279 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9240704)
21. Peripheral washout sign on contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast.
Sherif H; Mahfouz AE; Oellinger H; Hadijuana J; Blohmer JU; Taupitz M; Felix R; Hamm B
Radiology; 1997 Oct; 205(1):209-13. PubMed ID: 9314987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. The indeterminate breast mass: assessment using contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
Hickman PF; Moore NR; Shepstone BJ
Br J Radiol; 1994 Jan; 67(793):14-20. PubMed ID: 8298869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions using an empirical mathematical model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
Fan X; Medved M; Karczmar GS; Yang C; Foxley S; Arkani S; Recant W; Zamora MA; Abe H; Newstead GM
Magn Reson Imaging; 2007 Jun; 25(5):593-603. PubMed ID: 17540270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Peripheral enhancement and spatial contrast uptake heterogeneity of primary breast tumours: quantitative assessment with dynamic MRI.
Mussurakis S; Gibbs P; Horsman A
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1998; 22(1):35-46. PubMed ID: 9448759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model.
Tofts PS; Berkowitz B; Schnall MD
Magn Reson Med; 1995 Apr; 33(4):564-8. PubMed ID: 7776889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging.
Brix G; Semmler W; Port R; Schad LR; Layer G; Lorenz WJ
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1991; 15(4):621-8. PubMed ID: 2061479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Gadobenate dimeglumine as a contrast agent for dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging: effect of higher initial enhancement thresholds on diagnostic performance.
Sardanelli F; Fausto A; Esseridou A; Di Leo G; Kirchin MA
Invest Radiol; 2008 Apr; 43(4):236-42. PubMed ID: 18340247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions by using shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.
Huang W; Tudorica LA; Li X; Thakur SB; Chen Y; Morris EA; Tagge IJ; Korenblit ME; Rooney WD; Koutcher JA; Springer CS
Radiology; 2011 Nov; 261(2):394-403. PubMed ID: 21828189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. MRI-detected suspicious breast lesions: predictive values of kinetic features measured by computer-aided evaluation.
Wang LC; DeMartini WB; Partridge SC; Peacock S; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Sep; 193(3):826-31. PubMed ID: 19696298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Primary breast abnormalities: selective pixel sampling on dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR images.
Mussurakis S; Gibbs P; Horsman A
Radiology; 1998 Feb; 206(2):465-73. PubMed ID: 9457201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Benign and malignant breast lesions: efficacy of real time contrast-enhanced ultrasound vs. magnetic resonance imaging.
Ricci P; Cantisani V; Ballesio L; Pagliara E; Sallusti E; Drudi FM; Trippa F; Calascibetta F; Erturk SM; Modesti M; Passariello R
Ultraschall Med; 2007 Feb; 28(1):57-62. PubMed ID: 17304413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Improving suspicious breast lesion characterization using semi-automatic lesion fractional volume washout kinetic analysis.
Huang J; Hahn T; Hoisington L; Schafer S; Zong X; Berger K
Med Phys; 2011 Nov; 38(11):5998-6009. PubMed ID: 22047364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. [MR imaging for breast cancer].
Seki T; Hachiya J; Nitatori T; Yokoyama K; Fukushima H; Uchigasaki S
Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi; 1996 May; 97(5):347-56. PubMed ID: 8709936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 3-T dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: pharmacokinetic parameters versus conventional kinetic curve analysis.
El Khouli RH; Macura KJ; Kamel IR; Jacobs MA; Bluemke DA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Dec; 197(6):1498-505. PubMed ID: 22109308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
