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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

228 related items for PubMed ID: 17686303

  • 1. [Clinical evaluation of full-field digital mammography and breast imaging reporting and data system on breast diseases].
    Li JG, Li S, Liu Q, Zhao TT.
    Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2007 Apr 01; 45(7):464-6. PubMed ID: 17686303
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. MR imaging in probably benign lesions (BI-RADS category 3) of the breast.
    Gökalp G, Topal U.
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Mar 01; 57(3):436-44. PubMed ID: 16316732
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The challenge of imaging dense breast parenchyma: is magnetic resonance mammography the technique of choice? A comparative study with x-ray mammography and whole-breast ultrasound.
    Pediconi F, Catalano C, Roselli A, Dominelli V, Cagioli S, Karatasiou A, Pronio A, Kirchin MA, Passariello R.
    Invest Radiol; 2009 Jul 01; 44(7):412-21. PubMed ID: 19448554
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Characterization of breast lesions with CE-MR multimodal morphological and kinetic analysis: comparison with conventional mammography and high-resolution ultrasound.
    Vassiou K, Kanavou T, Vlychou M, Poultsidi A, Athanasiou E, Arvanitis DL, Fezoulidis IV.
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Apr 01; 70(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 18295425
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Palpable masses in breast during lactation.
    Obenauer S, Dammert S.
    Clin Imaging; 2007 Apr 01; 31(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 17189838
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Cancer yield of probably benign breast MR examinations.
    Eby PR, Demartini WB, Peacock S, Rosen EL, Lauro B, Lehman CD.
    J Magn Reson Imaging; 2007 Oct 01; 26(4):950-5. PubMed ID: 17896380
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Effect of referring physician specialty and practice type on referral for image-guided breast biopsy.
    Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Gareen IF.
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2005 Jun 01; 2(6):488-93. PubMed ID: 17411865
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for breast disease diagnosis].
    Wang Q, Hu GD, Kuang J, Li JM.
    Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao; 2009 Feb 01; 29(2):292-4. PubMed ID: 19246303
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 01; 103(3):269-81. PubMed ID: 17063274
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice.
    Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E.
    Cancer; 2004 Feb 15; 100(4):710-4. PubMed ID: 14770425
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation?
    Orel S.
    J Clin Oncol; 2008 Feb 10; 26(5):703-11. PubMed ID: 18258977
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. [Diagnostic value of full-field digital mammography for breast carcinoma].
    Ding JH, Peng WJ, Jiang ZX, Xu LH, Hu DT, Zheng XJ.
    Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2009 Nov 10; 31(11):854-7. PubMed ID: 20137352
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
    Uematsu T, Kasami M.
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul 10; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. The Gail model predicts breast cancer in women with suspicious radiographic lesions.
    Weik JL, Lum SS, Esquivel PA, Tully RJ, Bae WC, Petersen FF, Jaque JM, Reeves ME, Garberoglio CA.
    Am J Surg; 2005 Oct 10; 190(4):526-9. PubMed ID: 16164914
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: detection in dependence of the BI-RADS categories.
    Obenauer S, Sohns C, Werner C, Grabbe E.
    Breast J; 2006 Oct 10; 12(1):16-9. PubMed ID: 16409582
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories.
    Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 May 10; 194(5):1378-83. PubMed ID: 20410428
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effect on biopsy technique of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) for nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities.
    Ball CG, Butchart M, MacFarlane JK.
    Can J Surg; 2002 Aug 10; 45(4):259-63. PubMed ID: 12174979
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. [Neddle-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer].
    Becerra-Alcántara GI, Círigo-Villagómez LL, Ramos-Medina F, Robledo-Martínez H, Mar-Merinos CG, Panzi-Altamirano RM.
    Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2015 Jul 10; 83(7):400-7. PubMed ID: 26422910
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 12.