These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8004606)

  • 1. Evaluation of abnormal screening mammograms.
    Shaw de Paredes E
    Cancer; 1994 Jul; 74(1 Suppl):342-9. PubMed ID: 8004606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Breast imaging for interventional pathologists.
    Lieu D
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2013 Jan; 137(1):100-19. PubMed ID: 22536979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Investigation of lesions detected by mammography. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists.
    CMAJ; 1998 Feb; 158 Suppl 3():S9-14. PubMed ID: 9484273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.
    Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Ljung BM; Grady D
    Ann Intern Med; 2003 Aug; 139(4):274-84. PubMed ID: 12965983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Practicing breast imaging in HRT ladies in Thailand.
    Bhothisuwan W
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2004 Oct; 87 Suppl 3():S169-73. PubMed ID: 21213518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The correct mammographic exam: the usefulness of additional views].
    Cilotti A; Bagnolesi P; Moretti M; Marini C; Marinari A; Cambi L; Bartolozzi C
    Radiol Med; 1997 Sep; 94(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 9446121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A prospective comparison of stereotaxic fine-needle aspiration versus stereotaxic core needle biopsy for the diagnosis of mammographic abnormalities.
    Symmans WF; Weg N; Gross J; Cangiarella JF; Tata M; Mazzo JA; Waisman J
    Cancer; 1999 Mar; 85(5):1119-32. PubMed ID: 10091797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ultrasound guided core biopsy of suspicious mammographic calcifications using high frequency and power Doppler ultrasound.
    Teh WL; Wilson AR; Evans AJ; Burrell H; Pinder SE; Ellis IO
    Clin Radiol; 2000 May; 55(5):390-4. PubMed ID: 10816407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Further experience with microfocal spot magnification mammography in the assessment of clustered breast microcalcifications.
    Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1980 Oct; 137(1 Pt 1):9-14. PubMed ID: 7422866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?
    Uematsu T; Yuen S; Kasami M; Uchida Y
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jul; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Diagnostic accuracy of commercial system for computer-assisted detection (CADx) as an adjunct to interpretation of mammograms.
    Menna S; Di Virgilio MR; Burke P; Frigerio A; Boglione E; Ciccarelli G; Di Filippo S; Garretti L
    Radiol Med; 2005 Oct; 110(4):334-40. PubMed ID: 16292240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sonographic evaluation of mammographically detected microcalcifications without a mass prior to stereotactic core needle biopsy.
    Cheung YC; Wan YL; Chen SC; Lui KW; Ng SH; Yeow KM; Lee KF; Hsueh S
    J Clin Ultrasound; 2002; 30(6):323-31. PubMed ID: 12116093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The value of postlumpectomy mammogram in the management of breast cancer patients presenting with suspiciouis microcalcifications.
    Aref A; Youssef E; Washington T; Segel M; Grigorian C; Bongers S; Bouwman D
    Cancer J Sci Am; 2000; 6(1):25-7. PubMed ID: 10696735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The use of fine-needle aspiration cytology and core biopsy in the assessment of highly suspicious mammographic microcalcifications: analysis of outcome for 182 lesions detected in the setting of a population-based breast cancer screening program.
    Farshid G; Rush G
    Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):357-64. PubMed ID: 14681944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reliability of multimodal evaluation of abnormal screening mammogram results.
    Pillsbury SG; Haugen JA; Roux S
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1996 Jun; 174(6):1683-6; discussion 1686-7. PubMed ID: 8678127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Positive predictive value of radiologic features in mammography and contribution of assessment procedures].
    Menna S; Marra V; Di Virgilio MR; Macchia G; Frigerio A
    Radiol Med; 1999 May; 97(5):349-53. PubMed ID: 10432965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. With the Advent of Tomosynthesis in the Workup of Mammographic Abnormality, is Spot Compression Mammography Now Obsolete? An Initial Clinical Experience.
    Ni Mhuircheartaigh N; Coffey L; Fleming H; O' Doherty A; McNally S
    Breast J; 2017 Sep; 23(5):509-518. PubMed ID: 28252233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Magnification views of mammography decrease biopsy rates.
    Madan AK; Nguyen MT; Wakabayashi MN; Beech DJ
    Am Surg; 2001 Jul; 67(7):687-9. PubMed ID: 11450790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The predictive value of needle localization mammographically assisted biopsy of the breast.
    Senofsky GM; Davies RJ; Olson L; Skully P; Olshen R
    Surg Gynecol Obstet; 1990 Nov; 171(5):361-5. PubMed ID: 2237718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of mammographic appearances after breast fine-needle aspiration.
    Hindle WH; Chen EC
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Jun; 176(6):1286-90; discussion 1290-2. PubMed ID: 9215186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.