Müller-Schimpfle M; Ohmenhäuser K; Sand J; Stoll P; Claussen CD
J Magn Reson Imaging; 1997; 7(1):236-40. PubMed ID: 9039622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine.
Pediconi F; Catalano C; Padula S; Roselli A; Dominelli V; Cagioli S; Kirchin MA; Pirovano G; Passariello R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Nov; 191(5):1339-46. PubMed ID: 18941066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [MR mammography of fatty tissue necrosis].
Kurtz B; Achten C; Audretsch W; Rezai M; Zocholl G
Rofo; 1996 Oct; 165(4):359-63. PubMed ID: 8963048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
