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

147 related items for PubMed ID: 17709843

  • 1. Effect of B1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T.
    Kuhl CK, Kooijman H, Gieseke J, Schild HH.
    Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):929-30. PubMed ID: 17709843
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Breast MR imaging at 3.0 T.
    Mountford CE, Stanwell P, Ramadan S.
    Radiology; 2008 Jul; 248(1):319-20; author reply 320. PubMed ID: 18566184
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience.
    Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N, Zivanovic O, Schild HH, Gieseke J.
    Radiology; 2006 Jun; 239(3):666-76. PubMed ID: 16549623
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. MR imaging of the breast.
    Weinreb JC, Newstead G.
    Radiology; 1995 Sep; 196(3):593-610. PubMed ID: 7644617
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles.
    Stack JP, Redmond OM, Codd MB, Dervan PA, Ennis JT.
    Radiology; 1990 Feb; 174(2):491-4. PubMed ID: 2296657
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. [Subtraction and dynamic MR images of breast cancer].
    Murakami Y, Aoki M, Harada J.
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1993 Apr 25; 53(4):375-86. PubMed ID: 8493070
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Diffusion and perfusion of the breast.
    Iacconi C.
    Eur J Radiol; 2010 Dec 25; 76(3):386-90. PubMed ID: 20413239
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. [MR-imaging of the breast at 0.5 Tesla: menstrual-cycle dependency of parenchymal contrast enhancement in healthy volunteers with oral contraceptive use?].
    Lorenzen J, Welger J, Lisboa BW, Krupski G, Adam G.
    Rofo; 2003 Apr 25; 175(4):502-6. PubMed ID: 12677505
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 25; 216(2):545-53. PubMed ID: 10924584
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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 25; 193(3):777-81. PubMed ID: 7972823
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Critical pathways for the future: MR imaging and digital mammography.
    Newstead GM, Weinreb JC.
    Radiographics; 1995 Jul 25; 15(4):951-62. PubMed ID: 7569140
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Relationship between lesion size and signal enhancement on subtraction fat-suppressed MR imaging of the breast.
    Cheung HS, Tse GM, Lai SY, Yeung DK.
    Magn Reson Imaging; 2004 Nov 25; 22(9):1259-64. PubMed ID: 15607097
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Breast magnetic resonance imaging.
    Johnson MM.
    Radiol Technol; 2012 Nov 25; 83(3):261M-81M. PubMed ID: 22267704
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. The specificity of contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging.
    Piccoli CW.
    Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 1994 Nov 25; 2(4):557-71. PubMed ID: 7489308
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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 25; 202(1):87-95. PubMed ID: 8988196
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. [Differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions using fat-suppressed dynamic MR imaging].
    Koshiishi T, Isomoto I, Nakamura K, Kajiwara Y, Izawa K.
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Jul 25; 58(8):433-40. PubMed ID: 9745257
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. [MR mammography at 0.5 tesla. I. Comparison of image quality and sensitivity of MR mammography at 0.5 and 1.5 T].
    Kuhl CK, Kreft BP, Hauswirth A, Elevelt A, Steudel A, Reiser M, Schild HH.
    Rofo; 1995 May 25; 162(5):381-9. PubMed ID: 7772759
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.