99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8695260)
1. Reproducibility of histological diagnosis of breast lesions: results of a panel in Italy.
Palli D; Galli M; Bianchi S; Bussolati G; Di Palma S; Eusebi V; Gambacorta M; Rosselli Del Turco M
Eur J Cancer; 1996 Apr; 32A(4):603-7. PubMed ID: 8695260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interobserver reproducibility in diagnosis of breast lesions. A panel in Puglia (Italy). GSBioCaM.
Giardina C; Clemente R; Fusilli S; Bianchi S; Paradiso A
Tumori; 1998; 84(3):354-9. PubMed ID: 9678616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens.
Elmore JG; Longton GM; Carney PA; Geller BM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Nelson HD; Pepe MS; Allison KH; Schnitt SJ; O'Malley FP; Weaver DL
JAMA; 2015 Mar; 313(11):1122-32. PubMed ID: 25781441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria.
Schnitt SJ; Connolly JL; Tavassoli FA; Fechner RE; Kempson RL; Gelman R; Page DL
Am J Surg Pathol; 1992 Dec; 16(12):1133-43. PubMed ID: 1463092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Papillary lesions of the breast: impact of breast pathology subspecialization on core biopsy and excision diagnoses.
Jakate K; De Brot M; Goldberg F; Muradali D; O'Malley FP; Mulligan AM
Am J Surg Pathol; 2012 Apr; 36(4):544-51. PubMed ID: 22314186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Interobserver reproducibility in the pathologic diagnosis of borderline ductal proliferative breast diseases].
Wei B; Bu H; Zhu CR; Guo LX; Chen HJ; Zhao C; Zhang P; Chen DY; Tang Y; Jiang Y
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2004 Nov; 35(6):849-53. PubMed ID: 15573772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: findings of the U.K. National External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme. U. K. National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology.
Sloane JP; Ellman R; Anderson TJ; Brown CL; Coyne J; Dallimore NS; Davies JD; Eakins D; Ellis IO; Elston CW
Eur J Cancer; 1994; 30A(10):1414-9. PubMed ID: 7833094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Importance of a second opinion in breast surgical pathology and therapeutic implications].
Salles Mde A; Sanches FS; Perez AA; Gobbi H
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2008 Dec; 30(12):602-8. PubMed ID: 19219341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility?
Tan PH; Ho BC; Selvarajan S; Yap WM; Hanby A
J Clin Pathol; 2005 Jul; 58(7):705-9. PubMed ID: 15976336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Diagnostic concordance in reporting breast needle core biopsies using the B classification-A panel in Italy.
Bianchi S; Caini S; Cattani MG; Vezzosi V; Biancalani M; Palli D
Pathol Oncol Res; 2009 Dec; 15(4):725-32. PubMed ID: 19449173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Training and standardized criteria improve the diagnosis of premalignant breast lesions].
Salles Mde A; Gouvêa AP; Savi D; Figueiredo MA; Tavares Neto R; Paula RA; Gobbi H
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2008 Nov; 30(11):550-5. PubMed ID: 19148432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Histopathologic classification of breast cancer in Sweden and Italy: a comparison between two pathologists.
Palli D; Bianchi S; Linell F; Russo A; Cariddi A; Rank F; Rosselli del Turco M
Tumori; 1992 Aug; 78(4):247-9. PubMed ID: 1466080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reproducibility of histological diagnoses and diagnostic accuracy of non palpable breast lesions.
Bianchi S; Palli D; Galli M; Arisio B; Cappa A; Dal Forno S; Coggi G; Fiaccavento S; Gagliano E; Magni E
Pathol Res Pract; 1994 Jan; 190(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 8065991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interobserver variation in the diagnosis of fibroepithelial lesions of the breast: a multicentre audit by digital pathology.
Dessauvagie BF; Lee AHS; Meehan K; Nijhawan A; Tan PH; Thomas J; Tie B; Treanor D; Umar S; Hanby AM; Millican-Slater R
J Clin Pathol; 2018 Aug; 71(8):672-679. PubMed ID: 29440134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Expert system support using a Bayesian belief network for the classification of endometrial hyperplasia.
Morrison ML; McCluggage WG; Price GJ; Diamond J; Sheeran MR; Mulholland KM; Walsh MY; Montironi R; Bartels PH; Thompson D; Hamilton PW
J Pathol; 2002 Jul; 197(3):403-14. PubMed ID: 12115888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.
Zaino RJ; Kauderer J; Trimble CL; Silverberg SG; Curtin JP; Lim PC; Gallup DG
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 106(4):804-11. PubMed ID: 16400640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Observer variability in reporting of breast lesions.
Beck JS
J Clin Pathol; 1985 Dec; 38(12):1358-65. PubMed ID: 3001153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic challenges in papillary lesions of the breast.
Rakha EA; Ellis IO
Pathology; 2018 Jan; 50(1):100-110. PubMed ID: 29179906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic concordance of breast pathologists: lessons from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme Pathology External Quality Assurance Scheme.
Rakha EA; Ahmed MA; Aleskandarany MA; Hodi Z; Lee AH; Pinder SE; Ellis IO
Histopathology; 2017 Mar; 70(4):632-642. PubMed ID: 28028831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study.
Elmore JG; Barnhill RL; Elder DE; Longton GM; Pepe MS; Reisch LM; Carney PA; Titus LJ; Nelson HD; Onega T; Tosteson ANA; Weinstock MA; Knezevich SR; Piepkorn MW
BMJ; 2017 Jun; 357():j2813. PubMed ID: 28659278
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
